|
On April 10 2012 01:17 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 01:09 da_head wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god. Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement. Stalkers do more DPS than roaches and have 33% more range to deal that damage with. As far as the muta comparison, I never said they were more mobile, I said they are about 90% as mobile. They DO however have 1 base armor, 2x the range, 40 more health and equal/higher DPS. Oh yeah, they scale better with upgrades too. The funny part is that you try to justify the difference by calling Mutas a "harassing unit" and somehow think that makes everything ok. Maybe Stalkers should have their stats reduced because they can harass too...
Are you being serious right now? No fuckin shit stalkers have more dps. They cost 125/50 vs 72/25. That's why i said they're COST INEFFECTIVE. Cost for cost roaches demolish stalkers. The only way stalkers become somewhat more cost effective is with good forcefields and blink.
Also, given the nature of zerg's play (due to lings and larva inject), zerg's attain early game map control and are always up one base vs toss. Therefore, arguing that mutas cost more is irrelevant because you're supposed to be up a base anyways. Zerg has always had the least cost efficient units in the game (i.e. bw). The fact that you're directly comparing mutas to stalkers anyways is nonsensical as their counterpart is the roach.
Now back to what I said about cost efficiency. Roaches are MORE cost effective than stalkers (referring to early mid game here) and yet due to zerg's design, they're always up one base. Wait so, you can get more cost effective units, AND you have more money to build them?! (note: this also applies true to rines/rauders + mules)
Hence, why zerg's can max out at 12 mins while toss is sitting at a measly 120 supply. It doesnt matter that we have things that "counter" roaches (i.e. immortals, ff, and blink), a 80 supply deficit is very difficult to overcome. Reasons why toss' dont' always autolose to this is: easy to defend third's on some maps, perfect micro, or blindly went for extra immortals. Also, dont even suggest trying to pressure the zerg before he maxes out, because time and time again that has proved to be useless.
And this leads into another problem a few other people have pointed out. You're sitting at 6 gas at this point with lair tech. You max out at 12. Toss blind counters your roaches with a ton of immortals and sentries. You trade decently (instead of out righting killing the toss). He's forced to rebuild immortals and sentries, and what do you do? Tech switch to muta. As toss is scrambling to get a ton of stalkers out, zerg is free to do w/e he wants at this point.. (take two more bases and go up to bl, continue pressure on third, get infestors and go for huge ling muta play, etc etc)
But please, tell me how good stalkers are again?
|
@da_head
Don't quote BW for your balance argument. Lings were hands down THE MOST cost effective unit in that whole game.
I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but that comment is just horrible and shows you're talking out of your ass.
|
On April 10 2012 01:19 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 00:56 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 00:42 david0925 wrote:
So do people have any ideas to buff Terran at lower level without making them overpowered at professional level?
Or are we just bitching for the sake of bitching?
We "could" increase marine HP and lower their DPS, but would you really want that. (as an example)
If you want to adjust a race's weakness at lower level without making them ridiculous at higher level you have to adjust the race's attributes that makes it so, not nerfing the other 2 races. The answer has always been simple, make marines less good and buff in other areas. Siege tanks and ravens could both use meaningful buffs without ruining any MU right now. Better hellions would be nice so long as they could somehow avoid the worker rape. Essentially, you balance out the skill curve on Terran by removing their massive micro potential and bring them in line with the rest of the game. Hell no, that is the single worst suggestion in the history of SC2. Terrans don't need to be nerfed to be put on foot with the rest of the races, the rest of the races need to be given micro potential to be on the same level of difficulty as terran. That suggestion is idiotic, it reduces the depth of the game, by reducing micro potential. The real culprits are FG and FF, because they really reduce micro potential. Once they are cast it limits the in combat options you have. I'd rather them be removed and the two races rebalanced to produce more micro potential. As for your other issues like Stalkers I think its more a learn to play issue rather then a balance issue. I see pro players handle toss pushes well enough if they engage in the right places and force the toss to waste FF. A typical toss push will involve 10 sentries with either mass blink stalkers or 3-4 immortals. The key is to engage the toss early before he reaches the base of the zerg, and do it in open areas, do it as many times as possible until his FF are spent, then you can go in, flank and he will die. No amount of blink micro can help against speed roaches that outnumber the toss army 2-3 times. If you are struggling versus blink stalkers with roaches then you either over droned and couldn't pump out enough roaches in time to hold, your injects where terrible and you didn't have the larva to reinforce, or you failed to hold in one of his light pressures, lost too many drones and the follow up killed you. You also don't understand how mutas work. Mutas are a bulk units, they become stronger and stronger the more you have, mostly due to bounce of the attack. Stalkers have nothing on mutas, they need sight to blink up cliffs and they move pathetically slow compared to mutas, which can dart around the map and cause serious damage. Mutas can go into a base, do damage and fly out quickly. Stalkers if they blink in, they can't go out for another 10 seconds, that's the perfect time to pounce and kill them, provided you have roaches and also some lings in position (which you should if you know he has blink, and because you have overlords to watch them come). It's just that now a days Protoss have learned better how to defend against mutas, leave cannons and HT behind and thus minimize economic damage. It doesn't mean mutas aren't good, if you give them an opening they will tear you apart and can put you on the back foot so much it is hard to recover. Edit: Hilarious, stalkers actually scale terribly with upgrades compared to roaches. A stalker only gets +1 attack from weapons upgrade while a roach gets + 2 attack per upgrade. And armor upgrades are only half as effective for stalkers, because shield upgrades don't come into the game until late game. Also, a stalker has a base damage of 10 (14 vs armored), 1.44 attack speed, roach has 145 HP and 1 base armor, that means that it takes 12 shots for a stalker to kill a roach. A roach has 16 damage and 2 sec attack speed, it takes only 11 shots to kill a stalker. After they get 1 attack upgrade it only takes 10 shots to kill a stalker, even with 1 armor upgrade, because roach will do 18 damage, while a stalker will only have 2 armor. So the faster attack speed of stalkers and range is counter-acted somewhat by the high damage and high speed of roaches themselves. 1 Stalker costs as much as 2 roaches, if you inject correctly you should always be able to overwhelm a stalker force.
You sir are a boss and deserve even the respect of david kim
|
@da_head
Now that I've read your post, I still don't see anything relevant to my argument in there. You talk about 2 base timings and early-mid game and all that is fine and dandy but I really don't give a shit.
I am talking about LATE game where both races are already at 200 supply and cost-effectiveness isn't nearly as important as supply-effectiveness.
I'm not suggesting 6 range roaches from the get-go, that would be stupid. But 6 range roaches at hive tech makes a lot of sense, and I have yet to see a single counter argument against it that is grounded in reality.
|
On April 10 2012 05:52 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 05:39 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 04:36 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:26 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
If roaches aren't supposed to counter Stalkers, or at least be able to trade cost-effectively, I don't even know what to say... We must not be playing the same game. They cost essentially half as much. You find me a scenario where 1 Stalker beats 2 Roaches and I'll believe you. Reading comprehension bro, get some... I'm saying roaches DO counter Stalkers and it SHOULD be that way. The problem is that once blink comes into play, all this goes out the window. While that is fine for timing attacks and such, roaches should have a +2 range upgrade to put them back on top of that exchange because between supply caps, range differences, and blink, roaches don't stand a chance. Forgetting the fact that phoenixes cannot attach builds or massive ground units, the idea that roaches should shoot as far as marauders or stalkers is just silly. Roaches are dirt cheap and an + 2 range upgrade would allow zerg to simply build roaches for the entire game. There is a reason they have such short rannge The number of problems it would create for PvZ would amazing, but it would also mess up TvZ in ways I cannot even begin to understand. Roaches would outrange marines. That would not be ok. I highly doubt 6 range roaches at hive tech would have any serious effect on ZvT. I have been using roaches in that MU a lot longer than most, and they're not desired for their leet deeps. You get a few of them to eat tank shots and that's about it. 3/3 stimmed marines with medivac and tank/marauder support should have little concern with 6 range roaches. I for one, would not bother with roach range in this theoretical scenario.
I think the effect would be world changing for all match ups. Roachs are the half the cost of a stalker and only cost 25/25 more than a marine. Supply wise, they would be amazing for the range, speed, upgrades, damage and HP when compaired to marines and marauders. There is a reason their range is 4.
But it is pretty clear are having issues with PvZ or some other match up. I don't really think these suggestions are sensable or reasonable. The professional zergs are doing in both match ups and there are builds and styles out there than can deal with all the issues you have brought up.
|
On April 10 2012 02:10 JacobShock wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 02:07 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 01:17 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:09 da_head wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god. Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement. Stalkers do more DPS than roaches and have 33% more range to deal that damage with. As far as the muta comparison, I never said they were more mobile, I said they are about 90% as mobile. They DO however have 1 base armor, 2x the range, 40 more health and equal/higher DPS. Oh yeah, they scale better with upgrades too. The funny part is that you try to justify the difference by calling Mutas a "harassing unit" and somehow think that makes everything ok. Maybe Stalkers should have their stats reduced because they can harass too... But the stalker does have bad stats for straight up fights because of their mobility already... Roaches will absolutely tear stalkers apart in a straight up fight, that's why you have to blink micro and use forcefields to have a fighting chance. So yeah what are you even talking about? What you're asking for is already in the game. Go throw an equal amount of roaches and stalkers in a unit tester right now. I beg you.
Lol you're retarded. i beg you thrown 1000 drones vs and equal amount of collosus
User was warned for this post
|
On April 10 2012 06:08 meltingmykohchoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 01:19 Destructicon wrote:On April 10 2012 00:56 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 00:42 david0925 wrote:
So do people have any ideas to buff Terran at lower level without making them overpowered at professional level?
Or are we just bitching for the sake of bitching?
We "could" increase marine HP and lower their DPS, but would you really want that. (as an example)
If you want to adjust a race's weakness at lower level without making them ridiculous at higher level you have to adjust the race's attributes that makes it so, not nerfing the other 2 races. The answer has always been simple, make marines less good and buff in other areas. Siege tanks and ravens could both use meaningful buffs without ruining any MU right now. Better hellions would be nice so long as they could somehow avoid the worker rape. Essentially, you balance out the skill curve on Terran by removing their massive micro potential and bring them in line with the rest of the game. Hell no, that is the single worst suggestion in the history of SC2. Terrans don't need to be nerfed to be put on foot with the rest of the races, the rest of the races need to be given micro potential to be on the same level of difficulty as terran. That suggestion is idiotic, it reduces the depth of the game, by reducing micro potential. The real culprits are FG and FF, because they really reduce micro potential. Once they are cast it limits the in combat options you have. I'd rather them be removed and the two races rebalanced to produce more micro potential. As for your other issues like Stalkers I think its more a learn to play issue rather then a balance issue. I see pro players handle toss pushes well enough if they engage in the right places and force the toss to waste FF. A typical toss push will involve 10 sentries with either mass blink stalkers or 3-4 immortals. The key is to engage the toss early before he reaches the base of the zerg, and do it in open areas, do it as many times as possible until his FF are spent, then you can go in, flank and he will die. No amount of blink micro can help against speed roaches that outnumber the toss army 2-3 times. If you are struggling versus blink stalkers with roaches then you either over droned and couldn't pump out enough roaches in time to hold, your injects where terrible and you didn't have the larva to reinforce, or you failed to hold in one of his light pressures, lost too many drones and the follow up killed you. You also don't understand how mutas work. Mutas are a bulk units, they become stronger and stronger the more you have, mostly due to bounce of the attack. Stalkers have nothing on mutas, they need sight to blink up cliffs and they move pathetically slow compared to mutas, which can dart around the map and cause serious damage. Mutas can go into a base, do damage and fly out quickly. Stalkers if they blink in, they can't go out for another 10 seconds, that's the perfect time to pounce and kill them, provided you have roaches and also some lings in position (which you should if you know he has blink, and because you have overlords to watch them come). It's just that now a days Protoss have learned better how to defend against mutas, leave cannons and HT behind and thus minimize economic damage. It doesn't mean mutas aren't good, if you give them an opening they will tear you apart and can put you on the back foot so much it is hard to recover. Edit: Hilarious, stalkers actually scale terribly with upgrades compared to roaches. A stalker only gets +1 attack from weapons upgrade while a roach gets + 2 attack per upgrade. And armor upgrades are only half as effective for stalkers, because shield upgrades don't come into the game until late game. Also, a stalker has a base damage of 10 (14 vs armored), 1.44 attack speed, roach has 145 HP and 1 base armor, that means that it takes 12 shots for a stalker to kill a roach. A roach has 16 damage and 2 sec attack speed, it takes only 11 shots to kill a stalker. After they get 1 attack upgrade it only takes 10 shots to kill a stalker, even with 1 armor upgrade, because roach will do 18 damage, while a stalker will only have 2 armor. So the faster attack speed of stalkers and range is counter-acted somewhat by the high damage and high speed of roaches themselves. 1 Stalker costs as much as 2 roaches, if you inject correctly you should always be able to overwhelm a stalker force. You sir are a boss and deserve even the respect of david kim
na he is not. though i agree with his basic argument that they should straight up increase the micro potential of some units in the game, a lot of his statements are simply untrue.
Fungals for example are way less micro reducing then 13range siege tanks. Why do zergs crash blings into whatever is in their way? because it is better to just sacrife them on the tank/marauder then to let 5 of them die without doing any damage at all to anything. The list of "microreducing" stuff in the game is long and most of it is in the Terran arsenal, hidden behind insane dps, range and microability that prevents the other races micro to become even half as useful as theirs.
also zhr thing with mutas... theit bounce doesnt add up at all. once there are >3 enemys, every bounce hits no matter what. thry get better in masses because they are mobile flyers that can choose weak targets and simply have less diwntime than rather inactive units, but statswise and in battles they sum up extremly poorly.
and yeah, roaches are pretty costefficient, but with blinkmicro alone even cost stalkers become pretty even.
|
On April 10 2012 06:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 05:52 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 05:39 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 04:36 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:26 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
If roaches aren't supposed to counter Stalkers, or at least be able to trade cost-effectively, I don't even know what to say... We must not be playing the same game. They cost essentially half as much. You find me a scenario where 1 Stalker beats 2 Roaches and I'll believe you. Reading comprehension bro, get some... I'm saying roaches DO counter Stalkers and it SHOULD be that way. The problem is that once blink comes into play, all this goes out the window. While that is fine for timing attacks and such, roaches should have a +2 range upgrade to put them back on top of that exchange because between supply caps, range differences, and blink, roaches don't stand a chance. Forgetting the fact that phoenixes cannot attach builds or massive ground units, the idea that roaches should shoot as far as marauders or stalkers is just silly. Roaches are dirt cheap and an + 2 range upgrade would allow zerg to simply build roaches for the entire game. There is a reason they have such short rannge The number of problems it would create for PvZ would amazing, but it would also mess up TvZ in ways I cannot even begin to understand. Roaches would outrange marines. That would not be ok. I highly doubt 6 range roaches at hive tech would have any serious effect on ZvT. I have been using roaches in that MU a lot longer than most, and they're not desired for their leet deeps. You get a few of them to eat tank shots and that's about it. 3/3 stimmed marines with medivac and tank/marauder support should have little concern with 6 range roaches. I for one, would not bother with roach range in this theoretical scenario. I think the effect would be world changing for all match ups. Roachs are the half the cost of a stalker and only cost 25/25 more than a marine. Supply wise, they would be amazing for the range, speed, upgrades, damage and HP when compaired to marines and marauders. There is a reason their range is 4. But it is pretty clear are having issues with PvZ or some other match up. I don't really think these suggestions are sensable or reasonable. The professional zergs are doing in both match ups and there are builds and styles out there than can deal with all the issues you have brought up.
Hey thanks bro, you know me so well...
Maybe we can get together sometime and you can teach me a thing or two about how to bring up irrelevant shit.
Anyway, let's talk about the possibility of 6 range roaches in ZvT and why I would never take them over Ultras.
Lings already do significantly more damage than Roaches assuming they don't die immediately and can connect with their targets (why they're useless in ZvP).
Roaches don't actually do anything for me that Ultras wouldn't do better AND they require a whole other upgrade line in order to remain effective in late game scenarios. So now, you're talking 100/100 for the speed, and 450/450 for the ranged attack upgrade. That's 2 more Broodlords or 3 more ultras I could have had.
As I said before, the only use for Roaches in the ZvT MU is to eat tank shots... Well, ultras do that better too.
When a roach gets shot, the 2 or 3 lings charging up all around it are going to take some splash damage. When an Ultra gets shot, that tank shell might as well have been 50 damage to a single unit because its not going to do shit to anything else.
Ultras give me more room for transfuse, and their splash damage makes them significantly better vs marines.
Both ultras and roaches are going to eat shit vs marauders.
Now mech... I guess maybe roaches would be better against a lot of those 2 base all-ins but I hardly consider that solid play if you are relying on a 2 base push to kill Zerg before his hive tech is ready and have no plan beyond that. Besides, that push is designed to hit BEFORE hive tech, so sounds good there... Given the current way the game plays, it is much more sound to rely on bio ealry and transition into mech as the game goes on after you've secured your 3rd anyway. I hardly consider that one instance problematic.
|
On April 10 2012 06:39 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:21 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 05:52 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 05:39 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 04:36 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:26 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
If roaches aren't supposed to counter Stalkers, or at least be able to trade cost-effectively, I don't even know what to say... We must not be playing the same game. They cost essentially half as much. You find me a scenario where 1 Stalker beats 2 Roaches and I'll believe you. Reading comprehension bro, get some... I'm saying roaches DO counter Stalkers and it SHOULD be that way. The problem is that once blink comes into play, all this goes out the window. While that is fine for timing attacks and such, roaches should have a +2 range upgrade to put them back on top of that exchange because between supply caps, range differences, and blink, roaches don't stand a chance. Forgetting the fact that phoenixes cannot attach builds or massive ground units, the idea that roaches should shoot as far as marauders or stalkers is just silly. Roaches are dirt cheap and an + 2 range upgrade would allow zerg to simply build roaches for the entire game. There is a reason they have such short rannge The number of problems it would create for PvZ would amazing, but it would also mess up TvZ in ways I cannot even begin to understand. Roaches would outrange marines. That would not be ok. I highly doubt 6 range roaches at hive tech would have any serious effect on ZvT. I have been using roaches in that MU a lot longer than most, and they're not desired for their leet deeps. You get a few of them to eat tank shots and that's about it. 3/3 stimmed marines with medivac and tank/marauder support should have little concern with 6 range roaches. I for one, would not bother with roach range in this theoretical scenario. I think the effect would be world changing for all match ups. Roachs are the half the cost of a stalker and only cost 25/25 more than a marine. Supply wise, they would be amazing for the range, speed, upgrades, damage and HP when compaired to marines and marauders. There is a reason their range is 4. But it is pretty clear are having issues with PvZ or some other match up. I don't really think these suggestions are sensable or reasonable. The professional zergs are doing in both match ups and there are builds and styles out there than can deal with all the issues you have brought up. Hey thanks bro, you know me so well... Maybe we can get together sometime and you can teach me a thing or two about how to bring up irrelevant shit. Anyway, let's talk about the possibility of 6 range roaches in ZvT and why I would never take them over Ultras. Lings already do significantly more damage than Roaches assuming they don't die immediately and can connect with their targets (why they're useless in ZvP). Roaches don't actually do anything for me that Ultras wouldn't do better AND they require a whole other upgrade line in order to remain effective in late game scenarios. So now, you're talking 100/100 for the speed, and 450/450 for the ranged attack upgrade. That's 2 more Broodlords or 3 more ultras I could have had. As I said before, the only use for Roaches in the ZvT MU is to eat tank shots... Well, ultras do that better too. When a roach gets shot, the 2 or 3 lings charging up all around it are going to take some splash damage. When an Ultra gets shot, that tank shell might as well have been 50 damage to a single unit because its not going to do shit to anything else. Ultras give me more room for transfuse, and their splash damage makes them significantly better vs marines. Both ultras and roaches are going to eat shit vs marauders. Now mech... I guess maybe roaches would be better against a lot of those 2 base all-ins but I hardly consider that solid play if you are relying on a 2 base push to kill Zerg before his hive tech is ready and have no plan beyond that. Besides, that push is designed to hit BEFORE hive tech, so sounds good there... Given the current way the game plays, it is much more sound to rely on bio ealry and transition into mech as the game goes on after you've secured your 3rd anyway. I hardly consider that one instance problematic.
But most of the professional zergs are having no problems with either match up. (with the exception of Koreans vs protoss). Why would zerg need a buff they there do not appear to be having issues winning? The late game is already robust enough, with tech switchs and caster use. I don't see how zerg requires a late game upgrade when they already have a developed late game.
|
On April 10 2012 04:55 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 04:41 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:36 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:26 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
If roaches aren't supposed to counter Stalkers, or at least be able to trade cost-effectively, I don't even know what to say... We must not be playing the same game. They cost essentially half as much. You find me a scenario where 1 Stalker beats 2 Roaches and I'll believe you. Reading comprehension bro, get some... I'm saying roaches DO counter Stalkers and it SHOULD be that way. The problem is that once blink comes into play, all this goes out the window. While that is fine for timing attacks and such, roaches should have a +2 range upgrade to put them back on top of that exchange because between supply caps, range differences, and blink, roaches don't stand a chance. Lings already do just fine against non-blink Stalkers. If anything, Protoss are the ones without any real offensive Gateway options against large Roach armies. That's why you see us resorting to Immortals or fast Blink plays. Honestly, it just seems like you want to be able to build a unit and then just write off another unit for the rest of the game. This is Starcraft and it doesn't work that way. Never thought I'd see the day someone complains about the Roach being too weak against Toss. Alright, now work on keeping the argument on topic. I am talking about LATE GAME BLINK STALKERS being too mobile while simultaneously acting as the meat to the Protoss deathballs. The phoenix was given a +2 upgrade at the fleet beacon to deal with the harass that Mutas are capable of in the late-game. I am simply stating that Zerg should have a similar upgrade to deal with the Stalkers. What's good for goose is good for the gander.
Spine Crawlers.
Infestors.
Creep Spread.
All of these things will either kill Stalkers or allow you to murder any Protoss stupid enough to send 20 Blink stalkers at a hatchery.
|
I like the theoretical balance discussions as much as the next guy, but at some point you have to realise you're just going around in circles.
1 unit cannot be compared to 1 unit. With the latest debate of stalker vs roach the point is meaningless. They were never meant to be balanced against each other. The races are meant to be balanced. For example: stalker + zealot vs roach is much worse than roach + zergling vs stalker. So this must be taken into account when discussing the balance between these 2 units, as does strength of upgrades, scaling, synergy, micro-ability, etc. No 2 units can be directly compared in terms of balance. This is like complaining rock is too strong if you play scissors.
If a unit is too weak or too strong in a given match-up that is where balance discussions come in. Are roaches too weak? Maybe, maybe not, but comparing them to 1 unit is not reason enough to buff them.
Carriers on the other hand...
|
On April 10 2012 06:49 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 04:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:41 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:36 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:26 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
If roaches aren't supposed to counter Stalkers, or at least be able to trade cost-effectively, I don't even know what to say... We must not be playing the same game. They cost essentially half as much. You find me a scenario where 1 Stalker beats 2 Roaches and I'll believe you. Reading comprehension bro, get some... I'm saying roaches DO counter Stalkers and it SHOULD be that way. The problem is that once blink comes into play, all this goes out the window. While that is fine for timing attacks and such, roaches should have a +2 range upgrade to put them back on top of that exchange because between supply caps, range differences, and blink, roaches don't stand a chance. Lings already do just fine against non-blink Stalkers. If anything, Protoss are the ones without any real offensive Gateway options against large Roach armies. That's why you see us resorting to Immortals or fast Blink plays. Honestly, it just seems like you want to be able to build a unit and then just write off another unit for the rest of the game. This is Starcraft and it doesn't work that way. Never thought I'd see the day someone complains about the Roach being too weak against Toss. Alright, now work on keeping the argument on topic. I am talking about LATE GAME BLINK STALKERS being too mobile while simultaneously acting as the meat to the Protoss deathballs. The phoenix was given a +2 upgrade at the fleet beacon to deal with the harass that Mutas are capable of in the late-game. I am simply stating that Zerg should have a similar upgrade to deal with the Stalkers. What's good for goose is good for the gander. Spine Crawlers. Infestors. Creep Spread. All of these things will either kill Stalkers or allow you to murder any Protoss stupid enough to send 20 Blink stalkers at a hatchery.
Woot, bringing up other arguments that have already been shot down. Awesome.
It's hard to murder someone when you can't fucking move.
Give me a single Zerg composition that can move out to attack into a Protoss army without creep and 30 spine crawlers already in place.
|
On April 10 2012 06:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:39 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 06:21 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 05:52 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 05:39 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 04:36 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:26 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
If roaches aren't supposed to counter Stalkers, or at least be able to trade cost-effectively, I don't even know what to say... We must not be playing the same game. They cost essentially half as much. You find me a scenario where 1 Stalker beats 2 Roaches and I'll believe you. Reading comprehension bro, get some... I'm saying roaches DO counter Stalkers and it SHOULD be that way. The problem is that once blink comes into play, all this goes out the window. While that is fine for timing attacks and such, roaches should have a +2 range upgrade to put them back on top of that exchange because between supply caps, range differences, and blink, roaches don't stand a chance. Forgetting the fact that phoenixes cannot attach builds or massive ground units, the idea that roaches should shoot as far as marauders or stalkers is just silly. Roaches are dirt cheap and an + 2 range upgrade would allow zerg to simply build roaches for the entire game. There is a reason they have such short rannge The number of problems it would create for PvZ would amazing, but it would also mess up TvZ in ways I cannot even begin to understand. Roaches would outrange marines. That would not be ok. I highly doubt 6 range roaches at hive tech would have any serious effect on ZvT. I have been using roaches in that MU a lot longer than most, and they're not desired for their leet deeps. You get a few of them to eat tank shots and that's about it. 3/3 stimmed marines with medivac and tank/marauder support should have little concern with 6 range roaches. I for one, would not bother with roach range in this theoretical scenario. I think the effect would be world changing for all match ups. Roachs are the half the cost of a stalker and only cost 25/25 more than a marine. Supply wise, they would be amazing for the range, speed, upgrades, damage and HP when compaired to marines and marauders. There is a reason their range is 4. But it is pretty clear are having issues with PvZ or some other match up. I don't really think these suggestions are sensable or reasonable. The professional zergs are doing in both match ups and there are builds and styles out there than can deal with all the issues you have brought up. Hey thanks bro, you know me so well... Maybe we can get together sometime and you can teach me a thing or two about how to bring up irrelevant shit. Anyway, let's talk about the possibility of 6 range roaches in ZvT and why I would never take them over Ultras. Lings already do significantly more damage than Roaches assuming they don't die immediately and can connect with their targets (why they're useless in ZvP). Roaches don't actually do anything for me that Ultras wouldn't do better AND they require a whole other upgrade line in order to remain effective in late game scenarios. So now, you're talking 100/100 for the speed, and 450/450 for the ranged attack upgrade. That's 2 more Broodlords or 3 more ultras I could have had. As I said before, the only use for Roaches in the ZvT MU is to eat tank shots... Well, ultras do that better too. When a roach gets shot, the 2 or 3 lings charging up all around it are going to take some splash damage. When an Ultra gets shot, that tank shell might as well have been 50 damage to a single unit because its not going to do shit to anything else. Ultras give me more room for transfuse, and their splash damage makes them significantly better vs marines. Both ultras and roaches are going to eat shit vs marauders. Now mech... I guess maybe roaches would be better against a lot of those 2 base all-ins but I hardly consider that solid play if you are relying on a 2 base push to kill Zerg before his hive tech is ready and have no plan beyond that. Besides, that push is designed to hit BEFORE hive tech, so sounds good there... Given the current way the game plays, it is much more sound to rely on bio ealry and transition into mech as the game goes on after you've secured your 3rd anyway. I hardly consider that one instance problematic. But most of the professional zergs are having no problems with either match up. (with the exception of Koreans vs protoss). Why would zerg need a buff they there do not appear to be having issues winning? The late game is already robust enough, with tech switchs and caster use. I don't see how zerg requires a late game upgrade when they already have a developed late game.
But he wants to make only roaches! Dont you get it?
Roaches all the way, baby.
/sarcasm
|
On April 10 2012 06:54 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:49 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:41 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:36 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:26 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
If roaches aren't supposed to counter Stalkers, or at least be able to trade cost-effectively, I don't even know what to say... We must not be playing the same game. They cost essentially half as much. You find me a scenario where 1 Stalker beats 2 Roaches and I'll believe you. Reading comprehension bro, get some... I'm saying roaches DO counter Stalkers and it SHOULD be that way. The problem is that once blink comes into play, all this goes out the window. While that is fine for timing attacks and such, roaches should have a +2 range upgrade to put them back on top of that exchange because between supply caps, range differences, and blink, roaches don't stand a chance. Lings already do just fine against non-blink Stalkers. If anything, Protoss are the ones without any real offensive Gateway options against large Roach armies. That's why you see us resorting to Immortals or fast Blink plays. Honestly, it just seems like you want to be able to build a unit and then just write off another unit for the rest of the game. This is Starcraft and it doesn't work that way. Never thought I'd see the day someone complains about the Roach being too weak against Toss. Alright, now work on keeping the argument on topic. I am talking about LATE GAME BLINK STALKERS being too mobile while simultaneously acting as the meat to the Protoss deathballs. The phoenix was given a +2 upgrade at the fleet beacon to deal with the harass that Mutas are capable of in the late-game. I am simply stating that Zerg should have a similar upgrade to deal with the Stalkers. What's good for goose is good for the gander. Spine Crawlers. Infestors. Creep Spread. All of these things will either kill Stalkers or allow you to murder any Protoss stupid enough to send 20 Blink stalkers at a hatchery. Woot, bringing up other arguments that have already been shot down. Awesome. It's hard to murder someone when you can't fucking move. Give me a single Zerg composition that can move out to attack into a Protoss army without creep and 30 spine crawlers already in place.
I can't even fathom how bad you must be at this game.
Do you even watch pro Sc2?
|
On April 10 2012 06:54 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:49 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:41 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:36 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:26 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
If roaches aren't supposed to counter Stalkers, or at least be able to trade cost-effectively, I don't even know what to say... We must not be playing the same game. They cost essentially half as much. You find me a scenario where 1 Stalker beats 2 Roaches and I'll believe you. Reading comprehension bro, get some... I'm saying roaches DO counter Stalkers and it SHOULD be that way. The problem is that once blink comes into play, all this goes out the window. While that is fine for timing attacks and such, roaches should have a +2 range upgrade to put them back on top of that exchange because between supply caps, range differences, and blink, roaches don't stand a chance. Lings already do just fine against non-blink Stalkers. If anything, Protoss are the ones without any real offensive Gateway options against large Roach armies. That's why you see us resorting to Immortals or fast Blink plays. Honestly, it just seems like you want to be able to build a unit and then just write off another unit for the rest of the game. This is Starcraft and it doesn't work that way. Never thought I'd see the day someone complains about the Roach being too weak against Toss. Alright, now work on keeping the argument on topic. I am talking about LATE GAME BLINK STALKERS being too mobile while simultaneously acting as the meat to the Protoss deathballs. The phoenix was given a +2 upgrade at the fleet beacon to deal with the harass that Mutas are capable of in the late-game. I am simply stating that Zerg should have a similar upgrade to deal with the Stalkers. What's good for goose is good for the gander. Spine Crawlers. Infestors. Creep Spread. All of these things will either kill Stalkers or allow you to murder any Protoss stupid enough to send 20 Blink stalkers at a hatchery. Woot, bringing up other arguments that have already been shot down. Awesome. It's hard to murder someone when you can't fucking move. Give me a single Zerg composition that can move out to attack into a Protoss army without creep and 30 spine crawlers already in place.
Winfestor/BL, like I already said. Either the Protoss can try to base trade you (and lose because he's going to be pure Blink Stalkers against BL/Infestor) or he can derp around and lose once you spread your BLs and pray that he lands a Vortex.
Sicne this is "LATE GAME BLINK STALKERS YO" i assume you have enough for this.
|
On April 10 2012 06:53 HobNob wrote:
I like the theoretical balance discussions as much as the next guy, but at some point you have to realise you're just going around in circles.
1 unit cannot be compared to 1 unit. With the latest debate of stalker vs roach the point is meaningless. They were never meant to be balanced against each other. The races are meant to be balanced. For example: stalker + zealot vs roach is much worse than roach + zergling vs stalker. So this must be taken into account when discussing the balance between these 2 units, as does strength of upgrades, scaling, synergy, micro-ability, etc. No 2 units can be directly compared in terms of balance. This is like complaining rock is too strong if you play scissors.
If a unit is too weak or too strong in a given match-up that is where balance discussions come in. Are roaches too weak? Maybe, maybe not, but comparing them to 1 unit is not reason enough to buff them.
Carriers on the other hand...
Carriers are fine, make 1 or 2 after your mothership in PvZ, then make 3 or 4 voids to support them. Now you just forced Zerg to make 15 or so corruptors to deal with your air army. In a match where both sides are constantly supply capped, forcing useless units is quite good I hear especially when you get a +50% supply bonus on your investment.
|
On April 10 2012 06:58 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:53 HobNob wrote:
I like the theoretical balance discussions as much as the next guy, but at some point you have to realise you're just going around in circles.
1 unit cannot be compared to 1 unit. With the latest debate of stalker vs roach the point is meaningless. They were never meant to be balanced against each other. The races are meant to be balanced. For example: stalker + zealot vs roach is much worse than roach + zergling vs stalker. So this must be taken into account when discussing the balance between these 2 units, as does strength of upgrades, scaling, synergy, micro-ability, etc. No 2 units can be directly compared in terms of balance. This is like complaining rock is too strong if you play scissors.
If a unit is too weak or too strong in a given match-up that is where balance discussions come in. Are roaches too weak? Maybe, maybe not, but comparing them to 1 unit is not reason enough to buff them.
Carriers on the other hand...
Carriers are fine, make 1 or 2 after your mothership in PvZ, then make 3 or 4 voids to support them. Now you just forced Zerg to make 15 or so corruptors to deal with your air army. In a match where both sides are constantly supply capped, forcing useless units is quite good I hear especially when you get a +50% supply bonus on your investment.
I think we're being trolled, guys. This guy is complaining about the Roach and saying the Carrier is good.
|
On April 10 2012 06:19 Jermstuddog wrote:
@da_head
Now that I've read your post, I still don't see anything relevant to my argument in there. You talk about 2 base timings and early-mid game and all that is fine and dandy but I really don't give a shit.
I am talking about LATE game where both races are already at 200 supply and cost-effectiveness isn't nearly as important as supply-effectiveness.
I'm not suggesting 6 range roaches from the get-go, that would be stupid. But 6 range roaches at hive tech makes a lot of sense, and I have yet to see a single counter argument against it that is grounded in reality.
Anything relevant to your argument? Ok im going to end it with this post then since you seem to be pretty thick. Firstly, addressing bw cracklings: yep they were pretty fuckin good but when i was talking about cost efficiency, i was referring to the early mid game (that's when muta roach and stalkers are most prevalent and play the biggest role). That's why im referring to 2 base timings and describing the specific timing and roles of the units and how good they are at THAT stage of the game. Why the fuck are you talking about 200/200. You want mutas and roaches to be just as cost effective then? Rofl. Toss has to get tier 3 (read: carrier, collosus, mothership, and hts) to fight zerg, so god forbid your tier 1 and tier 2 isn't effective. I dont know or care if a +2 range upgrade for roaches at the hive level is good for not, but you were comparing stalkers with mutas, and i gave you the break down of their specific interaction. You cannot look at units in a vacuum and complain about x stats vs y cost. It is foolish and a waste of time. If you wanna discuss 200/200 and overall zerg max army efficiency, that's a whole other argument so stay on topic.
On April 10 2012 07:04 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:58 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 06:53 HobNob wrote:
I like the theoretical balance discussions as much as the next guy, but at some point you have to realise you're just going around in circles.
1 unit cannot be compared to 1 unit. With the latest debate of stalker vs roach the point is meaningless. They were never meant to be balanced against each other. The races are meant to be balanced. For example: stalker + zealot vs roach is much worse than roach + zergling vs stalker. So this must be taken into account when discussing the balance between these 2 units, as does strength of upgrades, scaling, synergy, micro-ability, etc. No 2 units can be directly compared in terms of balance. This is like complaining rock is too strong if you play scissors.
If a unit is too weak or too strong in a given match-up that is where balance discussions come in. Are roaches too weak? Maybe, maybe not, but comparing them to 1 unit is not reason enough to buff them.
Carriers on the other hand...
Carriers are fine, make 1 or 2 after your mothership in PvZ, then make 3 or 4 voids to support them. Now you just forced Zerg to make 15 or so corruptors to deal with your air army. In a match where both sides are constantly supply capped, forcing useless units is quite good I hear especially when you get a +50% supply bonus on your investment. I think we're being trolled, guys. This guy is complaining about the Roach and saying the Carrier is good.
i'm heavily inclined to agree with you. This guy seems to be a fountain of zerg tears.
|
On the roach matter,
I find that the biggest issue that most P have is the lack of very early scouting options. Once we have a robo up, the obs covers that, but with FFE, that doesn't come until a little late, and early roach pushes are often hard to scout and very difficult to stop when unscouted. As a result, what about just giving the sentries hallucinate from the get go, and maybe nerf the duration or incrase cost or something along those lines. Would this grossly imbalance the game drastically?
Also, question on late game PvZ: I have some severe trouble with BL/roach/ling/infestor compositions. Mothership and vortex is one way I've dealt, and even then it's hit or miss sometimes. Without it, the only time I win is when my opponent miscontrols or I catch a lucky angle or something. With the mothership being removed in HOTS, what option does toss have? Does anyone think that having a few of the new capitol ships that we are getting will fill this void? The splash damage could take on mass corruptors and then move on to the BL, but I'm not sure this will be viable, given costs and such. Any thoughts?
|
On April 10 2012 06:58 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:53 HobNob wrote:
I like the theoretical balance discussions as much as the next guy, but at some point you have to realise you're just going around in circles.
1 unit cannot be compared to 1 unit. With the latest debate of stalker vs roach the point is meaningless. They were never meant to be balanced against each other. The races are meant to be balanced. For example: stalker + zealot vs roach is much worse than roach + zergling vs stalker. So this must be taken into account when discussing the balance between these 2 units, as does strength of upgrades, scaling, synergy, micro-ability, etc. No 2 units can be directly compared in terms of balance. This is like complaining rock is too strong if you play scissors.
If a unit is too weak or too strong in a given match-up that is where balance discussions come in. Are roaches too weak? Maybe, maybe not, but comparing them to 1 unit is not reason enough to buff them.
Carriers on the other hand...
Carriers are fine, make 1 or 2 after your mothership in PvZ, then make 3 or 4 voids to support them. Now you just forced Zerg to make 15 or so corruptors to deal with your air army. In a match where both sides are constantly supply capped, forcing useless units is quite good I hear especially when you get a +50% supply bonus on your investment.
lol, why are units that kill ur mothership and carriers "useless"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
