|
On October 14 2011 19:47 Umpteen wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I've been mulling something over and wondered what the wiser heads at TL would think of it:
Problem: Early barracks aggression in TvZ is too much reward for too little risk.
Bunker rushes, increasingly off the back of proxy barracks, aren't cheese in SC2. To be classed as cheese - the kind of cheese people still talk about years after it's used in a major competition, the kind of cheese worth having in an RTS - a build's success must rely on your opponent overlooking or dismissing the possibility of it happening because it's a risky, all-or-nothing gambit.
Will people be talking about such-and-such's infamous proxy-rax bunker rush in the GSL, years from now? Not while they continue to happen with such regularity, I think. And the reason they happen so often is that they are insufficiently risky. Anyone following the major competitions over the past weeks will recall at least one if not several instances where the remainder of the game was an embarrassing if not humiliating formality. Which is precisely what it should be when cheese succeeds. But it should also be true - or at least highly likely - when it fails, and I for one cannot think of a single example of that. If cheese is a rare delicacy, then clawing back a victory after executing a failed cheese ought to be the stuff of legend.
Analysis:
The problem is that a Zerg's margin of opportunity versus a bunker rush is, being charitable, slim. Typically the Zerg has gone 15-hatch. Of particular importance is the timing of creep spread and spine crawlers at the natural to fend off slightly later, more robust aggression funded by MULEs and a full complement of SCVs. It is not economic cheese: it is what Zergs do to keep pace with builds a Terran can choose to execute in complete safety.
That does not mean I think Zergs should have carte blanche to 15 hatch in complete safety. Bunker rushes should be a viable cheese.
In order to fend off a bunker rush, the Zerg must compromise his intended economic focus and make lings. This, too, is perfectly right and proper. However, when we look at the spectrum of possible outcomes they disproportionately favour the Terran.
Towards one extreme the Zerg handles things terribly, loses a bunch of drones and lings, a queen, and his expansion. GG. Fine. But what does the other extreme look like? I don't know if it's realistic to expect a Zerg not to lose any drones, but he's certainly going to lose mining time on a good number of drones, potential drones to ling production at the precise time he's trying to catch up in workers after taking the expansion, and probably a couple of lings too. That's 'best case' for Zerg. The Terran has also suffered economically, of course: lost mining time on a couple of SCVs, plus one or more marines and a bunker. However, it is unlikely his loss could be considered more debilitating: he has prevented the Zerg from catching up to his SCV+MULE income at a critical low-economy point in the game. And so the game proceeds with no clear advantage gained on either side. At no point is the Terran in danger of losing the game outright, and realistically there is no way of imposing such a risk. I therefore propose that such early barracks aggression should represent a greater economic deviation from the norm, thus widening the margin by which a Zerg who handles the situation perfectly can come out ahead. + Show Spoiler +Solution:1. Increase Orbital build time and/or reduce Orbital starting energy AND 2. Make the Command Centre capable of constructing SCVs (possibly at a reduced rate) while upgrading to an Orbital The goal is for the economic potential of the Terran over the early game to be more or less unchanged, provided he spends resources on SCVs during the Orbital upgrade process. Cutting SCVs to produce constantly out of two barracks and build bunkers introduces an inherent economic penalty, broadening the margin of advantage the Zerg enjoys upon a successful deflection and consequently repositioning the strategy as a high-risk, high-reward cheese play. The proposed change is eminently tweakable. The upgrade time, the rate of SCV production while upgrading, and the amount of starting energy of the Orbital can all be adjusted to yield the desired final economy and economic penalty for aggression. Side Effects:After scratching my head for some time, I decided this is where you guys come in  Fire away! Edit: This does delay the earliest possible Terran scan, but I can't see that being terribly significant.
The other extreme is that you are looking at multiple dead SCVs, dead marines, no tech and a basically lost game. You assumed proxy rax rush. That means that for a long time Terran cannot build any units, because his barracks are en route to their base. So the zerg plants a roach warren or a baneling nest, busts down the depot wall and streams lings into their base. Ultra late gas and little eco means T is screwed while Zerg has larva from two hatches with queens.
The worst case scenario is that Zerg can free up 2-4 lings, that block T from completing his depot wall and lings directly go into the main for GG. Remember, proxy rax means no marines at home to defend.
|
On October 14 2011 20:48 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 19:47 Umpteen wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I've been mulling something over and wondered what the wiser heads at TL would think of it:
Problem: Early barracks aggression in TvZ is too much reward for too little risk.
Bunker rushes, increasingly off the back of proxy barracks, aren't cheese in SC2. To be classed as cheese - the kind of cheese people still talk about years after it's used in a major competition, the kind of cheese worth having in an RTS - a build's success must rely on your opponent overlooking or dismissing the possibility of it happening because it's a risky, all-or-nothing gambit.
Will people be talking about such-and-such's infamous proxy-rax bunker rush in the GSL, years from now? Not while they continue to happen with such regularity, I think. And the reason they happen so often is that they are insufficiently risky. Anyone following the major competitions over the past weeks will recall at least one if not several instances where the remainder of the game was an embarrassing if not humiliating formality. Which is precisely what it should be when cheese succeeds. But it should also be true - or at least highly likely - when it fails, and I for one cannot think of a single example of that. If cheese is a rare delicacy, then clawing back a victory after executing a failed cheese ought to be the stuff of legend.
Analysis:
The problem is that a Zerg's margin of opportunity versus a bunker rush is, being charitable, slim. Typically the Zerg has gone 15-hatch. Of particular importance is the timing of creep spread and spine crawlers at the natural to fend off slightly later, more robust aggression funded by MULEs and a full complement of SCVs. It is not economic cheese: it is what Zergs do to keep pace with builds a Terran can choose to execute in complete safety.
That does not mean I think Zergs should have carte blanche to 15 hatch in complete safety. Bunker rushes should be a viable cheese.
In order to fend off a bunker rush, the Zerg must compromise his intended economic focus and make lings. This, too, is perfectly right and proper. However, when we look at the spectrum of possible outcomes they disproportionately favour the Terran.
Towards one extreme the Zerg handles things terribly, loses a bunch of drones and lings, a queen, and his expansion. GG. Fine. But what does the other extreme look like? I don't know if it's realistic to expect a Zerg not to lose any drones, but he's certainly going to lose mining time on a good number of drones, potential drones to ling production at the precise time he's trying to catch up in workers after taking the expansion, and probably a couple of lings too. That's 'best case' for Zerg. The Terran has also suffered economically, of course: lost mining time on a couple of SCVs, plus one or more marines and a bunker. However, it is unlikely his loss could be considered more debilitating: he has prevented the Zerg from catching up to his SCV+MULE income at a critical low-economy point in the game. And so the game proceeds with no clear advantage gained on either side. At no point is the Terran in danger of losing the game outright, and realistically there is no way of imposing such a risk. I therefore propose that such early barracks aggression should represent a greater economic deviation from the norm, thus widening the margin by which a Zerg who handles the situation perfectly can come out ahead. + Show Spoiler +Solution:1. Increase Orbital build time and/or reduce Orbital starting energy AND 2. Make the Command Centre capable of constructing SCVs (possibly at a reduced rate) while upgrading to an Orbital The goal is for the economic potential of the Terran over the early game to be more or less unchanged, provided he spends resources on SCVs during the Orbital upgrade process. Cutting SCVs to produce constantly out of two barracks and build bunkers introduces an inherent economic penalty, broadening the margin of advantage the Zerg enjoys upon a successful deflection and consequently repositioning the strategy as a high-risk, high-reward cheese play. The proposed change is eminently tweakable. The upgrade time, the rate of SCV production while upgrading, and the amount of starting energy of the Orbital can all be adjusted to yield the desired final economy and economic penalty for aggression. Side Effects:After scratching my head for some time, I decided this is where you guys come in Fire away! Edit: This does delay the earliest possible Terran scan, but I can't see that being terribly significant. The other extreme is that you are looking at multiple dead SCVs, dead marines, no tech and a basically lost game. You assumed proxy rax rush. That means that for a long time Terran cannot build any units, because his barracks are en route to their base. So the zerg plants a roach warren or a baneling nest, busts down the depot wall and streams lings into their base. Ultra late gas and little eco means T is screwed while Zerg has larva from two hatches with queens. The worst case scenario is that Zerg can free up 2-4 lings, that block T from completing his depot wall and lings directly go into the main for GG. Remember, proxy rax means no marines at home to defend.
What on EARTH are you talking about?
He can't produce units for a long time because his barracks are on route to his base? Are you saying that proxy barracks cheese is done by building them in base and flying them to the opponents?
Bunkers can be salvaged and a single barracks with just a couple marines can result in a dead expansion hatch or much much worse.
+ Show Spoiler +See Happy vs Coca game 1 in GSL round of 8.
Terran delays himself very little by doing this cheese, and he is completely safe from counter attack behind his wall. He then expands and has total freedom to do so and from this point on the game is a formality.
The biggest way Terrans cheese could of failed is if Zerg had of found it before the first marine was built and used his drones to keep it from the bunker, stalling until he had some zerglings pop. In this case all Terran would have to do is lift his barracks and fly home. He would of lost a marine or two + the salvage fee on the bunkers...and MAYBE an scv or two if he was executed very poorly.
So to completely screw up the Zerg it would of cost him.....200 minerals total? Meanwhile the Zerg lost significant mining time and possibly a drone or two.
+ Show Spoiler +What actually happened in the Happy vs Coca game was Coca didn't spot it until the bunker was finished and a marine was finished building. Happy then started a bunker on the low ground in range of the expansion so that the first bunker covered the 2nd bunker, all but ensuring that the expansion would fall. Coca eventually pushed the attack out losing a huge amount and forcing larva to be spent on lings rather than drones...while happy only lost 6-8 marines,1 bunker (that he didn't need to btw) and the salvage fee on 2 bunkers total.
|
On October 14 2011 21:28 cyrusdm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 20:48 Thrombozyt wrote:On October 14 2011 19:47 Umpteen wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I've been mulling something over and wondered what the wiser heads at TL would think of it:
Problem: Early barracks aggression in TvZ is too much reward for too little risk.
Bunker rushes, increasingly off the back of proxy barracks, aren't cheese in SC2. To be classed as cheese - the kind of cheese people still talk about years after it's used in a major competition, the kind of cheese worth having in an RTS - a build's success must rely on your opponent overlooking or dismissing the possibility of it happening because it's a risky, all-or-nothing gambit.
Will people be talking about such-and-such's infamous proxy-rax bunker rush in the GSL, years from now? Not while they continue to happen with such regularity, I think. And the reason they happen so often is that they are insufficiently risky. Anyone following the major competitions over the past weeks will recall at least one if not several instances where the remainder of the game was an embarrassing if not humiliating formality. Which is precisely what it should be when cheese succeeds. But it should also be true - or at least highly likely - when it fails, and I for one cannot think of a single example of that. If cheese is a rare delicacy, then clawing back a victory after executing a failed cheese ought to be the stuff of legend.
Analysis:
The problem is that a Zerg's margin of opportunity versus a bunker rush is, being charitable, slim. Typically the Zerg has gone 15-hatch. Of particular importance is the timing of creep spread and spine crawlers at the natural to fend off slightly later, more robust aggression funded by MULEs and a full complement of SCVs. It is not economic cheese: it is what Zergs do to keep pace with builds a Terran can choose to execute in complete safety.
That does not mean I think Zergs should have carte blanche to 15 hatch in complete safety. Bunker rushes should be a viable cheese.
In order to fend off a bunker rush, the Zerg must compromise his intended economic focus and make lings. This, too, is perfectly right and proper. However, when we look at the spectrum of possible outcomes they disproportionately favour the Terran.
Towards one extreme the Zerg handles things terribly, loses a bunch of drones and lings, a queen, and his expansion. GG. Fine. But what does the other extreme look like? I don't know if it's realistic to expect a Zerg not to lose any drones, but he's certainly going to lose mining time on a good number of drones, potential drones to ling production at the precise time he's trying to catch up in workers after taking the expansion, and probably a couple of lings too. That's 'best case' for Zerg. The Terran has also suffered economically, of course: lost mining time on a couple of SCVs, plus one or more marines and a bunker. However, it is unlikely his loss could be considered more debilitating: he has prevented the Zerg from catching up to his SCV+MULE income at a critical low-economy point in the game. And so the game proceeds with no clear advantage gained on either side. At no point is the Terran in danger of losing the game outright, and realistically there is no way of imposing such a risk. I therefore propose that such early barracks aggression should represent a greater economic deviation from the norm, thus widening the margin by which a Zerg who handles the situation perfectly can come out ahead. + Show Spoiler +Solution:1. Increase Orbital build time and/or reduce Orbital starting energy AND 2. Make the Command Centre capable of constructing SCVs (possibly at a reduced rate) while upgrading to an Orbital The goal is for the economic potential of the Terran over the early game to be more or less unchanged, provided he spends resources on SCVs during the Orbital upgrade process. Cutting SCVs to produce constantly out of two barracks and build bunkers introduces an inherent economic penalty, broadening the margin of advantage the Zerg enjoys upon a successful deflection and consequently repositioning the strategy as a high-risk, high-reward cheese play. The proposed change is eminently tweakable. The upgrade time, the rate of SCV production while upgrading, and the amount of starting energy of the Orbital can all be adjusted to yield the desired final economy and economic penalty for aggression. Side Effects:After scratching my head for some time, I decided this is where you guys come in Fire away! Edit: This does delay the earliest possible Terran scan, but I can't see that being terribly significant. The other extreme is that you are looking at multiple dead SCVs, dead marines, no tech and a basically lost game. You assumed proxy rax rush. That means that for a long time Terran cannot build any units, because his barracks are en route to their base. So the zerg plants a roach warren or a baneling nest, busts down the depot wall and streams lings into their base. Ultra late gas and little eco means T is screwed while Zerg has larva from two hatches with queens. The worst case scenario is that Zerg can free up 2-4 lings, that block T from completing his depot wall and lings directly go into the main for GG. Remember, proxy rax means no marines at home to defend. What on EARTH are you talking about? He can't produce units for a long time because his barracks are on route to his base? Are you saying that proxy barracks cheese is done by building them in base and flying them to the opponents? Bunkers can be salvaged and a single barracks with just a couple marines can result in a dead expansion hatch or much much worse. + Show Spoiler +See Happy vs Coca game 1 in GSL round of 8. Terran delays himself very little by doing this cheese, and he is completely safe from counter attack behind his wall. He then expands and has total freedom to do so and from this point on the game is a formality. The biggest way Terrans cheese could of failed is if Zerg had of found it before the first marine was built and used his drones to keep it from the bunker, stalling until he had some zerglings pop. In this case all Terran would have to do is lift his barracks and fly home. He would of lost a marine or two + the salvage fee on the bunkers...and MAYBE an scv or two if he was executed very poorly. So to completely screw up the Zerg it would of cost him.....200 minerals total? Meanwhile the Zerg lost significant mining time and possibly a drone or two. + Show Spoiler +What actually happened in the Happy vs Coca game was Coca didn't spot it until the bunker was finished and a marine was finished building. Happy then started a bunker on the low ground in range of the expansion so that the first bunker covered the 2nd bunker, all but ensuring that the expansion would fall. Coca eventually pushed the attack out losing a huge amount and forcing larva to be spent on lings rather than drones...while happy only lost 6-8 marines,1 bunker (that he didn't need to btw) and the salvage fee on 2 bunkers total.
No really, the proxy 2 rax (with several SCVs) needs to do a lot of damage and is a very risky build, just look at this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=247913 to convince yourself.
that's basically the amount of damage require to be even.
The flying barracks he is talking about, is the retreating barracks.
|
|
|
On October 14 2011 20:48 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 19:47 Umpteen wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I've been mulling something over and wondered what the wiser heads at TL would think of it:
Problem: Early barracks aggression in TvZ is too much reward for too little risk.
Bunker rushes, increasingly off the back of proxy barracks, aren't cheese in SC2. To be classed as cheese - the kind of cheese people still talk about years after it's used in a major competition, the kind of cheese worth having in an RTS - a build's success must rely on your opponent overlooking or dismissing the possibility of it happening because it's a risky, all-or-nothing gambit.
Will people be talking about such-and-such's infamous proxy-rax bunker rush in the GSL, years from now? Not while they continue to happen with such regularity, I think. And the reason they happen so often is that they are insufficiently risky. Anyone following the major competitions over the past weeks will recall at least one if not several instances where the remainder of the game was an embarrassing if not humiliating formality. Which is precisely what it should be when cheese succeeds. But it should also be true - or at least highly likely - when it fails, and I for one cannot think of a single example of that. If cheese is a rare delicacy, then clawing back a victory after executing a failed cheese ought to be the stuff of legend.
Analysis:
The problem is that a Zerg's margin of opportunity versus a bunker rush is, being charitable, slim. Typically the Zerg has gone 15-hatch. Of particular importance is the timing of creep spread and spine crawlers at the natural to fend off slightly later, more robust aggression funded by MULEs and a full complement of SCVs. It is not economic cheese: it is what Zergs do to keep pace with builds a Terran can choose to execute in complete safety.
That does not mean I think Zergs should have carte blanche to 15 hatch in complete safety. Bunker rushes should be a viable cheese.
In order to fend off a bunker rush, the Zerg must compromise his intended economic focus and make lings. This, too, is perfectly right and proper. However, when we look at the spectrum of possible outcomes they disproportionately favour the Terran.
Towards one extreme the Zerg handles things terribly, loses a bunch of drones and lings, a queen, and his expansion. GG. Fine. But what does the other extreme look like? I don't know if it's realistic to expect a Zerg not to lose any drones, but he's certainly going to lose mining time on a good number of drones, potential drones to ling production at the precise time he's trying to catch up in workers after taking the expansion, and probably a couple of lings too. That's 'best case' for Zerg. The Terran has also suffered economically, of course: lost mining time on a couple of SCVs, plus one or more marines and a bunker. However, it is unlikely his loss could be considered more debilitating: he has prevented the Zerg from catching up to his SCV+MULE income at a critical low-economy point in the game. And so the game proceeds with no clear advantage gained on either side. At no point is the Terran in danger of losing the game outright, and realistically there is no way of imposing such a risk. I therefore propose that such early barracks aggression should represent a greater economic deviation from the norm, thus widening the margin by which a Zerg who handles the situation perfectly can come out ahead. + Show Spoiler +Solution:1. Increase Orbital build time and/or reduce Orbital starting energy AND 2. Make the Command Centre capable of constructing SCVs (possibly at a reduced rate) while upgrading to an Orbital The goal is for the economic potential of the Terran over the early game to be more or less unchanged, provided he spends resources on SCVs during the Orbital upgrade process. Cutting SCVs to produce constantly out of two barracks and build bunkers introduces an inherent economic penalty, broadening the margin of advantage the Zerg enjoys upon a successful deflection and consequently repositioning the strategy as a high-risk, high-reward cheese play. The proposed change is eminently tweakable. The upgrade time, the rate of SCV production while upgrading, and the amount of starting energy of the Orbital can all be adjusted to yield the desired final economy and economic penalty for aggression. Side Effects:After scratching my head for some time, I decided this is where you guys come in Fire away! Edit: This does delay the earliest possible Terran scan, but I can't see that being terribly significant. The other extreme is that you are looking at multiple dead SCVs, dead marines, no tech and a basically lost game.
The games I have watched (and there have been a great many, from ladder streams to GSL games) do not seem to support that last claim. Yes, the Terran will lose two SCVs. Yes, he will lose one or more marines, depending upon when he abandons the tactic. But I have never seen this translate to an immediate loss or all-but-irrevocable economic deficit.
You assumed proxy rax rush.
Reading back over what I wrote, I did give that impression.
Certainly proxy rushes ought to be the riskiest of all. I think even in-base early barracks aggression could stand to be more of an economic deviation than it is now, but yes, proxy rax at the moment is (frankly) taking the piss.
That means that for a long time Terran cannot build any units, because his barracks are en route to their base. So the zerg plants a roach warren or a baneling nest, busts down the depot wall and streams lings into their base.
Can you link me to a VOD of this? The timings don't seem to add up. Build time for a roach warren plus morph time of roaches plus transit time - assuming the zerg starts immediately without attempting to recoup any economic disadvantage - it doesn't sound massively plausible and I've never seen it attempted. Banelings... similar problem. You pretty much have to wait for speed to finish, and spend a lot of larvae on lings, and morph in the banelings, while the Terran need only land his barracks and build a bunker to reinforce the wall while building SCVs (and probably a command centre).
Ultra late gas and little eco means T is screwed while Zerg has larva from two hatches with queens.
Two hatches with queens is less useful on a reduced drone count. Far more larvae than you can actually spend. Even in ideal circumstances (correct me if I'm wrong here) Zergs spend an early inject from one queen on a creep tumour because their income just won't support anything else. And the terran is hardly on 'little eco' at that point.
But let's assume you're right - where are these matches where helpless Terrans get overrun by the Zerg after a failed bunker rush?
The worst case scenario is that Zerg can free up 2-4 lings, that block T from completing his depot wall and lings directly go into the main for GG. Remember, proxy rax means no marines at home to defend.
Again, VODs or it doesn't happen What I have seen are 'freed up' zerglings nibbling the paint off a depot wall while one SCV repairs on the inside.
|
On October 14 2011 21:53 Elean wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 21:28 cyrusdm wrote:On October 14 2011 20:48 Thrombozyt wrote:On October 14 2011 19:47 Umpteen wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I've been mulling something over and wondered what the wiser heads at TL would think of it:
Problem: Early barracks aggression in TvZ is too much reward for too little risk.
Bunker rushes, increasingly off the back of proxy barracks, aren't cheese in SC2. To be classed as cheese - the kind of cheese people still talk about years after it's used in a major competition, the kind of cheese worth having in an RTS - a build's success must rely on your opponent overlooking or dismissing the possibility of it happening because it's a risky, all-or-nothing gambit.
Will people be talking about such-and-such's infamous proxy-rax bunker rush in the GSL, years from now? Not while they continue to happen with such regularity, I think. And the reason they happen so often is that they are insufficiently risky. Anyone following the major competitions over the past weeks will recall at least one if not several instances where the remainder of the game was an embarrassing if not humiliating formality. Which is precisely what it should be when cheese succeeds. But it should also be true - or at least highly likely - when it fails, and I for one cannot think of a single example of that. If cheese is a rare delicacy, then clawing back a victory after executing a failed cheese ought to be the stuff of legend.
Analysis:
The problem is that a Zerg's margin of opportunity versus a bunker rush is, being charitable, slim. Typically the Zerg has gone 15-hatch. Of particular importance is the timing of creep spread and spine crawlers at the natural to fend off slightly later, more robust aggression funded by MULEs and a full complement of SCVs. It is not economic cheese: it is what Zergs do to keep pace with builds a Terran can choose to execute in complete safety.
That does not mean I think Zergs should have carte blanche to 15 hatch in complete safety. Bunker rushes should be a viable cheese.
In order to fend off a bunker rush, the Zerg must compromise his intended economic focus and make lings. This, too, is perfectly right and proper. However, when we look at the spectrum of possible outcomes they disproportionately favour the Terran.
Towards one extreme the Zerg handles things terribly, loses a bunch of drones and lings, a queen, and his expansion. GG. Fine. But what does the other extreme look like? I don't know if it's realistic to expect a Zerg not to lose any drones, but he's certainly going to lose mining time on a good number of drones, potential drones to ling production at the precise time he's trying to catch up in workers after taking the expansion, and probably a couple of lings too. That's 'best case' for Zerg. The Terran has also suffered economically, of course: lost mining time on a couple of SCVs, plus one or more marines and a bunker. However, it is unlikely his loss could be considered more debilitating: he has prevented the Zerg from catching up to his SCV+MULE income at a critical low-economy point in the game. And so the game proceeds with no clear advantage gained on either side. At no point is the Terran in danger of losing the game outright, and realistically there is no way of imposing such a risk. I therefore propose that such early barracks aggression should represent a greater economic deviation from the norm, thus widening the margin by which a Zerg who handles the situation perfectly can come out ahead. + Show Spoiler +Solution:1. Increase Orbital build time and/or reduce Orbital starting energy AND 2. Make the Command Centre capable of constructing SCVs (possibly at a reduced rate) while upgrading to an Orbital The goal is for the economic potential of the Terran over the early game to be more or less unchanged, provided he spends resources on SCVs during the Orbital upgrade process. Cutting SCVs to produce constantly out of two barracks and build bunkers introduces an inherent economic penalty, broadening the margin of advantage the Zerg enjoys upon a successful deflection and consequently repositioning the strategy as a high-risk, high-reward cheese play. The proposed change is eminently tweakable. The upgrade time, the rate of SCV production while upgrading, and the amount of starting energy of the Orbital can all be adjusted to yield the desired final economy and economic penalty for aggression. Side Effects:After scratching my head for some time, I decided this is where you guys come in Fire away! Edit: This does delay the earliest possible Terran scan, but I can't see that being terribly significant. The other extreme is that you are looking at multiple dead SCVs, dead marines, no tech and a basically lost game. You assumed proxy rax rush. That means that for a long time Terran cannot build any units, because his barracks are en route to their base. So the zerg plants a roach warren or a baneling nest, busts down the depot wall and streams lings into their base. Ultra late gas and little eco means T is screwed while Zerg has larva from two hatches with queens. The worst case scenario is that Zerg can free up 2-4 lings, that block T from completing his depot wall and lings directly go into the main for GG. Remember, proxy rax means no marines at home to defend. What on EARTH are you talking about? He can't produce units for a long time because his barracks are on route to his base? Are you saying that proxy barracks cheese is done by building them in base and flying them to the opponents? Bunkers can be salvaged and a single barracks with just a couple marines can result in a dead expansion hatch or much much worse. + Show Spoiler +See Happy vs Coca game 1 in GSL round of 8. Terran delays himself very little by doing this cheese, and he is completely safe from counter attack behind his wall. He then expands and has total freedom to do so and from this point on the game is a formality. The biggest way Terrans cheese could of failed is if Zerg had of found it before the first marine was built and used his drones to keep it from the bunker, stalling until he had some zerglings pop. In this case all Terran would have to do is lift his barracks and fly home. He would of lost a marine or two + the salvage fee on the bunkers...and MAYBE an scv or two if he was executed very poorly. So to completely screw up the Zerg it would of cost him.....200 minerals total? Meanwhile the Zerg lost significant mining time and possibly a drone or two. + Show Spoiler +What actually happened in the Happy vs Coca game was Coca didn't spot it until the bunker was finished and a marine was finished building. Happy then started a bunker on the low ground in range of the expansion so that the first bunker covered the 2nd bunker, all but ensuring that the expansion would fall. Coca eventually pushed the attack out losing a huge amount and forcing larva to be spent on lings rather than drones...while happy only lost 6-8 marines,1 bunker (that he didn't need to btw) and the salvage fee on 2 bunkers total. No really, the proxy 2 rax (with several SCVs) needs to do a lot of damage and is a very risky build, just look at this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=247913 to convince yourself. that's basically the amount of damage require to be even. The flying barracks he is talking about, is the retreating barracks.
Hmm. I'm going to watch that over a few times. The consensus seems to be that Losira took a substantial gamble in order to come out even in that game, which paid off when TOP made a poor follow-up decision. I'm not hugely convinced by a game where the Zerg was allowed to double-expand unchallenged and squeeze a win 10 minutes later. And it's certainly nothing like the "just overrun the terran with roaches or banelings for an autowin" talk that's been bandied about
|
With regards to this game:
+ Show Spoiler +
I would hold that up as an example of exactly what should happen when cheese succeeds. I don't want that to stop happening.
|
On October 14 2011 19:47 Umpteen wrote:I've been mulling something over and wondered what the wiser heads at TL would think of it: Problem: Early barracks aggression in TvZ is too much reward for too little risk. + Show Spoiler +Bunker rushes, increasingly off the back of proxy barracks, aren't cheese in SC2. To be classed as cheese - the kind of cheese people still talk about years after it's used in a major competition, the kind of cheese worth having in an RTS - a build's success must rely on your opponent overlooking or dismissing the possibility of it happening because it's a risky, all-or-nothing gambit.Will people be talking about such-and-such's infamous proxy-rax bunker rush in the GSL, years from now? Not while they continue to happen with such regularity, I think. And the reason they happen so often is that they are insufficiently risky. Anyone following the major competitions over the past weeks will recall at least one if not several instances where the remainder of the game was an embarrassing if not humiliating formality. Which is precisely what it should be when cheese succeeds. But it should also be true - or at least highly likely - when it fails, and I for one cannot think of a single example of that. If cheese is a rare delicacy, then clawing back a victory after executing a failed cheese ought to be the stuff of legend. Analysis:The problem is that a Zerg's margin of opportunity versus a bunker rush is, being charitable, slim. Typically the Zerg has gone 15-hatch. Of particular importance is the timing of creep spread and spine crawlers at the natural to fend off slightly later, more robust aggression funded by MULEs and a full complement of SCVs. It is not economic cheese: it is what Zergs do to keep pace with builds a Terran can choose to execute in complete safety. That does not mean I think Zergs should have carte blanche to 15 hatch in complete safety. Bunker rushes should be a viable cheese. In order to fend off a bunker rush, the Zerg must compromise his intended economic focus and make lings. This, too, is perfectly right and proper. However, when we look at the spectrum of possible outcomes they disproportionately favour the Terran. Towards one extreme the Zerg handles things terribly, loses a bunch of drones and lings, a queen, and his expansion. GG. Fine. But what does the other extreme look like? I don't know if it's realistic to expect a Zerg not to lose any drones, but he's certainly going to lose mining time on a good number of drones, potential drones to ling production at the precise time he's trying to catch up in workers after taking the expansion, and probably a couple of lings too. That's 'best case' for Zerg. The Terran has also suffered economically, of course: lost mining time on a couple of SCVs, plus one or more marines and a bunker. However, it is unlikely his loss could be considered more debilitating: he has prevented the Zerg from catching up to his SCV+MULE income at a critical low-economy point in the game. And so the game proceeds with no clear advantage gained on either side. At no point is the Terran in danger of losing the game outright, and realistically there is no way of imposing such a risk. I therefore propose that such early barracks aggression should represent a greater economic deviation from the norm, thus widening the margin by which a Zerg who handles the situation perfectly can come out ahead. Solution:1. Increase Orbital build time and/or reduce Orbital starting energy AND 2. Make the Command Centre capable of constructing SCVs (possibly at a reduced rate) while upgrading to an Orbital The goal is for the economic potential of the Terran over the early game to be more or less unchanged, provided he spends resources on SCVs during the Orbital upgrade process. Cutting SCVs to produce constantly out of two barracks and build bunkers introduces an inherent economic penalty, broadening the margin of advantage the Zerg enjoys upon a successful deflection and consequently repositioning the strategy as a high-risk, high-reward cheese play. The proposed change is eminently tweakable. The upgrade time, the rate of SCV production while upgrading, and the amount of starting energy of the Orbital can all be adjusted to yield the desired final economy and economic penalty for aggression. Side Effects:After scratching my head for some time, I decided this is where you guys come in Fire away! Edit: This does delay the earliest possible Terran scan, but I can't see that being terribly significant.
This is a very good post. The problem with Terran early game is that they seem to be impervious to counterattacks after cheesing. I think David Kim even made a statement that all these terran openings are "problematic" and they're looking to address them in the future, if latest HotS.
Not to be a downer but the game design has favored Terran so much, and with everyone getting better and better, I don't ever see a code S final without a Terran in it....ever.
|
On October 14 2011 23:30 neoghaleon55 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 19:47 Umpteen wrote:I've been mulling something over and wondered what the wiser heads at TL would think of it: Problem: Early barracks aggression in TvZ is too much reward for too little risk. + Show Spoiler +Bunker rushes, increasingly off the back of proxy barracks, aren't cheese in SC2. To be classed as cheese - the kind of cheese people still talk about years after it's used in a major competition, the kind of cheese worth having in an RTS - a build's success must rely on your opponent overlooking or dismissing the possibility of it happening because it's a risky, all-or-nothing gambit.Will people be talking about such-and-such's infamous proxy-rax bunker rush in the GSL, years from now? Not while they continue to happen with such regularity, I think. And the reason they happen so often is that they are insufficiently risky. Anyone following the major competitions over the past weeks will recall at least one if not several instances where the remainder of the game was an embarrassing if not humiliating formality. Which is precisely what it should be when cheese succeeds. But it should also be true - or at least highly likely - when it fails, and I for one cannot think of a single example of that. If cheese is a rare delicacy, then clawing back a victory after executing a failed cheese ought to be the stuff of legend. Analysis:The problem is that a Zerg's margin of opportunity versus a bunker rush is, being charitable, slim. Typically the Zerg has gone 15-hatch. Of particular importance is the timing of creep spread and spine crawlers at the natural to fend off slightly later, more robust aggression funded by MULEs and a full complement of SCVs. It is not economic cheese: it is what Zergs do to keep pace with builds a Terran can choose to execute in complete safety. That does not mean I think Zergs should have carte blanche to 15 hatch in complete safety. Bunker rushes should be a viable cheese. In order to fend off a bunker rush, the Zerg must compromise his intended economic focus and make lings. This, too, is perfectly right and proper. However, when we look at the spectrum of possible outcomes they disproportionately favour the Terran. Towards one extreme the Zerg handles things terribly, loses a bunch of drones and lings, a queen, and his expansion. GG. Fine. But what does the other extreme look like? I don't know if it's realistic to expect a Zerg not to lose any drones, but he's certainly going to lose mining time on a good number of drones, potential drones to ling production at the precise time he's trying to catch up in workers after taking the expansion, and probably a couple of lings too. That's 'best case' for Zerg. The Terran has also suffered economically, of course: lost mining time on a couple of SCVs, plus one or more marines and a bunker. However, it is unlikely his loss could be considered more debilitating: he has prevented the Zerg from catching up to his SCV+MULE income at a critical low-economy point in the game. And so the game proceeds with no clear advantage gained on either side. At no point is the Terran in danger of losing the game outright, and realistically there is no way of imposing such a risk. I therefore propose that such early barracks aggression should represent a greater economic deviation from the norm, thus widening the margin by which a Zerg who handles the situation perfectly can come out ahead. Solution:1. Increase Orbital build time and/or reduce Orbital starting energy AND 2. Make the Command Centre capable of constructing SCVs (possibly at a reduced rate) while upgrading to an Orbital The goal is for the economic potential of the Terran over the early game to be more or less unchanged, provided he spends resources on SCVs during the Orbital upgrade process. Cutting SCVs to produce constantly out of two barracks and build bunkers introduces an inherent economic penalty, broadening the margin of advantage the Zerg enjoys upon a successful deflection and consequently repositioning the strategy as a high-risk, high-reward cheese play. The proposed change is eminently tweakable. The upgrade time, the rate of SCV production while upgrading, and the amount of starting energy of the Orbital can all be adjusted to yield the desired final economy and economic penalty for aggression. Side Effects:After scratching my head for some time, I decided this is where you guys come in Fire away! Edit: This does delay the earliest possible Terran scan, but I can't see that being terribly significant. This is a very good post. The problem with Terran early game is that they seem to be impervious to counterattacks after cheesing. I think David Kim even made a statement that all these terran openings are "problematic" and they're looking to address them in the future, if latest HotS. Not to be a downer but the game design has favored Terran so much, and with everyone getting better and better, I don't ever see a code S final without a Terran in it....ever.
Totally agree with this. Terran opening vs zerg are depressingly imbalanced
Hellion Spam
Worst Scenerio - Miss micro one little thing and loose all your drones
Best Case - Repel with lings and a spine crawler (this will never ever happen if terran micros properly)
2 rax bunker rush
Worst Case - Let the bunker get up and loose your expo therefore loosing the game
Best Case - Spot the bunker, pull drones (loosing mining time), micro well and force a retreat. Terran has probably expanded though and you are slightly behind
Hellion drops
Worst Case - Similar to Hellion Spam
Best Case - Terran looses 4 hellions to bad micro and you get a slight eco advantage. (But terran has all his tech up already).
Terran early game is so confusing, no race should have that many strats with much to gain and little to lose. Then after the early game THE MULES KICK IN AND THE SHIT REALLY HITS THE FAN.
|
There's something weird with this graph, while I understand that Protoss is getting those results in regards to the hard time they have in both PvZ and PvT, the results are actually the worse in ZvT?
I don't remember seing zerg struggle THAT hard against terran.
|
On October 14 2011 23:44 NeonFox wrote:There's something weird with this graph, while I understand that Protoss is getting those results in regards to the hard time they have in both PvZ and PvT, the results are actually the worse in ZvT? I don't remember seing zerg struggle THAT hard against terran.
TvP is imbalanced because of EMP's
TvZ is imbalanced because of rediculous terran openings
ZvP seems to favour Z lately but im unsure why.
Im just completely unsure how blizzard is going to deal with this...
|
On October 14 2011 23:49 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 23:44 NeonFox wrote:There's something weird with this graph, while I understand that Protoss is getting those results in regards to the hard time they have in both PvZ and PvT, the results are actually the worse in ZvT? I don't remember seing zerg struggle THAT hard against terran. TvP is imbalanced because of EMP's TvZ is imbalanced because of rediculous terran openings ZvP seems to favour Z lately but im unsure why. Im just completely unsure how blizzard is going to deal with this...
ZvP - Zerg has figured out all Protoss openings and gains an advantage going into the midgame. Then, when Infestors pop out and eventually Broodlords come out Zerg has a far better deathball.
|
On October 14 2011 23:49 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 23:44 NeonFox wrote:There's something weird with this graph, while I understand that Protoss is getting those results in regards to the hard time they have in both PvZ and PvT, the results are actually the worse in ZvT? I don't remember seing zerg struggle THAT hard against terran. TvP is imbalanced because of EMP's TvZ is imbalanced because of rediculous terran openings ZvP seems to favour Z lately but im unsure why. Im just completely unsure how blizzard is going to deal with this...
I think ZvP is an economy thing. Protoss has an insanely hard time stopping a Zerg's economy from getting out of hand. I've seen way too many ZvP's that were basically just the Zerg saturating 3 bases then swamping a 2 base Protoss with Roaches, and the Protoss has nothing but Photon Cannons and a bunch of air units that didn't pay for themselves.
|
On October 14 2011 23:59 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 23:49 Cain0 wrote:On October 14 2011 23:44 NeonFox wrote:There's something weird with this graph, while I understand that Protoss is getting those results in regards to the hard time they have in both PvZ and PvT, the results are actually the worse in ZvT? I don't remember seing zerg struggle THAT hard against terran. TvP is imbalanced because of EMP's TvZ is imbalanced because of rediculous terran openings ZvP seems to favour Z lately but im unsure why. Im just completely unsure how blizzard is going to deal with this... ZvP - Zerg has figured out all Protoss openings and gains an advantage going into the midgame. Then, when Infestors pop out and eventually Broodlords come out Zerg has a far better deathball.
I don't agree with the far better deathball, zerg may have a better deathball because of the advantage they get in the midgame, but an optimal protoss deathball will beat an optimal zerg deathball imo. The thing is that nowadays protoss can't get to that point because they are far behind in economy.
The main difference in regards to ZvT and ZvP is all based around scouting. Against an FFE build I cn sacrifice an overlord at the 7:00mn mark, coupled with another overlord watching the natural gasses, I know what the protoss will do and will prepare against it. And I feel that gives me an unfair advantage into the midgame.
ZvT is the exact opposite, I have no idea what the terran is doing until overseers and sacrificing overlords doesn't work against a competent terran.
A way to equilibrate ZvP would be to have some way for protoss to kill those scouting overlords faster, but I have no idea how.
|
The new Terran unit silhouette is intriguing me greatly, actually.
I have my fingers crossed that it uses the flamethrower in 'walker' mode and a different weapon while driving around. That would mean it would have the mobility needed to exert map control and nip into bases, but would need to transform, and thus become slower moving, to leverage its +light damage splash attack, making positioning and micro far more important when trying to corner fleeing workers.
It would also mean that a 1-food hatch-tech hydra wouldn't be entirely laughable: it would be able to kite the +damage but slower-moving walker form on creep, and face off against the faster vehicle form.
Edit: That would also tie in with the appearance of the Zerg silhouette, which seems to be a morph of a hydralisk - which (conventionally) makes the most sense hatch -> lair rather than lair -> hive.
|
On October 15 2011 00:21 NeonFox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 23:59 SeaSwift wrote:On October 14 2011 23:49 Cain0 wrote:On October 14 2011 23:44 NeonFox wrote:There's something weird with this graph, while I understand that Protoss is getting those results in regards to the hard time they have in both PvZ and PvT, the results are actually the worse in ZvT? I don't remember seing zerg struggle THAT hard against terran. TvP is imbalanced because of EMP's TvZ is imbalanced because of rediculous terran openings ZvP seems to favour Z lately but im unsure why. Im just completely unsure how blizzard is going to deal with this... ZvP - Zerg has figured out all Protoss openings and gains an advantage going into the midgame. Then, when Infestors pop out and eventually Broodlords come out Zerg has a far better deathball. I don't agree with the far better deathball, zerg may have a better deathball because of the advantage they get in the midgame, but an optimal protoss deathball will beat an optimal zerg deathball imo. The thing is that nowadays protoss can't get to that point because they are far behind in economy.
As a protoss player I personally agree with this - I still believe that a 200/200 protoss deathball is better than that of zergs, but like you say, protoss being so far behind all the time in midgame is the problem right now. In GSL games you often see the zerg at max supply when the toss is only around 130'ish, with an inferior economy as well, even though protoss units are generally more supply efficient, they can't really keep up if the zerg applies proper constant aggression.
|
On October 14 2011 23:59 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 23:49 Cain0 wrote:On October 14 2011 23:44 NeonFox wrote:There's something weird with this graph, while I understand that Protoss is getting those results in regards to the hard time they have in both PvZ and PvT, the results are actually the worse in ZvT? I don't remember seing zerg struggle THAT hard against terran. TvP is imbalanced because of EMP's TvZ is imbalanced because of rediculous terran openings ZvP seems to favour Z lately but im unsure why. Im just completely unsure how blizzard is going to deal with this... ZvP - Zerg has figured out all Protoss openings and gains an advantage going into the midgame. Then, when Infestors pop out and eventually Broodlords come out Zerg has a far better deathball.
I don't disagree, but it would be a mistake to think the late game is the problem. Zerg is now able to capitalize on a big mid game advantage, which it couldn't do before. But if they get a big advantage it's normal that they win.
I think the real problem of Protoss vs Zerg is that whatever they do, they seem to have to commit to it (at least in the current metagame). Whether it is gateway aggression, stargate, DTs, turtle style... it feels like if the Zerg knows what's up he should win (and I say this while ZvP is by far my worst matchup). That's why I think warp prisms and zealot pokes are a great evolution for the matchup. Protoss needs aggression that isn't de facto all-in.
|
Hmm, looks like TvZ is ridiculously imbalanced, while TvP is getting better. Wonder why there isn't more outcry about TvZ. I guess because we are all tired and know that Blizzard won't really nerf terran.
|
On October 15 2011 00:21 NeonFox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 23:59 SeaSwift wrote:On October 14 2011 23:49 Cain0 wrote:On October 14 2011 23:44 NeonFox wrote:There's something weird with this graph, while I understand that Protoss is getting those results in regards to the hard time they have in both PvZ and PvT, the results are actually the worse in ZvT? I don't remember seing zerg struggle THAT hard against terran. TvP is imbalanced because of EMP's TvZ is imbalanced because of rediculous terran openings ZvP seems to favour Z lately but im unsure why. Im just completely unsure how blizzard is going to deal with this... ZvP - Zerg has figured out all Protoss openings and gains an advantage going into the midgame. Then, when Infestors pop out and eventually Broodlords come out Zerg has a far better deathball. I don't agree with the far better deathball, zerg may have a better deathball because of the advantage they get in the midgame, but an optimal protoss deathball will beat an optimal zerg deathball imo. The thing is that nowadays protoss can't get to that point because they are far behind in economy. The main difference in regards to ZvT and ZvP is all based around scouting. Against an FFE build I cn sacrifice an overlord at the 7:00mn mark, coupled with another overlord watching the natural gasses, I know what the protoss will do and will prepare against it. And I feel that gives me an unfair advantage into the midgame. ZvT is the exact opposite, I have no idea what the terran is doing until overseers and sacrificing overlords doesn't work against a competent terran. A way to equilibrate ZvP would be to have some way for protoss to kill those scouting overlords faster, but I have no idea how.
Infestor/BL beats any P deathball combo of equal resource value hands down.
|
On October 15 2011 00:49 KimJongChill wrote:Hmm, looks like TvZ is ridiculously imbalanced, while TvP is getting better. Wonder why there isn't more outcry about TvZ. I guess because we are all tired and know that Blizzard won't really nerf terran.
A lot (and I mean a lot) of those wins were because of 2 rax though, and 1.4 stats which essentially eliminated non proxy 2 rax would only be entered in october. The two rax and blue flame helion nerf should actually help a lot in TvZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
