|
On December 29 2015 18:35 Salteador Neo wrote:
Right now, stim bio dominates in all three matchups.
Stim bio dominates and makes ling/bane/muta obsolete. There's other factors to this, like the reduced larva and libs countering mutas hard. Roach/ravager just does the trick for now, but has big trouble against drops and roaches scale terrible into the lategame.
Stim bio in tvt makes mech look bad. Bio still wrecks mech thanks to higher mobility afaik, but there's also tankivacs (dropping in siege mode should be removed imo).
Stim bio makes protoss not build disruptors because it just dodges the shots too easily. With the armored adept, bio will wreck gateway armies even harder than before. Immortals are just mediocre and zealot 8 damage on charge is useless since most zealots don't even get to hit once in big army engagements.
So I feel the game might be better if stimmed bio movement speed was reduced a bit. It would help banelings get more hits in, disruptors might actually become viable and tanks would get more hits in before getting rekt. Also less mobility issues for mech in tvt, since bio would be a bit slower on the ground. Speedvacs still a thing tho, of course.
There are probably several bigger problems right now, but I wanted to get my thoughts in anyway :D GLHF
Nerfing bio to encourage mech simply makes terrans choose between two shitty options but does nothing to actually help the race as a whole.
|
On December 29 2015 22:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2015 22:15 Salteador Neo wrote:On December 29 2015 21:26 Nebuchad wrote:
24-25 TvZ
34-28 TvP
33-22 ZvP
Upsets
Rogue < Billowy
Byun < Creator
Classic < Hush
Ryung < random zerg
Solar < Bomber If I read these results right then TvZ is basically at 50%, TvP at 54,8% and ZvP at 60%, out of 166 games (a decent large sample imo). Looks rather bad for protoss, Statistically speaking the sample size is not big enough. Testing for 50% balance you need roughly 4-times as big of a sample size with the same win percentages for PvZ (132-88) to prove a significant divergance from 50%. To prove TvP imbalanced you need roughly 8-10 times the sample size. But at least for ZvP we have many more similar stats so we can safely assume that the matchup is imbalanced.
It depends of course on how much chance you are wrong you would allow, to determine how many samples you need.
A larger issue with the statistics applied on this stuff is that it is assumed it is random. However if I play Soulkey a 1000 times in a row, and you use those 1000 runs as input for your statistical functions, the conclusion is that with an extremely high likelihood, zerg is horribly overpowered. While of course those stats are completely irrelevant. No matter how many games you let 16 players play, you will never get statistically significant data from it.
|
On December 30 2015 03:33 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2015 22:45 Elentos wrote:On December 29 2015 22:30 Nebuchad wrote:On December 29 2015 22:15 Salteador Neo wrote:On December 29 2015 21:26 Nebuchad wrote:
24-25 TvZ
34-28 TvP
33-22 ZvP
Upsets
Rogue < Billowy
Byun < Creator
Classic < Hush
Ryung < random zerg
Solar < Bomber If I read these results right then TvZ is basically at 50%, TvP at 54,8% and ZvP at 60%, out of 166 games (a decent large sample imo). Looks rather bad for protoss, A lot of the games are stuff like SGW losing to Losira and other very standard results. It doesn't look bad, I'd say the most distinctive feature is that it went pretty much as expected in most cases. Winrates are probably strongly influenced by the map pool of Orbital Shipyard/Dusk Towers/Ruins of Seras though. When Terran does well, it's the map's fault. When Terran is struggling, there must be a balance problem.
Everyone should know by now maps always have huge impacts on game balance because certain features expose certain design problems. And for the record, I wasn't talking about the Terrans exclusively. There's no doubt in my mind that on a map pool including Lerilak Crest and/or Prion Terraces the PvZ winrate would have been even worse.
|
On December 30 2015 03:44 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2015 22:45 Big J wrote:On December 29 2015 22:15 Salteador Neo wrote:On December 29 2015 21:26 Nebuchad wrote:
24-25 TvZ
34-28 TvP
33-22 ZvP
Upsets
Rogue < Billowy
Byun < Creator
Classic < Hush
Ryung < random zerg
Solar < Bomber If I read these results right then TvZ is basically at 50%, TvP at 54,8% and ZvP at 60%, out of 166 games (a decent large sample imo). Looks rather bad for protoss, Statistically speaking the sample size is not big enough. Testing for 50% balance you need roughly 4-times as big of a sample size with the same win percentages for PvZ (132-88) to prove a significant divergance from 50%. To prove TvP imbalanced you need roughly 8-10 times the sample size. But at least for ZvP we have many more similar stats so we can safely assume that the matchup is imbalanced. It depends of course on how much chance you are wrong you would allow, to determine how many samples you need. A larger issue with the statistics applied on this stuff is that it is assumed it is random. However if I play Soulkey a 1000 times in a row, and you use those 1000 runs as input for your statistical functions, the conclusion is that with an extremely high likelihood, zerg is horribly overpowered. While of course those stats are completely irrelevant. No matter how many games you let 16 players play, you will never get statistically significant data from it.
I used 2sigma. more accurate criterions will obviously need a bigger samplesize, even less accurate ones may get away with less, but still more than the given one.
And yes the assumption is of course that it's "random", or more precisely there is an underlying data generating process. That's how data analysis works. It has its flaws and we shouldn't blindly base everything of such numbers, but it's a great tool to actually support qualitative arguments, because otherwise we will always end up running circles as there is usually no plain imbalanced situation in the game that couldn't be solved by preparing better for it.
|
On December 29 2015 18:35 Salteador Neo wrote:
Right now, stim bio dominates in all three matchups.
Stim bio dominates and makes ling/bane/muta obsolete. There's other factors to this, like the reduced larva and libs countering mutas hard. Roach/ravager just does the trick for now, but has big trouble against drops and roaches scale terrible into the lategame.
Stim bio in tvt makes mech look bad. Bio still wrecks mech thanks to higher mobility afaik, but there's also tankivacs (dropping in siege mode should be removed imo).
Stim bio makes protoss not build disruptors because it just dodges the shots too easily. With the armored adept, bio will wreck gateway armies even harder than before. Immortals are just mediocre and zealot 8 damage on charge is useless since most zealots don't even get to hit once in big army engagements.
So I feel the game might be better if stimmed bio movement speed was reduced a bit. It would help banelings get more hits in, disruptors might actually become viable and tanks would get more hits in before getting rekt. Also less mobility issues for mech in tvt, since bio would be a bit slower on the ground. Speedvacs still a thing tho, of course.
There are probably several bigger problems right now, but I wanted to get my thoughts in anyway :D GLHF
So your solution to a possible balance problem or possible design problem or possibly both or possibly neither is to... lower the skill ceiling of the most high skill ceiling unit composition in the game.
Why? Why wouldn't you seek to solve this problem by doing the exact opposite, ie increasing the skill ceiling of other composition's (or straight buffing them if they're found equal)?
That seems very counterproductive to the greater agenda to me.
|
On December 30 2015 08:57 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2015 18:35 Salteador Neo wrote:
Right now, stim bio dominates in all three matchups.
Stim bio dominates and makes ling/bane/muta obsolete. There's other factors to this, like the reduced larva and libs countering mutas hard. Roach/ravager just does the trick for now, but has big trouble against drops and roaches scale terrible into the lategame.
Stim bio in tvt makes mech look bad. Bio still wrecks mech thanks to higher mobility afaik, but there's also tankivacs (dropping in siege mode should be removed imo).
Stim bio makes protoss not build disruptors because it just dodges the shots too easily. With the armored adept, bio will wreck gateway armies even harder than before. Immortals are just mediocre and zealot 8 damage on charge is useless since most zealots don't even get to hit once in big army engagements.
So I feel the game might be better if stimmed bio movement speed was reduced a bit. It would help banelings get more hits in, disruptors might actually become viable and tanks would get more hits in before getting rekt. Also less mobility issues for mech in tvt, since bio would be a bit slower on the ground. Speedvacs still a thing tho, of course.
There are probably several bigger problems right now, but I wanted to get my thoughts in anyway :D GLHF So your solution to a possible balance problem or possible design problem or possibly both or possibly neither is to... lower the skill ceiling of the most high skill ceiling unit composition in the game. Why? Why wouldn't you seek to solve this problem by doing the exact opposite, ie increasing the skill ceiling of other composition's (or straight buffing them if they're found equal)? That seems very counterproductive to the greater agenda to me.
It should also be noted that when people talk about "stimmed Bio" as a play-style, they're really just saying "not pure mech." Bio in LotV is almost always supported by Starport and factory units: Medivacs, Banshees, Liberators, Widow Mines, even Tanks. The "stimmed bio" thing is such a misnomer.
Zerg and Protoss are doing just fine against Terran, if not favored in both matchups. Unless you're TY or Innovation. Which you're not. Those guys are the gods of Terran right now. Nobody in the world can do what they do. Which sucks pretty hard for the rest of us recreational-level players : (
|
What? Even in the Code A qualifiers Terrans performed a tinny bit better than Protoss. So no, you don't need to be TY or Innovation to win vs Protoss.
|
This is a masters TvP mech game. The Protoss essentially did two different one-base all-ins (adept into DT) that could easily have won the game unless it was perfectly defended.
I tried to counter with a WM drop but it was defended with nothing but pylons; both mines couldn't even burrow because of pylons!
While I still won this game, it is absurd that a Protoss can be on nearly even footing in a macro game after their one base all-in failed (twice). Any Terran or Zerg would simply 'GG' out of the game...except it was a Protoss. Enjoy!
http://ggtracker.com/matches/6357954
|
On December 29 2015 22:15 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2015 21:26 Nebuchad wrote:
24-25 TvZ
34-28 TvP
33-22 ZvP
Upsets
Rogue < Billowy
Byun < Creator
Classic < Hush
Ryung < random zerg
Solar < Bomber If I read these results right then TvZ is basically at 50%, TvP at 54,8% and ZvP at 60%, out of 166 games (a decent large sample imo). Looks rather bad for protoss,
The sample size is horrendous, a number of stats are influenced by unevenly matched players and we haven't seen the games.
If you use this to say Toss is looking bad please ask me to send you my Statistics 1 Course Book.
|
On December 30 2015 12:56 SirPinky wrote:This is a masters TvP mech game. The Protoss essentially did two different one-base all-ins (adept into DT) that could easily have won the game unless it was perfectly defended. I tried to counter with a WM drop but it was defended with nothing but pylons; both mines couldn't even burrow because of pylons! While I still won this game, it is absurd that a Protoss can be on nearly even footing in a macro game after their one base all-in failed (twice). Any Terran or Zerg would simply 'GG' out of the game...except it was a Protoss. Enjoy! http://ggtracker.com/matches/6357954
So what are you saying? You used an outdated build, it failed, his all ins failed, he capitalized on you going mech to ecogreed, you won because of your advantage
Your post contributes nothing to this discussion...
|
On December 30 2015 13:57 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2015 22:15 Salteador Neo wrote:On December 29 2015 21:26 Nebuchad wrote:
24-25 TvZ
34-28 TvP
33-22 ZvP
Upsets
Rogue < Billowy
Byun < Creator
Classic < Hush
Ryung < random zerg
Solar < Bomber If I read these results right then TvZ is basically at 50%, TvP at 54,8% and ZvP at 60%, out of 166 games (a decent large sample imo). Looks rather bad for protoss, The sample size is horrendous, a number of stats are influenced by unevenly matched players and we haven't seen the games. If you use this to say Toss is looking bad please ask me to send you my Statistics 1 Course Book.
Well if there were a lot more pro games to extract good data from we would check them I guess. But there aren't that many? Feel free to point them at us if there are.
If the general consensus of "protoss is having a hard time vs Z atm" meets the data then I dont think its a coincidence. Im not even complaining about it, never expected perfect balance so early after release. Just pointing out something for those blind "toss blatantly op vs X" dudes and whoever else who cares.
|
On December 30 2015 13:59 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2015 12:56 SirPinky wrote:This is a masters TvP mech game. The Protoss essentially did two different one-base all-ins (adept into DT) that could easily have won the game unless it was perfectly defended. I tried to counter with a WM drop but it was defended with nothing but pylons; both mines couldn't even burrow because of pylons! While I still won this game, it is absurd that a Protoss can be on nearly even footing in a macro game after their one base all-in failed (twice). Any Terran or Zerg would simply 'GG' out of the game...except it was a Protoss. Enjoy! http://ggtracker.com/matches/6357954 So what are you saying? You used an outdated build, it failed, his all ins failed, he capitalized on you going mech to ecogreed, you won because of your advantage Your post contributes nothing to this discussion...
Did you even watch the replay? Outdated build? What i'm saying is there is nothing I could have done to punish Protoss. He does two different all-ins and they both fail, yet he can take an expansion uncontested as long as he has a pylon built there. The result would have been the same with Bio play; it speaks to the inability to punish Protoss for their cheesy, typically game-ending builds, and there is no risk if they fail...they just macro like it never happend. I'm sorry if you missed the boat on deductive reasoning but it is simple: Reduce pylon overcharge spamming and adept all-ins. Protoss should actually need units at a base to shutdown an entire attack.
|
On December 31 2015 04:24 SirPinky wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2015 13:59 SC2Toastie wrote:On December 30 2015 12:56 SirPinky wrote:This is a masters TvP mech game. The Protoss essentially did two different one-base all-ins (adept into DT) that could easily have won the game unless it was perfectly defended. I tried to counter with a WM drop but it was defended with nothing but pylons; both mines couldn't even burrow because of pylons! While I still won this game, it is absurd that a Protoss can be on nearly even footing in a macro game after their one base all-in failed (twice). Any Terran or Zerg would simply 'GG' out of the game...except it was a Protoss. Enjoy! http://ggtracker.com/matches/6357954 So what are you saying? You used an outdated build, it failed, his all ins failed, he capitalized on you going mech to ecogreed, you won because of your advantage Your post contributes nothing to this discussion... Did you even watch the replay? Outdated build? What i'm saying is there is nothing I could have done to punish Protoss. He does two different all-ins and they both fail, yet he can take an expansion uncontested as long as he has a pylon built there. The result would have been the same with Bio play; it speaks to the inability to punish Protoss for their cheesy, typically game-ending builds, and there is no risk if they fail...they just macro like it never happend. I'm sorry if you missed the boat on deductive reasoning but it is simple: Reduce pylon overcharge spamming and adept all-ins. Protoss should actually need units at a base to shutdown an entire attack.
Remove MULEs and Stim...Terran should have as slow and as few units as Protoss. See what I did there?
Different races work differently.
|
Guys keep in mind that in order to overcharge Pylons you have to first build them. To be well defended against attacks from all angles "with no units" requires way more pylons on the map than you actually need (like 40-50 supply worth).
Maybe PO is a bit too spammable but there's an increased cost associated w being able to use that ability vs HotS.
I don't like it, to be honest. I'd rather have units that I can move around on the map with. But the economy is so fucked that you need to invest as little as possible into gateways as possible because you need to be taking a 3rd at like 3 mins...
|
On December 30 2015 09:52 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2015 08:57 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 29 2015 18:35 Salteador Neo wrote:
Right now, stim bio dominates in all three matchups.
Stim bio dominates and makes ling/bane/muta obsolete. There's other factors to this, like the reduced larva and libs countering mutas hard. Roach/ravager just does the trick for now, but has big trouble against drops and roaches scale terrible into the lategame.
Stim bio in tvt makes mech look bad. Bio still wrecks mech thanks to higher mobility afaik, but there's also tankivacs (dropping in siege mode should be removed imo).
Stim bio makes protoss not build disruptors because it just dodges the shots too easily. With the armored adept, bio will wreck gateway armies even harder than before. Immortals are just mediocre and zealot 8 damage on charge is useless since most zealots don't even get to hit once in big army engagements.
So I feel the game might be better if stimmed bio movement speed was reduced a bit. It would help banelings get more hits in, disruptors might actually become viable and tanks would get more hits in before getting rekt. Also less mobility issues for mech in tvt, since bio would be a bit slower on the ground. Speedvacs still a thing tho, of course.
There are probably several bigger problems right now, but I wanted to get my thoughts in anyway :D GLHF So your solution to a possible balance problem or possible design problem or possibly both or possibly neither is to... lower the skill ceiling of the most high skill ceiling unit composition in the game. Why? Why wouldn't you seek to solve this problem by doing the exact opposite, ie increasing the skill ceiling of other composition's (or straight buffing them if they're found equal)? That seems very counterproductive to the greater agenda to me. It should also be noted that when people talk about "stimmed Bio" as a play-style, they're really just saying "not pure mech." Bio in LotV is almost always supported by Starport and factory units: Medivacs, Banshees, Liberators, Widow Mines, even Tanks. The "stimmed bio" thing is such a misnomer.
That's the part that I think has become detrimental when discussing Terran balance in SC2...
People talk like Bio, Mech, Starbase are completely different tech paths, when in reality compositions are a combination of them.
When you see the comments people make about the game, they come from all sorts of different angles, and with different player skill levels, it breaks down the ability to have a constructive conversation.
You see people say things like "Mech needs better anti air like a goliath"... Does that mean mech as "building from a factory"??? Does that mean "requiring armory ground upgrades"?? Does that mean a "utility unit" to support factory units?
The answer to that question depends on who you ask... And that's a lot of the problem.
You have a lot of new players out there that think as mech you should be building nothing but factory units and medivacs. You have some people that want to go "Pure" mech. You have some people transitioning to mech after bio pushes.
The truth is, in most games you see units from barracks, factory, and starbase. In SC2 theres much less of a time investment to complete most of the tech paths. So it's more about the RACE having a strong unit for the situation, rather than a BUILDING being able to create a strong unit.
Just in the example I replied to above you see a huge array of Terran units being used. How could anyone 'really' call that bio, mech, or air?
Same goes for the other races (for the most part). It's more about what the RACE can do rather than a building. So I'm not sure why it's so common for Terran players to get caught up with trying to pull off specific compositions from 1 building only? Imagine what would happen if a Zerg player tried to function on only 1 tech path with only making Spire or Hydra Den units? Or if Zerg complained about having to switch from T1 units? Or Protoss tried to win with only Robo and complained that Robo needs better anti air units?
Terran doesn't really work different in this aspect relative to the other races, they actually have some advantages. Just by teching to starbase they get access to basic factory units, so it should be obvious they are intended to mix it up, and mules basically guarantee you can mix up some bio/basic factory/basic starbase units with any composition... So how come more than any other race they try to keep "purely" to one tech tree??
|
I think people are too quick to say that everything can be deflected with pylons. I hear Terrance always talking about how widow mine drops don't work because of the pylons, but as long as the Protoss has two bases, you can always drop and burrow before the mothership core can get there as long as you drop where it isn't. Maybe I'm just bad, but mothership cores are very slow and they can be out maneuvered.
|
On December 31 2015 07:59 Spyridon wrote
Just in the example I replied to above you see a huge array of Terran units being used. How could anyone 'really' call that bio, mech, or air?
And yet, if I recall correctly, Blizzard's explicit goal with buffing Ultralisks was "to stop MMM from countering every Zerg unit."
Either they do not understand the issue whatsoever (WMs, hellbats, Thor's, and tanks make routine additions to TvZ armies, as would have Liberators, regardless of the state of Ultralisks)... or they disagree with you and want a primarily mech-centric play-style to exist (then why only nerfs to mech until this Thor buff?)... or I don't know what other options there can be.
Their position on the Factory has always been shrouded in murk, maybe more now than ever before.
Same goes for the other races (for the most part). It's more about what the RACE can do rather than a building. So I'm not sure why it's so common for Terran players to get caught up with trying to pull off specific compositions from 1 building only? Imagine what would happen if a Zerg player tried to function on only 1 tech path with only making Spire or Hydra Den units?
The difference between the Factory and the Robo Bay is that the Robo Bay unlocks 5 units, two of which are noncombatants and another two are the same unit. In terms of army, it produces Immortals and Disruptors and that's it.
The Factory produces SIX combat units. WMs, Hellion, Hellbat, Cyclone, tank, Thor. Thats more combat units in a single structure than there are in ANY other structure in the game, and more any units than the Barracks by two.
How do you manage to have six ground combat units, with COMPLETELY different roles - ground and air splash, ground splash harass, melee splash tank, long range splash siege, tanky anti armor with anti light air, and defensive long ranged skirmishers with anti armor air - how the fuck do you assemble a lineup like that, give them unique attack and armor upgrades, and then not find A SINGLE WORKING COMPOSITION AMONG THEM IN ANY MU? Does that not tell you something about the strength of these units and/or Terran's ability to transition into them?
You mention "Spire tech only" as being equivalent to "Factory tech only." Have you never seen a Zerg win a game off the back of an instant Muta switch, or a 40 Muta base race? I have trouble believing that. Or how about corruptor/Brood lord with a couple of Vipers? Is that not a composition you're familiar with? Or the classic LOTV "ten Ultralisks is a good composition."
|
I hope Blizzard will add an expirationon stasis mines. its weird that an energy based unit/spell lasts forever.
|
On December 31 2015 08:52 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2015 07:59 Spyridon wrote
Just in the example I replied to above you see a huge array of Terran units being used. How could anyone 'really' call that bio, mech, or air? And yet, if I recall correctly, Blizzard's explicit goal with buffing Ultralisks was "to stop MMM from countering every Zerg unit." Either they do not understand the issue whatsoever (WMs, hellbats, Thor's, and tanks make routine additions to TvZ armies, as would have Liberators, regardless of the state of Ultralisks)... or they disagree with you and want a primarily mech-centric play-style to exist (then why only nerfs to mech until this Thor buff?)... or I don't know what other options there can be. Their position on the Factory has always been shrouded in murk, maybe more now than ever before. Show nested quote +
Same goes for the other races (for the most part). It's more about what the RACE can do rather than a building. So I'm not sure why it's so common for Terran players to get caught up with trying to pull off specific compositions from 1 building only? Imagine what would happen if a Zerg player tried to function on only 1 tech path with only making Spire or Hydra Den units?
The difference between the Factory and the Robo Bay is that the Robo Bay unlocks 5 units, two of which are noncombatants and another two are the same unit. In terms of army, it produces Immortals and Disruptors and that's it. The Factory produces SIX combat units. WMs, Hellion, Hellbat, Cyclone, tank, Thor. Thats more combat units in a single structure than there are in ANY other structure in the game, and more any units than the Barracks by two.
So they dont want MMM to be strong vs everything... That does not equal "they want you to go mech"... Theres the huge list of factory units you listed PLUS starbase PLUS the other bio units like Ghost (who are actually decent vs Ultras).
Your trying to twist them trying to encourage variety in their compositions in to meaning "They want you to go mech only"... when in reality it indicates only what I was explaining, that Terran compositions are intended to be a variety of units and not overwhelmed by 1 unit type. The fact that MMM was useful vs everything and they had to make something strong vs them, only further aligns with that point.
Crazy that you are trying to say a decrease in Bio strength at late T3 somehow means they want Mech to be the only viable path, when many of the strongest units vs Ultras come from Barracks and Starport...
How do you manage to have six ground combat units, with COMPLETELY different roles - ground and air splash, ground splash harass, melee splash tank, long range splash siege, tanky anti armor with anti light air, and defensive long ranged skirmishers with anti armor air - how the fuck do you assemble a lineup like that, give them unique attack and armor upgrades, and then not find A SINGLE WORKING COMPOSITION AMONG THEM IN ANY MU? Does that not tell you something about the strength of these units and/or Terran's ability to transition into them?
The only thing your example indicates is that mech is NOT INTENDED to be used as "factory units alone". That is precisely why there is "no working composition"! Which, again, was the point of my last post. The entire design of Terran supports this - You need 1 production building in order to tech to the next. How much more obvious do they have to be that you are not supposed to use Bio, Mech, or Air units alone?
If you can't get a working composition from pure mech working, doesn't that indicate you are NOT SUPPOSED TO use pure mech???
This is besides the fact that your REQUIRED to get a barracks before factory, indicating that bio is meant to be used alongside mech.
You mention "Spire tech only" as being equivalent to "Factory tech only." Have you never seen a Zerg win a game off the back of an instant Muta switch, or a 40 Muta base race? I have trouble believing that. Or how about corruptor/Brood lord with a couple of Vipers? Is that not a composition you're familiar with? Or the classic LOTV "ten Ultralisks is a good composition."
Making a tech switch is the complete opposite of trying to do a "pure" composition out of a single tech building. Why are you even comparing the two?
Sure Zerg can win with a muta tech switch if the opponent did not scout the spire or realize gas production was slacking in order to save up for a muta switch. Terran can do the same with libs. What is your point? That is completely unrelated to what I was talking about. Your comparing tech switch harassment to developing an entire composition.
On the subject I was discussing - about compositions not intended to be made of only 1 production path - your point is foolish, because if a player started a Zerg game and their goal was to make a composition ONLY of spire units - meaning only mutas corruptors and BL - it would be a horribly planned composition. Mutas and corruptors are NOT going to hold off any T2 pushes. They will contain for a lil bit, and then be ran over by the army.
Your corruptor/BL/Viper example... You are acting like that is the entire composition. The Zerg player isn't racing for spire and then making nothing but spire units. Corruptors alone aren't going to hold off anything in T2. This composition is SWITCHED TO LATE GAME! In order to SWITCH to a composition of T3 units, you have to already have had an EARLIER composition to get there. Same thing with Ultras.
Production buildings each have strengths and weaknesses, and if you INSIST on being "pure" and going only with 1 production building, your going to have glaring weaknesses. This is true for all 3 races.
I don't know why you are trying to argue that fact. Your trying to hard to try to prove that SC2 intends for players to use compositions produced from only 1 building, when the mechanics of the game, the popular compositions, and even their patch notes you mention yourself, indicate that they want VARIED compositions developed from MULTIPLE production buildings.
Do you really want to just make a composition of only bio or factory units that badly? Or do you want to prove Terran is under powered that badly? Not sure why your so desperately avoiding the truth that the game is not and was never intended to support pure compositions from a single building... Don't you see even the examples you provide back that up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
