|
On July 23 2012 02:36 Charon1979 wrote:
But in ZvZ its not enough to push them away from your bases. You have to get them away from your overlords, every single building is easily sniped (imagine a single sniped warpgate means no more zealots for 1 minute).
I want to let you know that this apoctalyptic vision of the future has been realized many many times..
Mass muta is not an interesting strategy with SC2 mechanics.
|
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras.
|
On July 23 2012 03:09 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 09:24 forsooth wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Shiori wrote:On July 22 2012 09:00 Torra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:59 xPabt wrote:
I think ryung vs stephano game 3 is the epitome of zerg being too strong late game. I was just about to say this too. That was just disgusting to watch. Agreed. And I swear I'm going to punch out the next person that gives Stephano another free pass on the grounds that his control is "incredible." That was a fucking joke. Bl/Infestor/Ultra is absurdly cost and supply efficient. Hey man, making lots of corruptors and parking your brood lords above ledges to prevent marines from getting right under them is really hard. Sometimes you have to select a control group of infestors and press the F key a few times too. GM level micro. It was a genuinely good game until the giant corruptor fleet got out there. With fungals to hold the bio in place, there's just no way to get to the brood lords and kill them, and vikings are already bad enough against that army without having an upgrade disadvantage. I probably lost 70-80% of games on ladder where Zerg got to that army comp, even before the queen buff. The only way I ever managed to kill it was by baiting Zerg into open ground and getting the most ridiculous arc in the world. Problem is, not all Zergs can be baited and not all maps have enough open ground to pull that off. I want my old snipe back.  I agree, I think snipe was 1) prematurely nerfed, and 2) overnerfed. I think snipe should be reverted to it's original damage. Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 09:50 Ziggitz wrote:On July 22 2012 09:26 Rokoz wrote:On July 22 2012 09:07 xPabt wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Shiori wrote:On July 22 2012 09:00 Torra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:59 xPabt wrote:
I think ryung vs stephano game 3 is the epitome of zerg being too strong late game. I was just about to say this too. That was just disgusting to watch. Agreed. And I swear I'm going to punch out the next person that gives Stephano another free pass on the grounds that his control is "incredible." That was a fucking joke. Bl/Infestor/Ultra is absurdly cost and supply efficient. Ryung probably should have lost earlier after pushing out with too small an army but for stephano to win after having his expansions denied for so long and taking so many bad engagements is really just retarded. Terran taking a bad engagement means the game is over but for zerg the remax mechanic alows them to stick around and make a comeback due to the cost efficientness of thier late game army+ infestors. I agree. I felt that Ryung had lost at one point, yet somehow he managed to comeback because Stephano did one horrible engagement when Ryung's army was at the choke point. It's horrible to watch games with Infestor / Blood Lords because Terran simply doesn't have answer for them. Sure Terran beat that army composition from time to time but Viking / Tank / Marine / Medivac isn't the solid answer to BL / Infestor army. BC / Raven is the ultimate army composition but it's also far from solid and far too hard to achieve. Terrans do have an answer for them, they just don't realize that maxed army engagements aren't going to go your way when the 60 supply of your army that can hit air is range 5 marines. Terrans still don't realize they need to build higher quality maxes, they still don't realize they need to build more production after they hit 200/200 to be able to remax faster, they don't realize that if you have 2000 gas in the bank at the 25 minute mark if they had expanded for more minerals and not taken more gases they would have had enough army supply to win the game earlier or they should have gone for a composition that actually spent the gas. When it comes to late game Terrans are still in the stone age in terms of strategy and mechanics. And you don't realize that there's no advantage not mining the extra gas if you're saturated on the minerals. 2 refineries + 6 SCVs cost 450 minerals. If you don't get gas at those expos, you can instantly afford another OC with just a 100mineral investment compared to what it costs when you DO take those gases.
I'd say something like having 16 more marines at the 15 minute mark would be fairly significant.
|
On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras. As a Zerg player that frequently goes Mutalisk in ZvZ, fungal growth is literally the only thing I'm afraid of vs. Z. I would win 99% of games that made it to the midgame without the rooting effect from fungal growth.
|
On July 22 2012 23:00 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 22:07 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 21 2012 21:51 Coffee Zombie wrote:Reverting the Queen buff probably wouldn't make people all-in more often. If the buff is reverted, Zerg players have to invest something into defense again - some gas (Roaches), lots of larvae (Lings) or attention and time (Crawler reroots), so they end up playing fair instead of broken - the whole point of the Hellion expand was to force us to play fair - and make no mistake, unhindered Zerg economy is broken. It was ok beforehand because you needed to outplay the opponent to access it. That isn't the case anymore when Queens are better in combat than Roaches, cost no gas or Larvae and don't need that much micro. And then you get mass creep to nerf midgame pushes. It's easy and standardizes hilariously outrageous greed. I remember when insane creep spread was impressive. I remember being impressed by very greedy Lair and Hive timings. Not anymore. Because all that shit is safe and boring. What the hell is going on if you need an all-in to punish completely ludicrous greed? Not good games, of that I'm sure.* Buffing the Terran lategame a bit is a good idea, but for goodness' sake don't leave it at that. The game is already horrible to watch because it's so binary - as Jinro put it in a comment about toss, you choose to be a rabid monkey on speed or a sedated sloth. The middleground is evaporating because noncommittal pressure has been nerfed to hell and back. And it makes for some terribly dull games. So, if you want to keep Zerg a bit safer? (Unnecessary IMHO, there never was a problem, but anyway  Revert the Queen buff, perhaps revert some Terran early game nerfs. And then help those Zerg investments in defense work better in some way. The key is just thatb defending slows the Zerg economy back to sanity and that the defense investment allows Z to fend off the Terran harassment on equal terms. *Addendum: More than an SC2 enthusiast, I'm an MtG player. I like combo because hey, broken things feel fun. One thing I've noticed over the years is that straight up broken shit stays fun only for a while - when you're still amazed that omfg how is this even allowed. Then it becomes so very dull. The one deck I've stayed with over the years is a concoction that can occasionally do hilariously broken things, but usually ends up playing fair in an attempt to stay alive and then sneak the brokenness in somewhere as a finishing blow or as a calculated risk. This keeps the temptation and fun of brokenness (in SC2, the unhindered Zerg economy) but delivers actual games. Plus doing ridiculous things feels like an accomplishment. As another way to think about it, imagine if Marines automatically did the MKP thing and beat banelings? They can do that already, but it requires good calls and micro to do it. It's a ridiculous thing as a reward of great play. Standardizing antibling splits would just make that boring and stupid-feeling instead of amazing and the feeling of greatness would just wear off in short order. Great post this! I gues the biggest problem of SC2 is that games are very predictable, relatively speaking, and thus borring. EDIT: and i blame Blizzard for this with their way of patching the game. Wander how the game would have looked if we had half decent maps in BETA, when most of the changes took place. I actually blame Zerg players (well, the ones who complain about it, pros included) for the current state of the game. With pre-nerf Terran, even though they were overpowered, it was all on Blizzard and their bad decisions, and terrible maps.
With the current state of the game, I wonder if it's even fair to claim that Terran was particularly overpowered. Yes, there have been some key balance changes, but maps have also changed, metagame has changed, and I think Zerg play in particular has improved alot from what it once was. What was the balance change that altered Terran from being wildly overpowered to now being in a very questionable spot particularly in TvZ? Was it the stim nerf? The blue flame nerf (which was mostly for TvT as I recall)? The snipe nerf? The rax nerf? The bunker nerf? All of them? By that logic, then if you reverted those nerfs Terran would be OP again. Yet, I doubt it would be. I don't think Terran was particularly OP, I think there were simply some really poor maps back in 2010 and early 2011, and Zerg and Protoss only needed a couple strategic buffs in a couple areas. I'll admit there were some legitimately broken builds though (early reaper builds come to mind). I don't wanna weigh in too heavily in this debate, but in my opinion Terran has been overnerfed and Zerg overbuffed, all during a process wherein the Zerg meta was evolving more slowly than the other two races. We are now seeing the effects.
|
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras.
I can see, its pointless.
The only thing a mutaplayer in ZvZ has to take care off are Fungals.
ZvZ was a Mutasfest before the fungal buff, it will be after a fungal nerf. The only way for Z to stop Mutas is having more mutas or having better upgrades and still an somewhat even muta count.
You can try with hydra all day, you will end up losing. Both Marines and stalker are eiter more durable, more mobile or have higher DPS per cost.
|
On July 23 2012 03:33 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:09 sevencck wrote:On July 22 2012 09:24 forsooth wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Shiori wrote:On July 22 2012 09:00 Torra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:59 xPabt wrote:
I think ryung vs stephano game 3 is the epitome of zerg being too strong late game. I was just about to say this too. That was just disgusting to watch. Agreed. And I swear I'm going to punch out the next person that gives Stephano another free pass on the grounds that his control is "incredible." That was a fucking joke. Bl/Infestor/Ultra is absurdly cost and supply efficient. Hey man, making lots of corruptors and parking your brood lords above ledges to prevent marines from getting right under them is really hard. Sometimes you have to select a control group of infestors and press the F key a few times too. GM level micro. It was a genuinely good game until the giant corruptor fleet got out there. With fungals to hold the bio in place, there's just no way to get to the brood lords and kill them, and vikings are already bad enough against that army without having an upgrade disadvantage. I probably lost 70-80% of games on ladder where Zerg got to that army comp, even before the queen buff. The only way I ever managed to kill it was by baiting Zerg into open ground and getting the most ridiculous arc in the world. Problem is, not all Zergs can be baited and not all maps have enough open ground to pull that off. I want my old snipe back. I agree, I think snipe was 1) prematurely nerfed, and 2) overnerfed. I think snipe should be reverted to it's original damage. On July 22 2012 09:50 Ziggitz wrote:On July 22 2012 09:26 Rokoz wrote:On July 22 2012 09:07 xPabt wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Shiori wrote:On July 22 2012 09:00 Torra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:59 xPabt wrote:
I think ryung vs stephano game 3 is the epitome of zerg being too strong late game. I was just about to say this too. That was just disgusting to watch. Agreed. And I swear I'm going to punch out the next person that gives Stephano another free pass on the grounds that his control is "incredible." That was a fucking joke. Bl/Infestor/Ultra is absurdly cost and supply efficient. Ryung probably should have lost earlier after pushing out with too small an army but for stephano to win after having his expansions denied for so long and taking so many bad engagements is really just retarded. Terran taking a bad engagement means the game is over but for zerg the remax mechanic alows them to stick around and make a comeback due to the cost efficientness of thier late game army+ infestors. I agree. I felt that Ryung had lost at one point, yet somehow he managed to comeback because Stephano did one horrible engagement when Ryung's army was at the choke point. It's horrible to watch games with Infestor / Blood Lords because Terran simply doesn't have answer for them. Sure Terran beat that army composition from time to time but Viking / Tank / Marine / Medivac isn't the solid answer to BL / Infestor army. BC / Raven is the ultimate army composition but it's also far from solid and far too hard to achieve. Terrans do have an answer for them, they just don't realize that maxed army engagements aren't going to go your way when the 60 supply of your army that can hit air is range 5 marines. Terrans still don't realize they need to build higher quality maxes, they still don't realize they need to build more production after they hit 200/200 to be able to remax faster, they don't realize that if you have 2000 gas in the bank at the 25 minute mark if they had expanded for more minerals and not taken more gases they would have had enough army supply to win the game earlier or they should have gone for a composition that actually spent the gas. When it comes to late game Terrans are still in the stone age in terms of strategy and mechanics. And you don't realize that there's no advantage not mining the extra gas if you're saturated on the minerals. 2 refineries + 6 SCVs cost 450 minerals. If you don't get gas at those expos, you can instantly afford another OC with just a 100mineral investment compared to what it costs when you DO take those gases. I'd say something like having 16 more marines at the 15 minute mark would be fairly significant.
Since you already have the 6 SCVs it's hardly fair to include their cost in the total. 2 refineries cost 150 minerals, which is probably worth the expenditure to harvest a ton of gas, even if you're unsure if you can spend it (considering especially that you're already mineral saturated). Yes, expanding to a new location is always preferable, but may not be as practical as you think. Securing a new location as Terran in TvZ is very challenging.
Also, why are we having this discussion? It's not significant enough to make a reliable difference.
|
On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras.
Well, so do you think that mutas are defendable (without going mass muta), or don't you?
Because your corruptor buff idea suggests, that they can't.
Hydras/Queens don't have blink (stalkers), huge range+splash (thors), or the costefficiency + dps of marines.
Corruptors don't have the speed, nor the damage to deal with mutas. I mean, phoenix aren't the greatest defense vs mutas, but they can be useful. Corruptors are basically like phoenix, just without micro capabilities, less dps, more armor and no antiground ability.
ZvZ without air fungal or something to make up for it at least partially will degenerate into mass muta vs mass muta. I'm not saying that this has to be bad (though I love ling/roach/hydra/infestor with Broodlords and Ultras having roles - the ZvZ we have right now and that, even if you don't like zerg, produces some of the best games like Leenock vs DRG or Coca vs Hyun)
I'm all for taking roles away from the infestor and distributing the things it does on different units, to make for a better game and less of a lategame mass infestors style that can deal with everything on it's own, but I absolutly don't think you can "just nerf it". Especially as Infestors are Zergs main antiair right now, it would break nearly every ZvX style, not just "nerf it". (and seeing how Protoss have very good winrates vs Zerg, I don't see why that matchup would need any change, apart from making carrier transitions smoother - while keeping the overall winrates the same)
|
On July 23 2012 03:46 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras. Well, so do you think that mutas are defendable (without going mass muta), or don't you? Because your corruptor buff idea suggests, that they can't. Hydras/Queens don't have blink (stalkers), huge range+splash (thors), or the costefficiency + dps of marines. Corruptors don't have the speed, nor the damage to deal with mutas. I mean, phoenix aren't the greatest defense vs mutas, but they can be useful. Corruptors are basically like phoenix, just without micro capabilities, less dps, more armor and no antiground ability. ZvZ without air fungal or something to make up for it at least partially will degenerate into mass muta vs mass muta. I'm not saying that this has to be bad (though I love ling/roach/hydra/infestor with Broodlords and Ultras having roles - the ZvZ we have right now and that, even if you don't like zerg, produces some of the best games like Leenock vs DRG or Coca vs Hyun) I'm all for taking roles away from the infestor and distributing the things it does on different units, to make for a better game and less of a lategame mass infestors style that can deal with everything on it's own, but I absolutly don't think you can "just nerf it". Especially as Infestors are Zergs main antiair right now, it would break nearly every ZvX style, not just "nerf it". (and seeing how Protoss have very good winrates vs Zerg, I don't see why that matchup would need any change, apart from making carrier transitions smoother - while keeping the overall winrates the same)
The obvious solution would be to buff Hydras... Can anyone come with a reason why they didn't bufff Hydra speed and make Fungal not hit air?
|
On July 23 2012 03:45 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:33 RampancyTW wrote:On July 23 2012 03:09 sevencck wrote:On July 22 2012 09:24 forsooth wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Shiori wrote:On July 22 2012 09:00 Torra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:59 xPabt wrote:
I think ryung vs stephano game 3 is the epitome of zerg being too strong late game. I was just about to say this too. That was just disgusting to watch. Agreed. And I swear I'm going to punch out the next person that gives Stephano another free pass on the grounds that his control is "incredible." That was a fucking joke. Bl/Infestor/Ultra is absurdly cost and supply efficient. Hey man, making lots of corruptors and parking your brood lords above ledges to prevent marines from getting right under them is really hard. Sometimes you have to select a control group of infestors and press the F key a few times too. GM level micro. It was a genuinely good game until the giant corruptor fleet got out there. With fungals to hold the bio in place, there's just no way to get to the brood lords and kill them, and vikings are already bad enough against that army without having an upgrade disadvantage. I probably lost 70-80% of games on ladder where Zerg got to that army comp, even before the queen buff. The only way I ever managed to kill it was by baiting Zerg into open ground and getting the most ridiculous arc in the world. Problem is, not all Zergs can be baited and not all maps have enough open ground to pull that off. I want my old snipe back. I agree, I think snipe was 1) prematurely nerfed, and 2) overnerfed. I think snipe should be reverted to it's original damage. On July 22 2012 09:50 Ziggitz wrote:On July 22 2012 09:26 Rokoz wrote:On July 22 2012 09:07 xPabt wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Shiori wrote:On July 22 2012 09:00 Torra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:59 xPabt wrote:
I think ryung vs stephano game 3 is the epitome of zerg being too strong late game. I was just about to say this too. That was just disgusting to watch. Agreed. And I swear I'm going to punch out the next person that gives Stephano another free pass on the grounds that his control is "incredible." That was a fucking joke. Bl/Infestor/Ultra is absurdly cost and supply efficient. Ryung probably should have lost earlier after pushing out with too small an army but for stephano to win after having his expansions denied for so long and taking so many bad engagements is really just retarded. Terran taking a bad engagement means the game is over but for zerg the remax mechanic alows them to stick around and make a comeback due to the cost efficientness of thier late game army+ infestors. I agree. I felt that Ryung had lost at one point, yet somehow he managed to comeback because Stephano did one horrible engagement when Ryung's army was at the choke point. It's horrible to watch games with Infestor / Blood Lords because Terran simply doesn't have answer for them. Sure Terran beat that army composition from time to time but Viking / Tank / Marine / Medivac isn't the solid answer to BL / Infestor army. BC / Raven is the ultimate army composition but it's also far from solid and far too hard to achieve. Terrans do have an answer for them, they just don't realize that maxed army engagements aren't going to go your way when the 60 supply of your army that can hit air is range 5 marines. Terrans still don't realize they need to build higher quality maxes, they still don't realize they need to build more production after they hit 200/200 to be able to remax faster, they don't realize that if you have 2000 gas in the bank at the 25 minute mark if they had expanded for more minerals and not taken more gases they would have had enough army supply to win the game earlier or they should have gone for a composition that actually spent the gas. When it comes to late game Terrans are still in the stone age in terms of strategy and mechanics. And you don't realize that there's no advantage not mining the extra gas if you're saturated on the minerals. 2 refineries + 6 SCVs cost 450 minerals. If you don't get gas at those expos, you can instantly afford another OC with just a 100mineral investment compared to what it costs when you DO take those gases. I'd say something like having 16 more marines at the 15 minute mark would be fairly significant. Since you already have the 6 SCVs it's hardly fair to include their cost in the total. 2 refineries cost 150 minerals, which is probably worth the expenditure to harvest a ton of gas, even if you're unsure if you can spend it (considering especially that you're already mineral saturated). Yes, expanding to a new location is always preferable, but may not be as practical as you think. Securing a new location as Terran in TvZ is very challenging. Also, why are we having this discussion? It's not significant enough to make a reliable difference. So what you're saying is that those 6 SCVs would be over-saturating the expansion? In that case, it's ABSOLUTELY fair to include them in the cost. Either way, you have 6 SCVs too many. And an additional OC doesn't care about saturation, it can MULE an existing base regardless.
Proper economy management is what allows Zerg to be as powerful as it is right now. It took a longgg time of strategy development to get everything just right. I'm a mid-masters Zerg, and I obviously don't play perfectly every time, and I feel it hard when my economy gets mismanaged.
Even 10 more marines at the 15 minute mark can make a huge difference in a push. Those 10 marines might delay Brood Lords by 5 minutes if they're put to good use.
I think it's fair to say that Terran lategame is underpowered right now. What remains to be seen, however, is whether it's a result of the lack of familiarity with Terran endgame, the endgame units themselves, inefficiencies GETTING to that endgame, etc. For a while, Zergs felt helpless in the lategame because they simply weren't getting there efficiently. After about a year and a half, Z has figured out how to hold most of the pushes that used to leave them crippled. I'm guessing T needs a (very mild) buff to their lategame (either a HSM buff or some form of BC buff--which by the way is already planned for HotS), and beyond that Terran just needs time to figure everything out now that their old way of playing has been "figured out."
|
On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras.
Fungal growth really isn't even that great versus mutalisks. Pro's just split up their muta's so only 2-3 get hit by one fungal.
Also what are your opinions about changing the way the battlecruiser attacks? 1 strong attack like in bw instead of a gazillion small attacks like in sc2. BC's get owned by corruptors now, if they were to be changed they'd be a lot better versus them and also a lot better versus ultralisks. Which means BC's won't be entirely useless against ultra's.
This combined with another small buff could prove to increase end game by miles imo.
|
On July 23 2012 03:39 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 23:00 Toadvine wrote:On July 22 2012 22:07 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 21 2012 21:51 Coffee Zombie wrote:Reverting the Queen buff probably wouldn't make people all-in more often. If the buff is reverted, Zerg players have to invest something into defense again - some gas (Roaches), lots of larvae (Lings) or attention and time (Crawler reroots), so they end up playing fair instead of broken - the whole point of the Hellion expand was to force us to play fair - and make no mistake, unhindered Zerg economy is broken. It was ok beforehand because you needed to outplay the opponent to access it. That isn't the case anymore when Queens are better in combat than Roaches, cost no gas or Larvae and don't need that much micro. And then you get mass creep to nerf midgame pushes. It's easy and standardizes hilariously outrageous greed. I remember when insane creep spread was impressive. I remember being impressed by very greedy Lair and Hive timings. Not anymore. Because all that shit is safe and boring. What the hell is going on if you need an all-in to punish completely ludicrous greed? Not good games, of that I'm sure.* Buffing the Terran lategame a bit is a good idea, but for goodness' sake don't leave it at that. The game is already horrible to watch because it's so binary - as Jinro put it in a comment about toss, you choose to be a rabid monkey on speed or a sedated sloth. The middleground is evaporating because noncommittal pressure has been nerfed to hell and back. And it makes for some terribly dull games. So, if you want to keep Zerg a bit safer? (Unnecessary IMHO, there never was a problem, but anyway Revert the Queen buff, perhaps revert some Terran early game nerfs. And then help those Zerg investments in defense work better in some way. The key is just thatb defending slows the Zerg economy back to sanity and that the defense investment allows Z to fend off the Terran harassment on equal terms. *Addendum: More than an SC2 enthusiast, I'm an MtG player. I like combo because hey, broken things feel fun. One thing I've noticed over the years is that straight up broken shit stays fun only for a while - when you're still amazed that omfg how is this even allowed. Then it becomes so very dull. The one deck I've stayed with over the years is a concoction that can occasionally do hilariously broken things, but usually ends up playing fair in an attempt to stay alive and then sneak the brokenness in somewhere as a finishing blow or as a calculated risk. This keeps the temptation and fun of brokenness (in SC2, the unhindered Zerg economy) but delivers actual games. Plus doing ridiculous things feels like an accomplishment. As another way to think about it, imagine if Marines automatically did the MKP thing and beat banelings? They can do that already, but it requires good calls and micro to do it. It's a ridiculous thing as a reward of great play. Standardizing antibling splits would just make that boring and stupid-feeling instead of amazing and the feeling of greatness would just wear off in short order. Great post this! I gues the biggest problem of SC2 is that games are very predictable, relatively speaking, and thus borring. EDIT: and i blame Blizzard for this with their way of patching the game. Wander how the game would have looked if we had half decent maps in BETA, when most of the changes took place. I actually blame Zerg players (well, the ones who complain about it, pros included) for the current state of the game. With pre-nerf Terran, even though they were overpowered, it was all on Blizzard and their bad decisions, and terrible maps. With the current state of the game, I wonder if it's even fair to claim that Terran was particularly overpowered. Yes, there have been some key balance changes, but maps have also changed, metagame has changed, and I think Zerg play in particular has improved alot from what it once was. What was the balance change that altered Terran from being wildly overpowered to now being in a very questionable spot particularly in TvZ? Was it the stim nerf? The blue flame nerf (which was mostly for TvT as I recall)? The snipe nerf? The rax nerf? The bunker nerf? All of them? By that logic, then if you reverted those nerfs Terran would be OP again. Yet, I doubt it would be. I don't think Terran was particularly OP, I think there were simply some really poor maps back in 2010 and early 2011, and Zerg and Protoss only needed a couple strategic buffs in a couple areas. I'll admit there were some legitimately broken builds though (early reaper builds come to mind). I don't wanna weigh in too heavily in this debate, but in my opinion Terran has been overnerfed and Zerg overbuffed, all during a process wherein the Zerg meta was evolving more slowly than the other two races. We are now seeing the effects.
I was referring to post-release Terran. Sure, some of the nerfs they've gotten since then could be reverted right now, and not unbalance the game a whole lot. Reapers could actually get speed before factory now with 5 range Queens, BC damage could go back to 10, snipe could be unnerfed, and a bunch of other small stuff.
However, if you brought back something like BBS, EMP with 2.0 radius taking away all energy, 50 damage Tanks and 30 second Bunkers, Terran would be pretty powerful. They'd have some insanely strong cheese (it's hard enough for Protoss to defend 11/11 rax as is), 1/1/1 would be unstoppable, and endgame TvP would end with Protoss getting stomped after blanket EMPs over the whole army from three Ghosts. Not entirely sure how these things would affect TvZ, but proxies would kill hatch first openings 100% of the time.
On July 23 2012 03:46 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras. Well, so do you think that mutas are defendable (without going mass muta), or don't you? Because your corruptor buff idea suggests, that they can't. Hydras/Queens don't have blink (stalkers), huge range+splash (thors), or the costefficiency + dps of marines. Corruptors don't have the speed, nor the damage to deal with mutas. I mean, phoenix aren't the greatest defense vs mutas, but they can be useful. Corruptors are basically like phoenix, just without micro capabilities, less dps, more armor and no antiground ability. ZvZ without air fungal or something to make up for it at least partially will degenerate into mass muta vs mass muta. I'm not saying that this has to be bad (though I love ling/roach/hydra/infestor with Broodlords and Ultras having roles - the ZvZ we have right now and that, even if you don't like zerg, produces some of the best games like Leenock vs DRG or Coca vs Hyun) I'm all for taking roles away from the infestor and distributing the things it does on different units, to make for a better game and less of a lategame mass infestors style that can deal with everything on it's own, but I absolutly don't think you can "just nerf it". Especially as Infestors are Zergs main antiair right now, it would break nearly every ZvX style, not just "nerf it". (and seeing how Protoss have very good winrates vs Zerg, I don't see why that matchup would need any change, apart from making carrier transitions smoother - while keeping the overall winrates the same)
Hey, I'm all for buffing stuff, and open to suggestions. Giving Corruptors splash is the simplest idea I've come up with, and doesn't affect other parts of the game too much. But if you have a better one, fire away. I'm not even proposing this as a solution to balance problems, I think it'll make the game better overall. What I take issue with are these kneejerk "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH MUTAS WITHOUT FUNGAL" reactions. I wouldn't even mind a Spire vs Spire midgame in ZvZ, as long as there's incentive and means to transition out of it.
|
On July 23 2012 03:33 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:09 sevencck wrote:On July 22 2012 09:24 forsooth wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Shiori wrote:On July 22 2012 09:00 Torra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:59 xPabt wrote:
I think ryung vs stephano game 3 is the epitome of zerg being too strong late game. I was just about to say this too. That was just disgusting to watch. Agreed. And I swear I'm going to punch out the next person that gives Stephano another free pass on the grounds that his control is "incredible." That was a fucking joke. Bl/Infestor/Ultra is absurdly cost and supply efficient. Hey man, making lots of corruptors and parking your brood lords above ledges to prevent marines from getting right under them is really hard. Sometimes you have to select a control group of infestors and press the F key a few times too. GM level micro. It was a genuinely good game until the giant corruptor fleet got out there. With fungals to hold the bio in place, there's just no way to get to the brood lords and kill them, and vikings are already bad enough against that army without having an upgrade disadvantage. I probably lost 70-80% of games on ladder where Zerg got to that army comp, even before the queen buff. The only way I ever managed to kill it was by baiting Zerg into open ground and getting the most ridiculous arc in the world. Problem is, not all Zergs can be baited and not all maps have enough open ground to pull that off. I want my old snipe back. I agree, I think snipe was 1) prematurely nerfed, and 2) overnerfed. I think snipe should be reverted to it's original damage. On July 22 2012 09:50 Ziggitz wrote:On July 22 2012 09:26 Rokoz wrote:On July 22 2012 09:07 xPabt wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Shiori wrote:On July 22 2012 09:00 Torra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:59 xPabt wrote:
I think ryung vs stephano game 3 is the epitome of zerg being too strong late game. I was just about to say this too. That was just disgusting to watch. Agreed. And I swear I'm going to punch out the next person that gives Stephano another free pass on the grounds that his control is "incredible." That was a fucking joke. Bl/Infestor/Ultra is absurdly cost and supply efficient. Ryung probably should have lost earlier after pushing out with too small an army but for stephano to win after having his expansions denied for so long and taking so many bad engagements is really just retarded. Terran taking a bad engagement means the game is over but for zerg the remax mechanic alows them to stick around and make a comeback due to the cost efficientness of thier late game army+ infestors. I agree. I felt that Ryung had lost at one point, yet somehow he managed to comeback because Stephano did one horrible engagement when Ryung's army was at the choke point. It's horrible to watch games with Infestor / Blood Lords because Terran simply doesn't have answer for them. Sure Terran beat that army composition from time to time but Viking / Tank / Marine / Medivac isn't the solid answer to BL / Infestor army. BC / Raven is the ultimate army composition but it's also far from solid and far too hard to achieve. Terrans do have an answer for them, they just don't realize that maxed army engagements aren't going to go your way when the 60 supply of your army that can hit air is range 5 marines. Terrans still don't realize they need to build higher quality maxes, they still don't realize they need to build more production after they hit 200/200 to be able to remax faster, they don't realize that if you have 2000 gas in the bank at the 25 minute mark if they had expanded for more minerals and not taken more gases they would have had enough army supply to win the game earlier or they should have gone for a composition that actually spent the gas. When it comes to late game Terrans are still in the stone age in terms of strategy and mechanics. And you don't realize that there's no advantage not mining the extra gas if you're saturated on the minerals. 2 refineries + 6 SCVs cost 450 minerals. If you don't get gas at those expos, you can instantly afford another OC with just a 100mineral investment compared to what it costs when you DO take those gases. I'd say something like having 16 more marines at the 15 minute mark would be fairly significant. You need 6 gas to afford double tanks, double medivacs and teching. Once teching is done, you start stockpiling gas, but taking off gas doesn't do anything either way. We are talking about a 500 mineral boost - MAX
|
On July 23 2012 04:02 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:39 sevencck wrote:On July 22 2012 23:00 Toadvine wrote:On July 22 2012 22:07 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 21 2012 21:51 Coffee Zombie wrote:Reverting the Queen buff probably wouldn't make people all-in more often. If the buff is reverted, Zerg players have to invest something into defense again - some gas (Roaches), lots of larvae (Lings) or attention and time (Crawler reroots), so they end up playing fair instead of broken - the whole point of the Hellion expand was to force us to play fair - and make no mistake, unhindered Zerg economy is broken. It was ok beforehand because you needed to outplay the opponent to access it. That isn't the case anymore when Queens are better in combat than Roaches, cost no gas or Larvae and don't need that much micro. And then you get mass creep to nerf midgame pushes. It's easy and standardizes hilariously outrageous greed. I remember when insane creep spread was impressive. I remember being impressed by very greedy Lair and Hive timings. Not anymore. Because all that shit is safe and boring. What the hell is going on if you need an all-in to punish completely ludicrous greed? Not good games, of that I'm sure.* Buffing the Terran lategame a bit is a good idea, but for goodness' sake don't leave it at that. The game is already horrible to watch because it's so binary - as Jinro put it in a comment about toss, you choose to be a rabid monkey on speed or a sedated sloth. The middleground is evaporating because noncommittal pressure has been nerfed to hell and back. And it makes for some terribly dull games. So, if you want to keep Zerg a bit safer? (Unnecessary IMHO, there never was a problem, but anyway Revert the Queen buff, perhaps revert some Terran early game nerfs. And then help those Zerg investments in defense work better in some way. The key is just thatb defending slows the Zerg economy back to sanity and that the defense investment allows Z to fend off the Terran harassment on equal terms. *Addendum: More than an SC2 enthusiast, I'm an MtG player. I like combo because hey, broken things feel fun. One thing I've noticed over the years is that straight up broken shit stays fun only for a while - when you're still amazed that omfg how is this even allowed. Then it becomes so very dull. The one deck I've stayed with over the years is a concoction that can occasionally do hilariously broken things, but usually ends up playing fair in an attempt to stay alive and then sneak the brokenness in somewhere as a finishing blow or as a calculated risk. This keeps the temptation and fun of brokenness (in SC2, the unhindered Zerg economy) but delivers actual games. Plus doing ridiculous things feels like an accomplishment. As another way to think about it, imagine if Marines automatically did the MKP thing and beat banelings? They can do that already, but it requires good calls and micro to do it. It's a ridiculous thing as a reward of great play. Standardizing antibling splits would just make that boring and stupid-feeling instead of amazing and the feeling of greatness would just wear off in short order. Great post this! I gues the biggest problem of SC2 is that games are very predictable, relatively speaking, and thus borring. EDIT: and i blame Blizzard for this with their way of patching the game. Wander how the game would have looked if we had half decent maps in BETA, when most of the changes took place. I actually blame Zerg players (well, the ones who complain about it, pros included) for the current state of the game. With pre-nerf Terran, even though they were overpowered, it was all on Blizzard and their bad decisions, and terrible maps. With the current state of the game, I wonder if it's even fair to claim that Terran was particularly overpowered. Yes, there have been some key balance changes, but maps have also changed, metagame has changed, and I think Zerg play in particular has improved alot from what it once was. What was the balance change that altered Terran from being wildly overpowered to now being in a very questionable spot particularly in TvZ? Was it the stim nerf? The blue flame nerf (which was mostly for TvT as I recall)? The snipe nerf? The rax nerf? The bunker nerf? All of them? By that logic, then if you reverted those nerfs Terran would be OP again. Yet, I doubt it would be. I don't think Terran was particularly OP, I think there were simply some really poor maps back in 2010 and early 2011, and Zerg and Protoss only needed a couple strategic buffs in a couple areas. I'll admit there were some legitimately broken builds though (early reaper builds come to mind). I don't wanna weigh in too heavily in this debate, but in my opinion Terran has been overnerfed and Zerg overbuffed, all during a process wherein the Zerg meta was evolving more slowly than the other two races. We are now seeing the effects. I was referring to post-release Terran. Sure, some of the nerfs they've gotten since then could be reverted right now, and not unbalance the game a whole lot. Reapers could actually get speed before factory now with 5 range Queens, BC damage could go back to 10, snipe could be unnerfed, and a bunch of other small stuff. However, if you brought back something like BBS, EMP with 2.0 radius taking away all energy, 50 damage Tanks and 30 second Bunkers, Terran would be pretty powerful. They'd have some insanely strong cheese (it's hard enough for Protoss to defend 11/11 rax as is), 1/1/1 would be unstoppable, and endgame TvP would end with Protoss getting stomped after blanket EMPs over the whole army from three Ghosts. Not entirely sure how these things would affect TvZ, but proxies would kill hatch first openings 100% of the time. Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:46 Big J wrote:On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras. Well, so do you think that mutas are defendable (without going mass muta), or don't you? Because your corruptor buff idea suggests, that they can't. Hydras/Queens don't have blink (stalkers), huge range+splash (thors), or the costefficiency + dps of marines. Corruptors don't have the speed, nor the damage to deal with mutas. I mean, phoenix aren't the greatest defense vs mutas, but they can be useful. Corruptors are basically like phoenix, just without micro capabilities, less dps, more armor and no antiground ability. ZvZ without air fungal or something to make up for it at least partially will degenerate into mass muta vs mass muta. I'm not saying that this has to be bad (though I love ling/roach/hydra/infestor with Broodlords and Ultras having roles - the ZvZ we have right now and that, even if you don't like zerg, produces some of the best games like Leenock vs DRG or Coca vs Hyun) I'm all for taking roles away from the infestor and distributing the things it does on different units, to make for a better game and less of a lategame mass infestors style that can deal with everything on it's own, but I absolutly don't think you can "just nerf it". Especially as Infestors are Zergs main antiair right now, it would break nearly every ZvX style, not just "nerf it". (and seeing how Protoss have very good winrates vs Zerg, I don't see why that matchup would need any change, apart from making carrier transitions smoother - while keeping the overall winrates the same) Hey, I'm all for buffing stuff, and open to suggestions. Giving Corruptors splash is the simplest idea I've come up with, and doesn't affect other parts of the game too much. But if you have a better one, fire away. I'm not even proposing this as a solution to balance problems, I think it'll make the game better overall. What I take issue with are these kneejerk "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH MUTAS WITHOUT FUNGAL" reactions. I wouldn't even mind a Spire vs Spire midgame in ZvZ, as long as there's incentive and means to transition out of it.
Corruptors with Splash means the last Terran army that stands up to Zerg in the lategame - Viking Battlecruiser Thor Raven Ghost - gets shut down by splitting corruptors. Corruptors beat Vikings and BCs cost for cost and supply for supply and Ravens are a joke. PDD isn't THAT good. Afterwards, make some broods, 1a, profit.
Seriously, Corruptors with Splash would CRUSH any hopes Terran has in the lategame.
|
On July 23 2012 04:02 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:39 sevencck wrote:On July 22 2012 23:00 Toadvine wrote:On July 22 2012 22:07 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 21 2012 21:51 Coffee Zombie wrote:Reverting the Queen buff probably wouldn't make people all-in more often. If the buff is reverted, Zerg players have to invest something into defense again - some gas (Roaches), lots of larvae (Lings) or attention and time (Crawler reroots), so they end up playing fair instead of broken - the whole point of the Hellion expand was to force us to play fair - and make no mistake, unhindered Zerg economy is broken. It was ok beforehand because you needed to outplay the opponent to access it. That isn't the case anymore when Queens are better in combat than Roaches, cost no gas or Larvae and don't need that much micro. And then you get mass creep to nerf midgame pushes. It's easy and standardizes hilariously outrageous greed. I remember when insane creep spread was impressive. I remember being impressed by very greedy Lair and Hive timings. Not anymore. Because all that shit is safe and boring. What the hell is going on if you need an all-in to punish completely ludicrous greed? Not good games, of that I'm sure.* Buffing the Terran lategame a bit is a good idea, but for goodness' sake don't leave it at that. The game is already horrible to watch because it's so binary - as Jinro put it in a comment about toss, you choose to be a rabid monkey on speed or a sedated sloth. The middleground is evaporating because noncommittal pressure has been nerfed to hell and back. And it makes for some terribly dull games. So, if you want to keep Zerg a bit safer? (Unnecessary IMHO, there never was a problem, but anyway Revert the Queen buff, perhaps revert some Terran early game nerfs. And then help those Zerg investments in defense work better in some way. The key is just thatb defending slows the Zerg economy back to sanity and that the defense investment allows Z to fend off the Terran harassment on equal terms. *Addendum: More than an SC2 enthusiast, I'm an MtG player. I like combo because hey, broken things feel fun. One thing I've noticed over the years is that straight up broken shit stays fun only for a while - when you're still amazed that omfg how is this even allowed. Then it becomes so very dull. The one deck I've stayed with over the years is a concoction that can occasionally do hilariously broken things, but usually ends up playing fair in an attempt to stay alive and then sneak the brokenness in somewhere as a finishing blow or as a calculated risk. This keeps the temptation and fun of brokenness (in SC2, the unhindered Zerg economy) but delivers actual games. Plus doing ridiculous things feels like an accomplishment. As another way to think about it, imagine if Marines automatically did the MKP thing and beat banelings? They can do that already, but it requires good calls and micro to do it. It's a ridiculous thing as a reward of great play. Standardizing antibling splits would just make that boring and stupid-feeling instead of amazing and the feeling of greatness would just wear off in short order. Great post this! I gues the biggest problem of SC2 is that games are very predictable, relatively speaking, and thus borring. EDIT: and i blame Blizzard for this with their way of patching the game. Wander how the game would have looked if we had half decent maps in BETA, when most of the changes took place. I actually blame Zerg players (well, the ones who complain about it, pros included) for the current state of the game. With pre-nerf Terran, even though they were overpowered, it was all on Blizzard and their bad decisions, and terrible maps. With the current state of the game, I wonder if it's even fair to claim that Terran was particularly overpowered. Yes, there have been some key balance changes, but maps have also changed, metagame has changed, and I think Zerg play in particular has improved alot from what it once was. What was the balance change that altered Terran from being wildly overpowered to now being in a very questionable spot particularly in TvZ? Was it the stim nerf? The blue flame nerf (which was mostly for TvT as I recall)? The snipe nerf? The rax nerf? The bunker nerf? All of them? By that logic, then if you reverted those nerfs Terran would be OP again. Yet, I doubt it would be. I don't think Terran was particularly OP, I think there were simply some really poor maps back in 2010 and early 2011, and Zerg and Protoss only needed a couple strategic buffs in a couple areas. I'll admit there were some legitimately broken builds though (early reaper builds come to mind). I don't wanna weigh in too heavily in this debate, but in my opinion Terran has been overnerfed and Zerg overbuffed, all during a process wherein the Zerg meta was evolving more slowly than the other two races. We are now seeing the effects. I was referring to post-release Terran. Sure, some of the nerfs they've gotten since then could be reverted right now, and not unbalance the game a whole lot. Reapers could actually get speed before factory now with 5 range Queens, BC damage could go back to 10, snipe could be unnerfed, and a bunch of other small stuff. However, if you brought back something like BBS, EMP with 2.0 radius taking away all energy, 50 damage Tanks and 30 second Bunkers, Terran would be pretty powerful. They'd have some insanely strong cheese (it's hard enough for Protoss to defend 11/11 rax as is), 1/1/1 would be unstoppable, and endgame TvP would end with Protoss getting stomped after blanket EMPs over the whole army from three Ghosts. Not entirely sure how these things would affect TvZ, but proxies would kill hatch first openings 100% of the time. Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:46 Big J wrote:On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras. Well, so do you think that mutas are defendable (without going mass muta), or don't you? Because your corruptor buff idea suggests, that they can't. Hydras/Queens don't have blink (stalkers), huge range+splash (thors), or the costefficiency + dps of marines. Corruptors don't have the speed, nor the damage to deal with mutas. I mean, phoenix aren't the greatest defense vs mutas, but they can be useful. Corruptors are basically like phoenix, just without micro capabilities, less dps, more armor and no antiground ability. ZvZ without air fungal or something to make up for it at least partially will degenerate into mass muta vs mass muta. I'm not saying that this has to be bad (though I love ling/roach/hydra/infestor with Broodlords and Ultras having roles - the ZvZ we have right now and that, even if you don't like zerg, produces some of the best games like Leenock vs DRG or Coca vs Hyun) I'm all for taking roles away from the infestor and distributing the things it does on different units, to make for a better game and less of a lategame mass infestors style that can deal with everything on it's own, but I absolutly don't think you can "just nerf it". Especially as Infestors are Zergs main antiair right now, it would break nearly every ZvX style, not just "nerf it". (and seeing how Protoss have very good winrates vs Zerg, I don't see why that matchup would need any change, apart from making carrier transitions smoother - while keeping the overall winrates the same) Hey, I'm all for buffing stuff, and open to suggestions. Giving Corruptors splash is the simplest idea I've come up with, and doesn't affect other parts of the game too much. But if you have a better one, fire away. I'm not even proposing this as a solution to balance problems, I think it'll make the game better overall. What I take issue with are these kneejerk "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH MUTAS WITHOUT FUNGAL" reactions. I wouldn't even mind a Spire vs Spire midgame in ZvZ, as long as there's incentive and means to transition out of it.
Just to nitpick on the bolded parts:
Protoss were beginning to figure out 1/1/1 and shutting it down before Blizzard nerfed 1/1/1.
Currently, the Terran army gets stomped after getting blanket stormed by 3 HTs.
|
Reverting the queen change would be just wrong. I think queens going to 4 range would be great, heavy queen builds are still good but not as strong and it promotes more micro from both players. Ghosts being somewhere between where they are and where they were OR changing ravens and/or battlecruisers to make them easier to get would also be nice.
hsm range going from 6-7/8 and taking 100 energy instead of 125 would be good. Ghosts would be the easier to transition to but less powerful and ravens the harder to get but stronger. With queens getting toned down a harder to aquire but strong late game for terran would be better if queens were kept at 5 ghosts being brought back as a deal with all but at less damage then they were would be best.
|
On July 23 2012 03:57 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:45 sevencck wrote:On July 23 2012 03:33 RampancyTW wrote:On July 23 2012 03:09 sevencck wrote:On July 22 2012 09:24 forsooth wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Shiori wrote:On July 22 2012 09:00 Torra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:59 xPabt wrote:
I think ryung vs stephano game 3 is the epitome of zerg being too strong late game. I was just about to say this too. That was just disgusting to watch. Agreed. And I swear I'm going to punch out the next person that gives Stephano another free pass on the grounds that his control is "incredible." That was a fucking joke. Bl/Infestor/Ultra is absurdly cost and supply efficient. Hey man, making lots of corruptors and parking your brood lords above ledges to prevent marines from getting right under them is really hard. Sometimes you have to select a control group of infestors and press the F key a few times too. GM level micro. It was a genuinely good game until the giant corruptor fleet got out there. With fungals to hold the bio in place, there's just no way to get to the brood lords and kill them, and vikings are already bad enough against that army without having an upgrade disadvantage. I probably lost 70-80% of games on ladder where Zerg got to that army comp, even before the queen buff. The only way I ever managed to kill it was by baiting Zerg into open ground and getting the most ridiculous arc in the world. Problem is, not all Zergs can be baited and not all maps have enough open ground to pull that off. I want my old snipe back. I agree, I think snipe was 1) prematurely nerfed, and 2) overnerfed. I think snipe should be reverted to it's original damage. On July 22 2012 09:50 Ziggitz wrote:On July 22 2012 09:26 Rokoz wrote:On July 22 2012 09:07 xPabt wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Shiori wrote:On July 22 2012 09:00 Torra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:59 xPabt wrote:
I think ryung vs stephano game 3 is the epitome of zerg being too strong late game. I was just about to say this too. That was just disgusting to watch. Agreed. And I swear I'm going to punch out the next person that gives Stephano another free pass on the grounds that his control is "incredible." That was a fucking joke. Bl/Infestor/Ultra is absurdly cost and supply efficient. Ryung probably should have lost earlier after pushing out with too small an army but for stephano to win after having his expansions denied for so long and taking so many bad engagements is really just retarded. Terran taking a bad engagement means the game is over but for zerg the remax mechanic alows them to stick around and make a comeback due to the cost efficientness of thier late game army+ infestors. I agree. I felt that Ryung had lost at one point, yet somehow he managed to comeback because Stephano did one horrible engagement when Ryung's army was at the choke point. It's horrible to watch games with Infestor / Blood Lords because Terran simply doesn't have answer for them. Sure Terran beat that army composition from time to time but Viking / Tank / Marine / Medivac isn't the solid answer to BL / Infestor army. BC / Raven is the ultimate army composition but it's also far from solid and far too hard to achieve. Terrans do have an answer for them, they just don't realize that maxed army engagements aren't going to go your way when the 60 supply of your army that can hit air is range 5 marines. Terrans still don't realize they need to build higher quality maxes, they still don't realize they need to build more production after they hit 200/200 to be able to remax faster, they don't realize that if you have 2000 gas in the bank at the 25 minute mark if they had expanded for more minerals and not taken more gases they would have had enough army supply to win the game earlier or they should have gone for a composition that actually spent the gas. When it comes to late game Terrans are still in the stone age in terms of strategy and mechanics. And you don't realize that there's no advantage not mining the extra gas if you're saturated on the minerals. 2 refineries + 6 SCVs cost 450 minerals. If you don't get gas at those expos, you can instantly afford another OC with just a 100mineral investment compared to what it costs when you DO take those gases. I'd say something like having 16 more marines at the 15 minute mark would be fairly significant. Since you already have the 6 SCVs it's hardly fair to include their cost in the total. 2 refineries cost 150 minerals, which is probably worth the expenditure to harvest a ton of gas, even if you're unsure if you can spend it (considering especially that you're already mineral saturated). Yes, expanding to a new location is always preferable, but may not be as practical as you think. Securing a new location as Terran in TvZ is very challenging. Also, why are we having this discussion? It's not significant enough to make a reliable difference. So what you're saying is that those 6 SCVs would be over-saturating the expansion? In that case, it's ABSOLUTELY fair to include them in the cost. Either way, you have 6 SCVs too many. And an additional OC doesn't care about saturation, it can MULE an existing base regardless.
No, it isn't fair to include them in the cost. As Terran you don't make a group of SCVs at once as you establish a new mining base, you make them constantly up until approximately 75 or so, projecting for current and future bases. Just because you're at saturation on a base doesn't mean you can stop making SCVs, unless you're already at 75-80. In addition, you're constantly converging to saturation conditions as previously established bases mine out. There is no point in having those SCVs mine minerals under conditions of mineral saturation. Ergo, you spend 150 minerals and have them mine gas instead. This doesn't magically cost you 300 extra minerals. Your point about MULE oversaturation also isn't really relevant, since we're discussing SCV saturation.
Mining gas from an oversaturated base costs you 150 minerals for two refineries. You wouldn't say it costs you 300 minerals to transfer SCVs from an oversaturated mineral field to another mineral field. Why then are you trying to argue it suddenly costs you 300 minerals to transfer them to gas?
And again, it's a bit ridiculous to be arguing that this is why Terran is struggling, since as you've pointed out, MULES can oversaturate the mineral fields anyway.
Couple edits: typos and other larger errors
|
On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:46 Big J wrote:On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras. Well, so do you think that mutas are defendable (without going mass muta), or don't you? Because your corruptor buff idea suggests, that they can't. Hydras/Queens don't have blink (stalkers), huge range+splash (thors), or the costefficiency + dps of marines. Corruptors don't have the speed, nor the damage to deal with mutas. I mean, phoenix aren't the greatest defense vs mutas, but they can be useful. Corruptors are basically like phoenix, just without micro capabilities, less dps, more armor and no antiground ability. ZvZ without air fungal or something to make up for it at least partially will degenerate into mass muta vs mass muta. I'm not saying that this has to be bad (though I love ling/roach/hydra/infestor with Broodlords and Ultras having roles - the ZvZ we have right now and that, even if you don't like zerg, produces some of the best games like Leenock vs DRG or Coca vs Hyun) I'm all for taking roles away from the infestor and distributing the things it does on different units, to make for a better game and less of a lategame mass infestors style that can deal with everything on it's own, but I absolutly don't think you can "just nerf it". Especially as Infestors are Zergs main antiair right now, it would break nearly every ZvX style, not just "nerf it". (and seeing how Protoss have very good winrates vs Zerg, I don't see why that matchup would need any change, apart from making carrier transitions smoother - while keeping the overall winrates the same) Hey, I'm all for buffing stuff, and open to suggestions. Giving Corruptors splash is the simplest idea I've come up with, and doesn't affect other parts of the game too much. But if you have a better one, fire away. I'm not even proposing this as a solution to balance problems, I think it'll make the game better overall. What I take issue with are these kneejerk "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH MUTAS WITHOUT FUNGAL" reactions. I wouldn't even mind a Spire vs Spire midgame in ZvZ, as long as there's incentive and means to transition out of it.
Well, I could come up with tons of suggestions. The question is always, how much stuff can be changed without breaking other things, and how much needs to be changed inside Zerg. As said, I don't really see a huge need to change ZvP right now. Protoss are having good winrates, and they have come up with quite a few fast 3rd builds - the thing that has been said to be impossible - as well as somewhat good lategame solutions (essentially: forcing broodlords and then going carriers, though I think they should get a build time buff and/or protoss air upgrades should also get one; basically every races air upgrades are weirdly hard to go for, but BCs and Carriers are hurting most of that; but also speedprism harass to avoid the broods and the good old archontoilet)
TvZ is another story. But I don't feel like the problem is so much the lategame of Zerg, rather that Zerg hits his "ultimate" composition(s) way before Terran can hit something equally scary/expensive. (basically similar suggestions for Ravens and BCs as for Carriers; make them more accessible, through build time, maybe small cost decreases. Give HSM +1 range - 9was too much, 6 is very little -, remove the durable material upgrade and just include it "halfway", like they did with ultraspeed and maybe change autoturrets from building to mech or something similar, for the upgrades)
Or just remove queen range.
Or do the "Preroach" idea, I posted some pages ago while removing queen range.
Or nerf roaches costefficiency, buff hydras costefficiency and give either or both of them strong hivetech upgrades (like 7range speedhydras), while nerfing infestors and broodlords to the support roles, they are designed to be, (which is making zerg more swarmy)
Or... I can go on for days if you want. The thing is, most of those things need to change the game too much.
|
On July 23 2012 04:25 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:02 Toadvine wrote:On July 23 2012 03:39 sevencck wrote:On July 22 2012 23:00 Toadvine wrote:On July 22 2012 22:07 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 21 2012 21:51 Coffee Zombie wrote:Reverting the Queen buff probably wouldn't make people all-in more often. If the buff is reverted, Zerg players have to invest something into defense again - some gas (Roaches), lots of larvae (Lings) or attention and time (Crawler reroots), so they end up playing fair instead of broken - the whole point of the Hellion expand was to force us to play fair - and make no mistake, unhindered Zerg economy is broken. It was ok beforehand because you needed to outplay the opponent to access it. That isn't the case anymore when Queens are better in combat than Roaches, cost no gas or Larvae and don't need that much micro. And then you get mass creep to nerf midgame pushes. It's easy and standardizes hilariously outrageous greed. I remember when insane creep spread was impressive. I remember being impressed by very greedy Lair and Hive timings. Not anymore. Because all that shit is safe and boring. What the hell is going on if you need an all-in to punish completely ludicrous greed? Not good games, of that I'm sure.* Buffing the Terran lategame a bit is a good idea, but for goodness' sake don't leave it at that. The game is already horrible to watch because it's so binary - as Jinro put it in a comment about toss, you choose to be a rabid monkey on speed or a sedated sloth. The middleground is evaporating because noncommittal pressure has been nerfed to hell and back. And it makes for some terribly dull games. So, if you want to keep Zerg a bit safer? (Unnecessary IMHO, there never was a problem, but anyway Revert the Queen buff, perhaps revert some Terran early game nerfs. And then help those Zerg investments in defense work better in some way. The key is just thatb defending slows the Zerg economy back to sanity and that the defense investment allows Z to fend off the Terran harassment on equal terms. *Addendum: More than an SC2 enthusiast, I'm an MtG player. I like combo because hey, broken things feel fun. One thing I've noticed over the years is that straight up broken shit stays fun only for a while - when you're still amazed that omfg how is this even allowed. Then it becomes so very dull. The one deck I've stayed with over the years is a concoction that can occasionally do hilariously broken things, but usually ends up playing fair in an attempt to stay alive and then sneak the brokenness in somewhere as a finishing blow or as a calculated risk. This keeps the temptation and fun of brokenness (in SC2, the unhindered Zerg economy) but delivers actual games. Plus doing ridiculous things feels like an accomplishment. As another way to think about it, imagine if Marines automatically did the MKP thing and beat banelings? They can do that already, but it requires good calls and micro to do it. It's a ridiculous thing as a reward of great play. Standardizing antibling splits would just make that boring and stupid-feeling instead of amazing and the feeling of greatness would just wear off in short order. Great post this! I gues the biggest problem of SC2 is that games are very predictable, relatively speaking, and thus borring. EDIT: and i blame Blizzard for this with their way of patching the game. Wander how the game would have looked if we had half decent maps in BETA, when most of the changes took place. I actually blame Zerg players (well, the ones who complain about it, pros included) for the current state of the game. With pre-nerf Terran, even though they were overpowered, it was all on Blizzard and their bad decisions, and terrible maps. With the current state of the game, I wonder if it's even fair to claim that Terran was particularly overpowered. Yes, there have been some key balance changes, but maps have also changed, metagame has changed, and I think Zerg play in particular has improved alot from what it once was. What was the balance change that altered Terran from being wildly overpowered to now being in a very questionable spot particularly in TvZ? Was it the stim nerf? The blue flame nerf (which was mostly for TvT as I recall)? The snipe nerf? The rax nerf? The bunker nerf? All of them? By that logic, then if you reverted those nerfs Terran would be OP again. Yet, I doubt it would be. I don't think Terran was particularly OP, I think there were simply some really poor maps back in 2010 and early 2011, and Zerg and Protoss only needed a couple strategic buffs in a couple areas. I'll admit there were some legitimately broken builds though (early reaper builds come to mind). I don't wanna weigh in too heavily in this debate, but in my opinion Terran has been overnerfed and Zerg overbuffed, all during a process wherein the Zerg meta was evolving more slowly than the other two races. We are now seeing the effects. I was referring to post-release Terran. Sure, some of the nerfs they've gotten since then could be reverted right now, and not unbalance the game a whole lot. Reapers could actually get speed before factory now with 5 range Queens, BC damage could go back to 10, snipe could be unnerfed, and a bunch of other small stuff. However, if you brought back something like BBS, EMP with 2.0 radius taking away all energy, 50 damage Tanks and 30 second Bunkers, Terran would be pretty powerful. They'd have some insanely strong cheese (it's hard enough for Protoss to defend 11/11 rax as is), 1/1/1 would be unstoppable, and endgame TvP would end with Protoss getting stomped after blanket EMPs over the whole army from three Ghosts. Not entirely sure how these things would affect TvZ, but proxies would kill hatch first openings 100% of the time. On July 23 2012 03:46 Big J wrote:On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras. Well, so do you think that mutas are defendable (without going mass muta), or don't you? Because your corruptor buff idea suggests, that they can't. Hydras/Queens don't have blink (stalkers), huge range+splash (thors), or the costefficiency + dps of marines. Corruptors don't have the speed, nor the damage to deal with mutas. I mean, phoenix aren't the greatest defense vs mutas, but they can be useful. Corruptors are basically like phoenix, just without micro capabilities, less dps, more armor and no antiground ability. ZvZ without air fungal or something to make up for it at least partially will degenerate into mass muta vs mass muta. I'm not saying that this has to be bad (though I love ling/roach/hydra/infestor with Broodlords and Ultras having roles - the ZvZ we have right now and that, even if you don't like zerg, produces some of the best games like Leenock vs DRG or Coca vs Hyun) I'm all for taking roles away from the infestor and distributing the things it does on different units, to make for a better game and less of a lategame mass infestors style that can deal with everything on it's own, but I absolutly don't think you can "just nerf it". Especially as Infestors are Zergs main antiair right now, it would break nearly every ZvX style, not just "nerf it". (and seeing how Protoss have very good winrates vs Zerg, I don't see why that matchup would need any change, apart from making carrier transitions smoother - while keeping the overall winrates the same) Hey, I'm all for buffing stuff, and open to suggestions. Giving Corruptors splash is the simplest idea I've come up with, and doesn't affect other parts of the game too much. But if you have a better one, fire away. I'm not even proposing this as a solution to balance problems, I think it'll make the game better overall. What I take issue with are these kneejerk "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH MUTAS WITHOUT FUNGAL" reactions. I wouldn't even mind a Spire vs Spire midgame in ZvZ, as long as there's incentive and means to transition out of it. Just to nitpick on the bolded parts: Protoss were beginning to figure out 1/1/1 and shutting it down before Blizzard nerfed 1/1/1. Currently, the Terran army gets stomped after getting blanket stormed by 3 HTs.
Currently, it feels like blanket EMPs or blanket storms just don't happen if both players are controlling very well (probably a bit harder on the Terran side since colossi still can do a good amount of damage without too much effort). Agreed on 1/1/1, though I thought it was more the range buff on immortals rather than a direct buff?
On the topic of economy management of Terrans and banking lots of gas, how is it even possible to seriously argue this from either side on an online forum with pretty much just theory? Maybe it's something that can be done better, but it's probably extremely map and game dependent.
My hunch is that it usually isn't going to be enough in terms of playing bio because there isn't really any change to the fact that aside from a few open areas on a few maps, the Zerg deathball isn't really approachable with bio + vikings, but we need much more concrete stuff than forum arguments (example games and stuff)
Also, why are people using LosirA vs TaeJa game 1 when Stephano vs Ryung game 3 was a much more ugly game in regards to TvZ balance?
|
On July 23 2012 04:25 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:02 Toadvine wrote:On July 23 2012 03:39 sevencck wrote:On July 22 2012 23:00 Toadvine wrote:On July 22 2012 22:07 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 21 2012 21:51 Coffee Zombie wrote:Reverting the Queen buff probably wouldn't make people all-in more often. If the buff is reverted, Zerg players have to invest something into defense again - some gas (Roaches), lots of larvae (Lings) or attention and time (Crawler reroots), so they end up playing fair instead of broken - the whole point of the Hellion expand was to force us to play fair - and make no mistake, unhindered Zerg economy is broken. It was ok beforehand because you needed to outplay the opponent to access it. That isn't the case anymore when Queens are better in combat than Roaches, cost no gas or Larvae and don't need that much micro. And then you get mass creep to nerf midgame pushes. It's easy and standardizes hilariously outrageous greed. I remember when insane creep spread was impressive. I remember being impressed by very greedy Lair and Hive timings. Not anymore. Because all that shit is safe and boring. What the hell is going on if you need an all-in to punish completely ludicrous greed? Not good games, of that I'm sure.* Buffing the Terran lategame a bit is a good idea, but for goodness' sake don't leave it at that. The game is already horrible to watch because it's so binary - as Jinro put it in a comment about toss, you choose to be a rabid monkey on speed or a sedated sloth. The middleground is evaporating because noncommittal pressure has been nerfed to hell and back. And it makes for some terribly dull games. So, if you want to keep Zerg a bit safer? (Unnecessary IMHO, there never was a problem, but anyway Revert the Queen buff, perhaps revert some Terran early game nerfs. And then help those Zerg investments in defense work better in some way. The key is just thatb defending slows the Zerg economy back to sanity and that the defense investment allows Z to fend off the Terran harassment on equal terms. *Addendum: More than an SC2 enthusiast, I'm an MtG player. I like combo because hey, broken things feel fun. One thing I've noticed over the years is that straight up broken shit stays fun only for a while - when you're still amazed that omfg how is this even allowed. Then it becomes so very dull. The one deck I've stayed with over the years is a concoction that can occasionally do hilariously broken things, but usually ends up playing fair in an attempt to stay alive and then sneak the brokenness in somewhere as a finishing blow or as a calculated risk. This keeps the temptation and fun of brokenness (in SC2, the unhindered Zerg economy) but delivers actual games. Plus doing ridiculous things feels like an accomplishment. As another way to think about it, imagine if Marines automatically did the MKP thing and beat banelings? They can do that already, but it requires good calls and micro to do it. It's a ridiculous thing as a reward of great play. Standardizing antibling splits would just make that boring and stupid-feeling instead of amazing and the feeling of greatness would just wear off in short order. Great post this! I gues the biggest problem of SC2 is that games are very predictable, relatively speaking, and thus borring. EDIT: and i blame Blizzard for this with their way of patching the game. Wander how the game would have looked if we had half decent maps in BETA, when most of the changes took place. I actually blame Zerg players (well, the ones who complain about it, pros included) for the current state of the game. With pre-nerf Terran, even though they were overpowered, it was all on Blizzard and their bad decisions, and terrible maps. With the current state of the game, I wonder if it's even fair to claim that Terran was particularly overpowered. Yes, there have been some key balance changes, but maps have also changed, metagame has changed, and I think Zerg play in particular has improved alot from what it once was. What was the balance change that altered Terran from being wildly overpowered to now being in a very questionable spot particularly in TvZ? Was it the stim nerf? The blue flame nerf (which was mostly for TvT as I recall)? The snipe nerf? The rax nerf? The bunker nerf? All of them? By that logic, then if you reverted those nerfs Terran would be OP again. Yet, I doubt it would be. I don't think Terran was particularly OP, I think there were simply some really poor maps back in 2010 and early 2011, and Zerg and Protoss only needed a couple strategic buffs in a couple areas. I'll admit there were some legitimately broken builds though (early reaper builds come to mind). I don't wanna weigh in too heavily in this debate, but in my opinion Terran has been overnerfed and Zerg overbuffed, all during a process wherein the Zerg meta was evolving more slowly than the other two races. We are now seeing the effects. I was referring to post-release Terran. Sure, some of the nerfs they've gotten since then could be reverted right now, and not unbalance the game a whole lot. Reapers could actually get speed before factory now with 5 range Queens, BC damage could go back to 10, snipe could be unnerfed, and a bunch of other small stuff. However, if you brought back something like BBS, EMP with 2.0 radius taking away all energy, 50 damage Tanks and 30 second Bunkers, Terran would be pretty powerful. They'd have some insanely strong cheese (it's hard enough for Protoss to defend 11/11 rax as is), 1/1/1 would be unstoppable, and endgame TvP would end with Protoss getting stomped after blanket EMPs over the whole army from three Ghosts. Not entirely sure how these things would affect TvZ, but proxies would kill hatch first openings 100% of the time. On July 23 2012 03:46 Big J wrote:On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras. Well, so do you think that mutas are defendable (without going mass muta), or don't you? Because your corruptor buff idea suggests, that they can't. Hydras/Queens don't have blink (stalkers), huge range+splash (thors), or the costefficiency + dps of marines. Corruptors don't have the speed, nor the damage to deal with mutas. I mean, phoenix aren't the greatest defense vs mutas, but they can be useful. Corruptors are basically like phoenix, just without micro capabilities, less dps, more armor and no antiground ability. ZvZ without air fungal or something to make up for it at least partially will degenerate into mass muta vs mass muta. I'm not saying that this has to be bad (though I love ling/roach/hydra/infestor with Broodlords and Ultras having roles - the ZvZ we have right now and that, even if you don't like zerg, produces some of the best games like Leenock vs DRG or Coca vs Hyun) I'm all for taking roles away from the infestor and distributing the things it does on different units, to make for a better game and less of a lategame mass infestors style that can deal with everything on it's own, but I absolutly don't think you can "just nerf it". Especially as Infestors are Zergs main antiair right now, it would break nearly every ZvX style, not just "nerf it". (and seeing how Protoss have very good winrates vs Zerg, I don't see why that matchup would need any change, apart from making carrier transitions smoother - while keeping the overall winrates the same) Hey, I'm all for buffing stuff, and open to suggestions. Giving Corruptors splash is the simplest idea I've come up with, and doesn't affect other parts of the game too much. But if you have a better one, fire away. I'm not even proposing this as a solution to balance problems, I think it'll make the game better overall. What I take issue with are these kneejerk "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH MUTAS WITHOUT FUNGAL" reactions. I wouldn't even mind a Spire vs Spire midgame in ZvZ, as long as there's incentive and means to transition out of it. Just to nitpick on the bolded parts: Protoss were beginning to figure out 1/1/1 and shutting it down before Blizzard nerfed 1/1/1. Currently, the Terran army gets stomped after getting blanket stormed by 3 HTs.
Nobody was figuring out 1/1/1 with 50 dmg to everything Tanks. Blizzard didn't nerf 1/1/1 anyway, they buffed Immortals, which did help somewhat, but it wasn't gamebreaking. 1/1/1 got partially figured out, and new maps did the rest. But I doubt it'd be easy with pre-nerf Tanks.
And really, since Storm and EMP now have the same radius, blanket EMPs are about as effective as blanket Storms. You could experiment with having EMP take away all energy again, but giving it both that and the old radius back would lead to TvP looking the same as it did during the fall of 2011. Incidentally Fungal still has a radius of 2.0 for whatever reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
