|
as zerg i feel like terran can go blue flame hellion and gain map control and possibly deal economical damage without consequence, even if they lose 5-6 hellions they will still be ahead or equals. with map control they can expand easily.
im not saying hellion need a nerf, hell no,,, but how many times i thought i was ahead vs terran because they spent a lot of money into failed harassement, and pushed out feeling like i would get a pretty easy win, but terran were still ahead or equal and a had a strong units ball,,,
if i spend money into mutas and lose them ill be behind, but terran can harass without getting penalized.
and now they started using ghost, muta+bling is now horrible, terran are too much flexible i hope they wont get anything else in HOTS, i wouldnt care if infestor had 2-3second cooldown on fungal as long as terran get nerfed.
this isnt qq`ing, its what i think deep inside, im not raging and calling terran OP when i lose to them, the game is almost perfectly balanced, but we can still improve balance a bit
ps: sorry for my bad english.
|
On August 17 2011 15:53 latan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 09:52 Truedot wrote:On August 17 2011 09:11 latan wrote:
first day playing protoss, i expected to drop down to silver but i've been rolling zergs so far. first day playing zerg, I lost all 5 placement matches. I played terran exclusively in brood war until the last year of it and then went all zerg. played since SC1 before brood war expo. And yet lost 5 placements and my first two bronze matches. ofc, once I started winning I hit gold in 3 days and plat in a week. I have played in all 3 seasons, that was kind of my anecdote, if it can be called that, season 1 i played terran, 2nd as zerg and in this one i'll try to learn protoss. I'm struggling, but i found it interesting that i was able to beat plat zergs the first day i switched to protoss. with zerg it took me a while to get comfortable with the race (dropped from diamond to silver) but i got to a point where i won a big majority of my ZvZs and ZvTs but ZvP was sort of impossible. so naturally i expected a huge drop with protoss but it didin't happen (so far, but im sure i will).
Heh, I played zerg s1/2. Tried toss for the majority of s3 and got to rank 1 plat/low diamond. Then I tried playing terran and easily demolished the same level of opponents, but with almost no experience. It seems like Terran is the easiest to play at a lower level, and just requires basic macro/micro, while as toss, I always felt like I needed to be making a lot of decisions. PvZ felt easier than TvZ, although TvP feels ridiculously easy until it gets to late game, where I have no idea what to do, whereas PvT felt so hard early game, but got easier to deal with as I got some tech up.
|
lets just all agree that there are easy to execute combinations of overpowered strats and units that will completely own you unless you counter-play it perfectly, and that every race has access to one of these.
VR/deathball
hellion/banshee/mass banshee banshee/helliont/thor
mass infestor.
so while there may be imbalance and cause certain loss/win in some scenarios, there is at least one counter to all these, and every race has their IMBA strat.
so if every race has something imbalanced, that means its balanced, according to everyone in here who argues against something being imbalanced, be in infestor, banshee, vr, or anything else.
every race has their imbasquad so therefore the game is balanced because every race can cause certain victory under the right conditions without the need for lots of thought or effort.
|
On August 18 2011 04:54 Truedot wrote:
lets just all agree that there are easy to execute combinations of overpowered strats and units that will completely own you unless you counter-play it perfectly, and that every race has access to one of these.
VR/deathball
hellion/banshee/mass banshee banshee/helliont/thor
mass infestor.
so while there may be imbalance and cause certain loss/win in some scenarios, there is at least one counter to all these, and every race has their IMBA strat.
so if every race has something imbalanced, that means its balanced, according to everyone in here who argues against something being imbalanced, be in infestor, banshee, vr, or anything else.
every race has their imbasquad so therefore the game is balanced because every race can cause certain victory under the right conditions without the need for lots of thought or effort.
2 ways to balance things:
True Balance - skill is the primary differentiator, how you do something defines win/loss.
Fake Balance - rock, paper, scissors, what you pick defines win/loss.
You describe fake balance. As it is something that will cause certain victory under the right conditions without the need for lots of thought or effort.
Nothing too wrong with that though as true balance in a game with this many variables is practically unattainable.
Most other games are the same, everyone has their stronger strats, and at the high level people play around those strats. Whole reason a meta game exists.
|
On August 17 2011 17:34 PeggyHill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 16:16 darmousseh wrote:
I don't think there is a HUGE imbalance. (Otherwise we would have like 30% win rates in some matchups and that's obviously not happening), however, just like in chess, there are certain strategies which are only thinly explored and thus it appears to be imbalanced. I still think that given time, zerg's would have begun to use infestors against the protoss death ball. The buff just made it happen a little faster.
What I do think is true is that there are certain unit combinations which are very difficult to deal with at specific timings. For example, in ZvT, roaches tend to be a bad unit overall for zerg, so they have forgone using them in the early game. Terrans noticed this and have started to mass blue flame hellions. Usually a zerg will make a roach den if they suspect the heavy pressure of blue flame hellions, but since it's hard to scout, the zerg has to guess half the time based on assumptions or a very small amount of information. I think the solution isn't to nerf the blue flame hellion, but rather give zerg a viable scouting solution in the early/mid game.
However, in pvt, the 1-1-1 build presents a completely different problem. The 1-1-1 is very scoutable, however, even if scouted properly, there is no way (yet discovered) for protoss to punish it. There are possible tactics that a protoss can use in order to win, however, as a strategy as a whole, relying on micro intensive tactics will hurt in the long run. The problem in this case, is the combination of marines (good anti-air), tanks (good anti-ground), and banshees (a unit which forces a response). Beacuse of marines, it is very difficult to do mass air play, but because of banshees, you can't just make 4 immortals and win either, and the tanks make zealot stalker play autolose.
For this one, I don't think scouting is the problem, I think the problem is the lack of a good air to ground unit that isn't super susceptible to marines. Imagine if void rays still had 7 range. 1-1-1 wouldn't even matter since 2-3 void rays and all of a sudden you can outrange the marines and kite em forever while denying banshees free reign. Tanks would have to be placed further back which gives more space for a flank from zealots or blink stalkers. Void rays were nerfed from 7 to 6 mostly because void ray harass was super effective, however, on the highest level, there wasn't enough time to figure out if void rays were truly imbalanced.
So my thoughts on changes.
1. Give zerg some sort of scouting buff early, but without making them too powerful. Not sure what this is at this point, but that's the idea
2. Give void rays 7 range again. Now the 1-1-1 is a joke build and protoss can safely expand once again.
Hmm, tbh I (diamond toss) don't think a VR buff would help countering the 111 build. There is NO WAY you could pump out 2-3 voids off 1 base and not be all in yourself, AND you still die to cloakshees. The solution needs to be robo based, because there is always the threat of the terran getting cloak and letting banshees rule. TBH I think the big problem with the 111 is how a T can still pump marines constantly while teching to siege tech AND banshee. This is because of the reactor. The marine is a good counter to both phoenix and immortal, two of the most reasonable tech solutions to solving the 111. This is the essential problem, along with the threat of cloakshees.
I disagree. I think that void rays force a response by the terran. Protoss will usually build a stargate unscouted. It's only when the banshee comes to spot the stargate that the terran will decide to get cloak, and by that time, protoss can throw up a robo and get an observer.
I was also thinking about a potential void ray/forge expand against terran. Basically you 1 gate expand, then make a forge and stargate. Cannons build pretty quickly and with a void ray on the map scouting, it could really help the protoss make good economical decisions. I still don't think with 6 range void rays it will be possible, which is why I think 7 range void rays are a good idea. It also gives protoss a harrassment tool in pvt and pvz which they desperately need.
Basically for the 1/1/1. You go 1 gate stargate expand. You make some zealots and 2 void rays. You use your void rays to harrass the starport and make sure no banshees make it to your base. If neccesary, throw down a robo bay and make observers and even an immortal or two. Without the threat of banshees protoss can handle the tank siege tank push timing just fine IF the void ray has 7 range (and thus able to be out of range of marines.) The only other option i can think of is to make marines 5 range like in broodwar, but that has too many consequences.
That is my opinion. I wouldn't mind being forced to go 1 gate stargate in every pvt if it meant i could get a fast expansion.
|
On August 18 2011 04:54 Truedot wrote:
lets just all agree that there are easy to execute combinations of overpowered strats and units that will completely own you unless you counter-play it perfectly, and that every race has access to one of these.
VR/deathball
hellion/banshee/mass banshee banshee/helliont/thor
mass infestor.
so while there may be imbalance and cause certain loss/win in some scenarios, there is at least one counter to all these, and every race has their IMBA strat.
so if every race has something imbalanced, that means its balanced, according to everyone in here who argues against something being imbalanced, be in infestor, banshee, vr, or anything else.
every race has their imbasquad so therefore the game is balanced because every race can cause certain victory under the right conditions without the need for lots of thought or effort.
This type of argument isn't helpful because it makes far too many generalizations. There IS difference between a strategy that is powerful and a strategy that is too powerful, but you need some experience to really understand it. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just pointing out that oversimplifications aren't helpful in balance discussions. You have to take things slowly and be as specific as possible, because this is a complex game.
|
Being forced to do one build every single PvT wouldn't solve the problem at all.
|
Honestly, to truly balance the game the only solution I see is tweaking all the matchups separately.
For instance, if one had to buff the immortal to make the 1/1/1 easier to fend off, then it would also ruin PvP, making robo builds the only viable opener.
Thus, why not just buff the immortal in PvT, and keep the immortal the same in PvP? Are we willing to sacrifice balance because we don't want to remember the slight differences between units in different matchups?
Also, I know this wouldn't work with team games. Screw team games.
|
On August 18 2011 06:45 Nutworth wrote:
Honestly, to truly balance the game the only solution I see is tweaking all the matchups separately.
For instance, if one had to buff the immortal to make the 1/1/1 easier to fend off, then it would also ruin PvP, making robo builds the only viable opener.
Thus, why not just buff the immortal in PvT, and keep the immortal the same in PvP? Are we willing to sacrifice balance because we don't want to remember the slight differences between units in different matchups?
Also, I know this wouldn't work with team games. Screw team games.
That would be horrible imo.
Also, balance is great at the moment and I don't get why people concentrate more on calling things imba instead of improving.
|
On August 18 2011 03:53 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 02:30 Rob28 wrote:
I agree with what was mentioned before about increasing voidray range back to 7 from 6. Sure, the harass potential is there to kite marines, but without flux vanes, it's no more of an inconvinience to Terran than kiting with marauders is to gateway units (except blink stalkers, obviously). Plus with all the toss nerfing going on, it'd be nice to see some more viable lategame play outside of a deathball (especially now that amulet is gone, toss are really getting forced into the same tactics over and over).
My opinion anyways. I also agree with that big outline listed way back about why Terran is OP for the sake of drawing newbie gamers. Many solid points there. There's a huge problem with buffing VRs again. If you've ever seen the Korean ladder (at least masters level), you would see most vPs feature stargate play these days. These pushes are EXTREMELY dangerous and incredibly hard to hold off. It's harder to pull off than a 4 gate, but it's more deadly. It's part of the reason Hongun is still in the GSL. Any buff to VRs would likely turn this type of play into the "standard" for everybody (in a bad way). As far as Terran being OP, which seems to be some sort of minor theme of this thread, I believe there is some disconnect between skill levels. For the past many months, Terran representation has been slipping in all but the extreme leagues (gm, masters, and bronze). The bronze part is easy to explain due to the campaign etc., but there's something that separates the top 2% of players and the next 78%. I would go as far as to suggest that Terran takes more (rts) experience to perform well with, but when you have that experience, Terran allows you to really take advantage. One thing for sure, however, I'm really not seeing how Terran is too powerful below the top level (and the data we have on that agrees).
check out the representation at all levels by all races on SC2 ranks. Zerg pools up in the gold/plat/dia range. Terran is mostly either very low or very high rank, and protoss is strong through the ranges.
These representations should tell you which race is most balanced, which race has the easiest time pulling out of the average player hell in a cell range, and which race has the easiesttime getting out of low leagues but the hardest time getting into high leagues.
|
On August 18 2011 04:28 j4vz wrote:
as zerg i feel like terran can go blue flame hellion and gain map control and possibly deal economical damage without consequence, even if they lose 5-6 hellions they will still be ahead or equals. with map control they can expand easily.
im not saying hellion need a nerf, hell no,,, but how many times i thought i was ahead vs terran because they spent a lot of money into failed harassement, and pushed out feeling like i would get a pretty easy win, but terran were still ahead or equal and a had a strong units ball,,,
I'm not sure what your complaint is here. If you lose 5-6 hellions and don't do economical damage, you're behind as terran, trust me. No you probably can't as the zerg just go and kill them right away, but you are free to drone up once the hellions die and get a huge advantage because of it.
I hope you realize how much terrans rely on this map control and early harass, because without it the zerg would be able to always play the game of drones and you could never keep up as terran.
Roach builds are also getting popular, and very good against hellion openings.
|
On August 18 2011 07:37 gosuterran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 06:45 Nutworth wrote:
Honestly, to truly balance the game the only solution I see is tweaking all the matchups separately.
For instance, if one had to buff the immortal to make the 1/1/1 easier to fend off, then it would also ruin PvP, making robo builds the only viable opener.
Thus, why not just buff the immortal in PvT, and keep the immortal the same in PvP? Are we willing to sacrifice balance because we don't want to remember the slight differences between units in different matchups?
Also, I know this wouldn't work with team games. Screw team games. That would be horrible imo. Also, balance is great at the moment and I don't get why people concentrate more on calling things imba instead of improving.
this is the whole "gear splitting" and "talent tree splitting in WoW".
I always maintained that WoW to be truly well balanced should have been first and foremost balanced around pvp, because its a lot easier to create individual monsters that can be tweaked to be affected more or less by the skills the characters already have, and then tailor monsters to the talents and eq of players, than it is to try to build pvp and pve separately. it just makes more sense. It makes absolutely no sense to try to make separate effects or gears for separate gameplay when you could synergize the affects of gear and skill/talent builds with both gameplay by getting one side completely balanced and well thought out and then tweaking the other side so that it also has just asmuch benefit for the players from their gear/talents. The other side being the much more easily manipulated behavior and mechanics of monsters under the conditions of player gear and talents affecting them.
In short, you're suggesting they WOW-ize it, which is bad.
hell, if they wanted to balance the game even more, they could make the units autospread in formation, leaving gaps and holes in their rank and files. This would make zerg a lot stronger, make ultralisks and big units better, and weaken AoE. It would stop the stacked deathball of air units if there was collision and the AI tried to always keep them in a formation, and this would stop all air units from being able to hit at once all the time.
This is is simply one example of how tweaking AI mechanics would drastically change the game without even having touched the units or races themselves.
|
On August 18 2011 09:00 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 04:28 j4vz wrote:
as zerg i feel like terran can go blue flame hellion and gain map control and possibly deal economical damage without consequence, even if they lose 5-6 hellions they will still be ahead or equals. with map control they can expand easily.
im not saying hellion need a nerf, hell no,,, but how many times i thought i was ahead vs terran because they spent a lot of money into failed harassement, and pushed out feeling like i would get a pretty easy win, but terran were still ahead or equal and a had a strong units ball,,,
I'm not sure what your complaint is here. If you lose 5-6 hellions and don't do economical damage, you're behind as terran, trust me. No you probably can't as the zerg just go and kill them right away, but you are free to drone up once the hellions die and get a huge advantage because of it. I hope you realize how much terrans rely on this map control and early harass, because without it the zerg would be able to always play the game of drones and you could never keep up as terran. Roach builds are also getting popular, and very good against hellion openings.
How are you behind? Mules.
You know how much it takes to make base 2 and saturate it as zerg? every building is -1 drones. every army unit is -1 drone. every time you have no money to spend on drones, you're -drone. every time you make defense buildings you're -drone. You eco stays the same until you stop making army and structures and only make drones. your eco drops if you make structures and dont remake drones. your eco dips if you make structures out of drones and then remake drones.
How can a terran who causes 5-6 drone losses NOT catch up with mules? I played a game where I base traded with a terran, had 4 hatches left on 2 base, and had killed all his scvs. I had about 20 drones and had to repop my drones using MINERAL. he had to repop his ECO using MULES on calldown, which are energy only. his 10 mules c/d beat my constant drone pumping when he only had 1 base mining and only a small number of production buildings in his main. I cant pump out cracklings fast enough to deal with his constant marine + tank waves, even though I never lost all my drones or my 2 bases. he overruns me with a+moving from the eco provided by 10 mules.
Why don't people see how effective terran is at playing eco catchup?
|
On August 18 2011 04:28 j4vz wrote:
as zerg i feel like terran can go blue flame hellion and gain map control and possibly deal economical damage without consequence, even if they lose 5-6 hellions they will still be ahead or equals. with map control they can expand easily.
im not saying hellion need a nerf, hell no,,, but how many times i thought i was ahead vs terran because they spent a lot of money into failed harassement, and pushed out feeling like i would get a pretty easy win, but terran were still ahead or equal and a had a strong units ball,,,
if i spend money into mutas and lose them ill be behind, but terran can harass without getting penalized.
and now they started using ghost, muta+bling is now horrible, terran are too much flexible i hope they wont get anything else in HOTS, i wouldnt care if infestor had 2-3second cooldown on fungal as long as terran get nerfed.
this isnt qq`ing, its what i think deep inside, im not raging and calling terran OP when i lose to them, the game is almost perfectly balanced, but we can still improve balance a bit
ps: sorry for my bad english.
i dont quite like how you are comparing mineral units to gas heavy units..
You say terran can loose all its hellions and they wont be behind? then you say if zerg looses his muta he will be behind.
Well lets get the facts straight, Hellions are a mineral dump, much like zerglins are mineral dumps. Mutas are gas heavy. Siege tanks are gas heavy much like mutas, so why are you not comparing it to Siege tanks instead? if terran looses tanks, hes going to be way behind, what does he have to fight off infestors and banelings?
Your argument is fluff, loosing hellions is basically no different than loosing zerglings, They are expendable , Though if you loose to many of them in both cases you would be somewhat behind.
|
On August 18 2011 09:07 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 09:00 Bagi wrote:On August 18 2011 04:28 j4vz wrote:
as zerg i feel like terran can go blue flame hellion and gain map control and possibly deal economical damage without consequence, even if they lose 5-6 hellions they will still be ahead or equals. with map control they can expand easily.
im not saying hellion need a nerf, hell no,,, but how many times i thought i was ahead vs terran because they spent a lot of money into failed harassement, and pushed out feeling like i would get a pretty easy win, but terran were still ahead or equal and a had a strong units ball,,,
I'm not sure what your complaint is here. If you lose 5-6 hellions and don't do economical damage, you're behind as terran, trust me. No you probably can't as the zerg just go and kill them right away, but you are free to drone up once the hellions die and get a huge advantage because of it. I hope you realize how much terrans rely on this map control and early harass, because without it the zerg would be able to always play the game of drones and you could never keep up as terran. Roach builds are also getting popular, and very good against hellion openings. How are you behind? Mules. You know how much it takes to make base 2 and saturate it as zerg? every building is -1 drones. every army unit is -1 drone. every time you have no money to spend on drones, you're -drone. every time you make defense buildings you're -drone. You eco stays the same until you stop making army and structures and only make drones. your eco drops if you make structures and dont remake drones. your eco dips if you make structures out of drones and then remake drones. How can a terran who causes 5-6 drone losses NOT catch up with mules? I played a game where I base traded with a terran, had 4 hatches left on 2 base, and had killed all his scvs. I had about 20 drones and had to repop my drones using MINERAL. he had to repop his ECO using MULES on calldown, which are energy only. his 10 mules c/d beat my constant drone pumping when he only had 1 base mining and only a small number of production buildings in his main. I cant pump out cracklings fast enough to deal with his constant marine + tank waves, even though I never lost all my drones or my 2 bases. he overruns me with a+moving from the eco provided by 10 mules. Why don't people see how effective terran is at playing eco catchup?
So... I describe the challenges in early game TvZ, you ramble about mules and a-moving in a base trade situation. I'm sorry, what?
If you truly think that terran losing units doesn't matter because of mules, I don't think anything I would say will help you.
|
On August 18 2011 09:17 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 09:07 Truedot wrote:On August 18 2011 09:00 Bagi wrote:On August 18 2011 04:28 j4vz wrote:
as zerg i feel like terran can go blue flame hellion and gain map control and possibly deal economical damage without consequence, even if they lose 5-6 hellions they will still be ahead or equals. with map control they can expand easily.
im not saying hellion need a nerf, hell no,,, but how many times i thought i was ahead vs terran because they spent a lot of money into failed harassement, and pushed out feeling like i would get a pretty easy win, but terran were still ahead or equal and a had a strong units ball,,,
I'm not sure what your complaint is here. If you lose 5-6 hellions and don't do economical damage, you're behind as terran, trust me. No you probably can't as the zerg just go and kill them right away, but you are free to drone up once the hellions die and get a huge advantage because of it. I hope you realize how much terrans rely on this map control and early harass, because without it the zerg would be able to always play the game of drones and you could never keep up as terran. Roach builds are also getting popular, and very good against hellion openings. How are you behind? Mules. You know how much it takes to make base 2 and saturate it as zerg? every building is -1 drones. every army unit is -1 drone. every time you have no money to spend on drones, you're -drone. every time you make defense buildings you're -drone. You eco stays the same until you stop making army and structures and only make drones. your eco drops if you make structures and dont remake drones. your eco dips if you make structures out of drones and then remake drones. How can a terran who causes 5-6 drone losses NOT catch up with mules? I played a game where I base traded with a terran, had 4 hatches left on 2 base, and had killed all his scvs. I had about 20 drones and had to repop my drones using MINERAL. he had to repop his ECO using MULES on calldown, which are energy only. his 10 mules c/d beat my constant drone pumping when he only had 1 base mining and only a small number of production buildings in his main. I cant pump out cracklings fast enough to deal with his constant marine + tank waves, even though I never lost all my drones or my 2 bases. he overruns me with a+moving from the eco provided by 10 mules. Why don't people see how effective terran is at playing eco catchup? So... I describe the challenges in early game TvZ, you ramble about mules and a-moving in a base trade situation. I'm sorry, what? If you truly think that terran losing units doesn't matter because of mules, I don't think anything I would say will help you.
might want to read my post again more carefully.
|
On August 18 2011 09:43 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 09:17 Bagi wrote:On August 18 2011 09:07 Truedot wrote:On August 18 2011 09:00 Bagi wrote:On August 18 2011 04:28 j4vz wrote:
as zerg i feel like terran can go blue flame hellion and gain map control and possibly deal economical damage without consequence, even if they lose 5-6 hellions they will still be ahead or equals. with map control they can expand easily.
im not saying hellion need a nerf, hell no,,, but how many times i thought i was ahead vs terran because they spent a lot of money into failed harassement, and pushed out feeling like i would get a pretty easy win, but terran were still ahead or equal and a had a strong units ball,,,
I'm not sure what your complaint is here. If you lose 5-6 hellions and don't do economical damage, you're behind as terran, trust me. No you probably can't as the zerg just go and kill them right away, but you are free to drone up once the hellions die and get a huge advantage because of it. I hope you realize how much terrans rely on this map control and early harass, because without it the zerg would be able to always play the game of drones and you could never keep up as terran. Roach builds are also getting popular, and very good against hellion openings. How are you behind? Mules. You know how much it takes to make base 2 and saturate it as zerg? every building is -1 drones. every army unit is -1 drone. every time you have no money to spend on drones, you're -drone. every time you make defense buildings you're -drone. You eco stays the same until you stop making army and structures and only make drones. your eco drops if you make structures and dont remake drones. your eco dips if you make structures out of drones and then remake drones. How can a terran who causes 5-6 drone losses NOT catch up with mules? I played a game where I base traded with a terran, had 4 hatches left on 2 base, and had killed all his scvs. I had about 20 drones and had to repop my drones using MINERAL. he had to repop his ECO using MULES on calldown, which are energy only. his 10 mules c/d beat my constant drone pumping when he only had 1 base mining and only a small number of production buildings in his main. I cant pump out cracklings fast enough to deal with his constant marine + tank waves, even though I never lost all my drones or my 2 bases. he overruns me with a+moving from the eco provided by 10 mules. Why don't people see how effective terran is at playing eco catchup? So... I describe the challenges in early game TvZ, you ramble about mules and a-moving in a base trade situation. I'm sorry, what? If you truly think that terran losing units doesn't matter because of mules, I don't think anything I would say will help you. might want to read my post again more carefully.
I don't think theres anything worth discussing there. You think I don't know that you lose a drone when you build a building? That making units means you can't drone up? Herp derp?
The question was whether losing the early game hellions WITHOUT doing damage matters or not. Killing a big bunch of hellions early game as zerg means that 1) you can drone up safely for the time being, 2) you can regain map control and expand safely. Saying that it doesn't matter "because terran can catch up with mules in eco" is just mind-blowing. Having mules means 3-4 SCV's per mule, but what does it matter when your only means to controlling the game get destroyed and you are suddenly lagging 20 workers? Terran can produce workers at a fixed rate, they won't be "ahead or equals", they're behind and need to make something happen fast at that point in the game.
Your very first harass units often dictate the pace of the entire game as terran. Its incredibly difficult to claw your way back into the game if you don't deal considerable damage or force a crapload of units early on. You should try playing some GM level TvZ if you don't believe me, maybe get some perspective to things.
|
On August 18 2011 04:28 j4vz wrote:
as zerg i feel like terran can go blue flame hellion and gain map control and possibly deal economical damage without consequence, even if they lose 5-6 hellions they will still be ahead or equals. with map control they can expand easily.
The consequence is less marines when mutas come out.
|
This thread needs something in the OP either saying that it's okay to say "sure this wins in GM and GSL, but in platinum league it's not so common", or something saying that you'd almost never want to make that argument.
|
On August 18 2011 10:59 Resistentialism wrote:
This thread needs something in the OP either saying that it's okay to say "sure this wins in GM and GSL, but in platinum league it's not so common", or something saying that you'd almost never want to make that argument.
It's ok to tell things like it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
