|
On August 03 2012 04:04 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 04:01 Orek wrote:On August 03 2012 03:49 Zanno wrote:
The last 2 pages of this thread make no sense to me.
How many viable builds did zerg have in BW TvZ? They had exactly one, and virtually everything else remotely viable was super volatile and could fall flat on its face if scouted. Meanwhile Terran could do all sorts of wacky things to try and disrupt this build. Sound familiar?
The entire race is designed in a way that discrete build orders only sort of exist, the exact order of what you use your larva to produce is contingent on what your opponent does. If zerg is finally approaching what will end up being standard play in sc2 then that should be viewed as a good thing. You win the argument. Yes I agree with you. I follow BW for about 6 years, and I would say builds rarely vary. Yeah, Zerg started to prefer no sunken colony at front in favor of units and such, but overall, buids are so refined today that not much room for creativity is left. Still, game has continued to evolve, and is as enjoyable as SC2 if not more. Probably it is a good sign that Zerg found a solid build as you pointed out. Yeah, except their solid build is built on being totally impervious to pressure. In BW, you could force reactions and do a bit of damage with harassment/pressure without all-inning. You cannot do that in Sc2 with Protoss, and, post Queen buff, neither with Terran.
i really think that's a map pool issue
every map at minimum has an extremely easily defensible third and maps have gotten so large to the point where even daybreak feels small now
maps like atlantis spaceship, whirlwind, and formerly taldarim altar were designed intentionally as zerg favored maps, to offset how much trouble zerg used to have on maps with short rush distances by setting it up so any early attack would take a long time to get there
either way i don't think the fact that there's a standard build for zerg in any way is a balance problem as long as that build doesn't have like a 100% winrate or something absurd like that. between the map pool and the queen buff the stars pretty much aligned for a new zerg champion last GSL season and we still ended up with a regrettable PvP series instead...what's up with that
|
On August 03 2012 04:13 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 04:04 Shiori wrote:On August 03 2012 04:01 Orek wrote:On August 03 2012 03:49 Zanno wrote:
The last 2 pages of this thread make no sense to me.
How many viable builds did zerg have in BW TvZ? They had exactly one, and virtually everything else remotely viable was super volatile and could fall flat on its face if scouted. Meanwhile Terran could do all sorts of wacky things to try and disrupt this build. Sound familiar?
The entire race is designed in a way that discrete build orders only sort of exist, the exact order of what you use your larva to produce is contingent on what your opponent does. If zerg is finally approaching what will end up being standard play in sc2 then that should be viewed as a good thing. You win the argument. Yes I agree with you. I follow BW for about 6 years, and I would say builds rarely vary. Yeah, Zerg started to prefer no sunken colony at front in favor of units and such, but overall, buids are so refined today that not much room for creativity is left. Still, game has continued to evolve, and is as enjoyable as SC2 if not more. Probably it is a good sign that Zerg found a solid build as you pointed out. Yeah, except their solid build is built on being totally impervious to pressure. In BW, you could force reactions and do a bit of damage with harassment/pressure without all-inning. You cannot do that in Sc2 with Protoss, and, post Queen buff, neither with Terran. i really think that's a map pool issue every map at minimum has an extremely easily defensible third and maps have gotten so large to the point where even daybreak feels small now maps like atlantis spaceship, whirlwind, and formerly taldarim altar were designed intentionally as zerg favored maps, to offset how much trouble zerg used to have on maps with short rush distances by setting it up so any early attack would take a long time to get there either way i don't think the fact that there's a standard build for zerg in any way is a balance problem as long as that build doesn't have like a 100% winrate or something absurd like that. between the map pool and the queen buff the stars pretty much aligned for a new zerg champion last GSL season and we still ended up with a regrettable PvP series instead...what's up with that
Nobody has ever had a 100% winrate in Sc2, despite a long history of imbalanced shit that everyone agrees was imbalanced.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On August 03 2012 03:44 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 03:01 ysnake wrote:On August 03 2012 02:46 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^. Zerg simply arent being creative, because they hardly ever try out the Nydus Worm or do drops to get inside an enemy Protoss base in the early minutes. Protoss are only good at blocking a choke and Cannons at the front of the natural expansion dont help against Zerg inside the main. So dont pull the "nerf the others" card please, because simply the threat of a drop is enough to pull off some forces from the front and could be enough to break in. All YOU have to do it is actually use those tactics and stop whining about "Terran OP" or "Protoss OP"(*1), because there are ways to abuse the weaknesses and circumvent the strengths of those two other races. Baneling carpet-bombing has been popular and effective for a short while. Why isnt it used anymore? Probably because they dont need to do it and the "lazy standard swarm everything" build has removed the need for it. Why arent Baneling drops made on opponents mineral lines? Same answer as above. The creative uses of Zerg technology are there; they arent required to be used and thus Zerg players are becoming lazy and uncreative. (*1) You actually didnt say that, but asking for a nerf to another race is the same ... just phrased the opposite way. Overlords with speed and drop researched cost 300/300, which isn't that big, but you can EASILY spot when a Zerg is going to drop your main. Nydus is not underused, I use it quite frequently, but the fact is that a couple of workers can kill it while it is "building" is stupid and it's a big investment for early/mid game. It costs 150/200 just to put the Nydus network and every additional Nydus worm costs 100/100, that's quite a lot of gas in the period when gas is most needed for Zerg (Zerg is the race that requires most gas for endgame), and to use Roaches in there is an allin. Nydus Worm has 200 Hit Points, two units can shut it down pretty easily and it's not hard to miss it on most maps, since the entire base is visible to the player. That's like saying "why don't you use Nukes when they 1shot almost all units", they are bad and require the other player to respond horribly, same applies to Nydus Network. No Zerg can break a front in the mid-game without being allin, sorry, but Force Fields and Siege Tanks make it impossible to try and break down a wall without severely losing to Siege Tanks, and plus, Siege Tanks still continue to pound your army as they are on the high ground, even if you break through. Please get your facts straight or try and cheese your way as Zerg and tell me how it went. Nydus in pro games are wayyy underused IMO especially when the opponent (Protoss only since Terrans need a lot more space for buildings) doesnt cover his main base with Pylons ... which is very likely if he goes the "fast expand" route. A fast lair will allow you to abuse this weakness and Protoss main bases are scouted regularly through Overlords. Usually the Protoss on a heavy economy/expansion build has a forge and cannon at his choke outside the natural and this FORCES many buildings to be built not in the main base, so there should be a LOT of space to get a Nydus in on a lot of maps. Can you really spot if those Overlords heading for your main base are actually full? No, but they could be and that is the key. You are NOT forced to fight against the full force at the front and you might even have only a few Banelings in the Overlords to get some worker kills. Even more damaging is a drop of Banelings on Terran add-ons IMO, because they cost time to build, reduce the available tech and slow down the Terran. Might be much better than rolling them into the front wall ... Who said a Zerg should be able to BREAK A FRONT? Seriously? You should use attacks in many places through drops or attacks on other outlying bases to "pull strings" while abusing the Zerg mobility to strike where you want. Sneakiness like burrow (also rarely seen) would help a lot, but Zerg players are too lazy (because I dont dare say "dumb") to use it. Especially against Protoss it should be easy to "siege-break" a front simply because the wall-in also reduces their mobility AND because they might not have blink yet (in early mid-game?). Just get a Nydus Worm, plant it outside the enemy base to start some creep. Then get a Queen to drop creep tumors and grow some Spine Crawlers as base siege units. At 7 range they outrange anything pre-Colossus (with upgrade) or sieged tank. With some Queens behind them a siege or blockade should be possible. The possibilities are there, just get creative and use EVERY weapon in your arsenal and not just the stuff categorized as "unit".
Actually, I went through my last 50 games played, and guess what, NEVER have I defeated an opponent by breaking their front, it is their army that moves out and I kill it.
If you say "well, why you should break a front", that means a Zerg player cannot finish off a game in which he has MAJOR advantage in (let's say a Terran did an allin that miserably failed but continued to stay in the game).
Burrow cannot be used against Toss, ever, simply because every decent Protoss player has an Observer with his death ball, I was tempted to never spread creep beyond where I had to, simply because they have such an easy time clearing it. You cannot burrow into someone's base because they always have a cannon or two, also, if a Terran sees Spire (regardless if the Zerg player is not even going Mutas), most of them throw 2-3 Turrets around, just to stall the Mutas until Marines get there, also, the only units that can move while burrowed are Infestors and Roaches, and Roaches are bad, in general, against a big bio ball.
Burrow is also bad because it takes 0.7 seconds until unburrowing units can attack, while others can shoot a MASSIVE volley (as everything moves around in a death ball) at the unburrowing units, so it is better (and takes more coordination and skill) to attack from different directions at once.
Mutas are the only way a Zerg can "encroach" on the opponent's main, and Nydus networks are bad, what you are suggesting is a massive allin, putting Queens (150 minerals, 50 second build time) at your front is close to suicide. Zerg cannot contain anyone because as soon as Siege Mode or Thermal Lance is out, it's game over.
Nydus Networks are costly and are similar to Ravens, they can either work AWESOME or they usually just end up being a waste of money.
Nukes are not used nearly as enough considering their power, because it involves the other player to be braindead. They are only used for harassing, but with Zergling mobility, Nydus networks are not needed if you want to harass stray expansions.
|
You can break your opponent's front eventually as you start to out macro them, of course.
The dumb argument that's been going on for a couple pages is that zergs deserve to have a 3 base gasless build order that can hold any and all pressures, without much variation, and without really committing anything to to get scouting info -> all because it's hard to baneling bust a FFE with sentries. If you thought people were saying zerg can't crack a turtle you got the reading wrong.
|
On August 02 2012 23:44 BeyondCtrL wrote:
I don't think anyone can seriously argue against the point that Zergs don't need to do anything "special". They basically have very few core builds that deal with practically everything. I think this is one of the reasons why Zergs are showing a lot of presence in tournaments, especially in these few days long tournaments where you don't have a lot of time to prepare builds, because the current meta-game gives Zerg a very powerful and stable standard play. Zergs go in with 3-5 builds tops while Terrans and Protoss have to go in with 10++ to even have a chance.
This does NOT mean, however, that Zerg is easier to play or that it is clearly imbalanced. It's the way the design of the race is working at the moment. I think, as I have mentioned before, that Zergs potentially got too many "free" buffs instead of upgrade purchase buffs (single units filling in too many roles). Also that the infestor is really effective against everything. It's not imbalanced but it does lead to a very simplified and limited choice for the Zergs which leads to few actual, but very powerful, standard plays.
Well it really depends what do you mean by special.
if you compare different zerg style for example, nerchio and stephano, you can see the difference between them and when and how they put in units/drones is really different and unique. As for preparations, I also think it doesn't mean zerg has an easier time to practise because they will have to be good at defending all different kinds of cheese/all in/greedy play etc and each game is going to be different.
toss or terran on the other hand can prepare one specific build for each map, including the opponent's scouting patterns etc.
but I simply think both have their hard points and it is unfair to say zerg had a simple build and makes it easier for them. Not to mention some unseen builds like immortal sentries warp prism killed lots of berg until it I'd figured out. That's how the metagame evolve and develope.
I think destiny said it the best. Starcraft 2 at the moment rewards mechanics a lot more than smart play. Whoever execute the build better with the better mechanics, they win
|
On August 03 2012 14:28 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 23:44 BeyondCtrL wrote:
I don't think anyone can seriously argue against the point that Zergs don't need to do anything "special". They basically have very few core builds that deal with practically everything. I think this is one of the reasons why Zergs are showing a lot of presence in tournaments, especially in these few days long tournaments where you don't have a lot of time to prepare builds, because the current meta-game gives Zerg a very powerful and stable standard play. Zergs go in with 3-5 builds tops while Terrans and Protoss have to go in with 10++ to even have a chance.
This does NOT mean, however, that Zerg is easier to play or that it is clearly imbalanced. It's the way the design of the race is working at the moment. I think, as I have mentioned before, that Zergs potentially got too many "free" buffs instead of upgrade purchase buffs (single units filling in too many roles). Also that the infestor is really effective against everything. It's not imbalanced but it does lead to a very simplified and limited choice for the Zergs which leads to few actual, but very powerful, standard plays. Well it really depends what do you mean by special. if you compare different zerg style for example, nerchio and stephano, you can see the difference between them and when and how they put in units/drones is really different and unique. As for preparations, I also think it doesn't mean zerg has an easier time to practise because they will have to be good at defending all different kinds of cheese/all in/greedy play etc and each game is going to be different. toss or terran on the other hand can prepare one specific build for each map, including the opponent's scouting patterns etc. but I simply think both have their hard points and it is unfair to say zerg had a simple build and makes it easier for them. Not to mention some unseen builds like immortal sentries warp prism killed lots of berg until it I'd figured out. That's how the metagame evolve and develope. I think destiny said it the best. Starcraft 2 at the moment rewards mechanics a lot more than smart play. Whoever execute the build better with the better mechanics, they win
Not saying that the builds that they do is easy, they aren't. What I'm saying is that Zerg has fewer builds to choose from. Obviously this doesn't make them easier to play than the other races considering the intensive macro mechanics. However since the Zerg has a very powerful standard play they don't have to resort to more special tactics and always fall back to the same units in every match up.
What this does give an advantage in is that in shorter style tournaments, ala MLG, Zergs have an advantage in the sense that they can rely on this very powerful standard build. They don't have to resort to all-ins, 2 base plays, or quirky unit comps as much as T/P does. This in reality gives the best players the greatest advantage since standard play is the best way to win hands down. When your standard build is so effective versus so many styles it puts the pressure on the opponent to come up with something rather than the Zerg. So please understand that this is not a statement of whether players of X race are better than others, that is simply, and absolutely, not true.
We can see evidence for this when you compare GSL to MLG recently. In GSL the win rates are quite stable for all races and there doesn't seem to be a race that is overly dominant. This is because the players have time to prepare for each player and map extensively. This allows T/P to practice a lot of builds to perfection and thus allow them to give really good results. In MLG, however, you don't have much time to prepare and practice as many builds nor do you have full knowledge of who you are gonna play against. So it's understandable that the race that needs to prepare the least in the sense of picking good builds will be more successful (which we do see unlike GSL). Since Zerg have an extremely flexible and strong standard builds they can fall back on it in almost every case without as much as damage when you compare it to a slightly weaker/vulnerable standard play.
If we look at this from a numerical perspective we can imagine this:
Zerg has X,Y,Z standard builds. X counters, e.g. 5 styles really well. Y counters 10 and Z counters another 5. If Zerg had X,Y,Z, F, K, L, T standard builds but each build countered less styles then it becomes more difficult to pick the right pick in any situation since a lot of the times you have to guess what your opponent is doing. The downside to the way Zerg is played is that they are limited in what is actually effective but T/P can bring out a lot of different styles against them. The question now revolves around the concept if the few builds that Zerg have are too effective against too many styles and thus alleviates the "war of mistakes" for the Zerg. The other side of this then how can we change Zerg so that they have more options and builds to choose without nerfing their race?
You can't outright nerf the Infestor or something else because we can see in the GSL that the game is decently balanced. Perhaps the answer is to spread out unit effectiveness so that one unit is not effective against everything, which would then mean a nerf and buff to one or more units with the intention of not weakening effective counters but rather give the player a choice and with it the possibility of errors (which effectively raises the skill cap). Players like Stephano are already insanely good so this should have no effect on them nor on GSL format tournaments. Zerg can have a broader set of viable strategies to use but in MLG style tournaments it puts them on even ground with he other races where it comes to picking strategies and builds.
|
On August 03 2012 08:57 ysnake wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 03:44 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 03:01 ysnake wrote:On August 03 2012 02:46 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^. Zerg simply arent being creative, because they hardly ever try out the Nydus Worm or do drops to get inside an enemy Protoss base in the early minutes. Protoss are only good at blocking a choke and Cannons at the front of the natural expansion dont help against Zerg inside the main. So dont pull the "nerf the others" card please, because simply the threat of a drop is enough to pull off some forces from the front and could be enough to break in. All YOU have to do it is actually use those tactics and stop whining about "Terran OP" or "Protoss OP"(*1), because there are ways to abuse the weaknesses and circumvent the strengths of those two other races. Baneling carpet-bombing has been popular and effective for a short while. Why isnt it used anymore? Probably because they dont need to do it and the "lazy standard swarm everything" build has removed the need for it. Why arent Baneling drops made on opponents mineral lines? Same answer as above. The creative uses of Zerg technology are there; they arent required to be used and thus Zerg players are becoming lazy and uncreative. (*1) You actually didnt say that, but asking for a nerf to another race is the same ... just phrased the opposite way. Overlords with speed and drop researched cost 300/300, which isn't that big, but you can EASILY spot when a Zerg is going to drop your main. Nydus is not underused, I use it quite frequently, but the fact is that a couple of workers can kill it while it is "building" is stupid and it's a big investment for early/mid game. It costs 150/200 just to put the Nydus network and every additional Nydus worm costs 100/100, that's quite a lot of gas in the period when gas is most needed for Zerg (Zerg is the race that requires most gas for endgame), and to use Roaches in there is an allin. Nydus Worm has 200 Hit Points, two units can shut it down pretty easily and it's not hard to miss it on most maps, since the entire base is visible to the player. That's like saying "why don't you use Nukes when they 1shot almost all units", they are bad and require the other player to respond horribly, same applies to Nydus Network. No Zerg can break a front in the mid-game without being allin, sorry, but Force Fields and Siege Tanks make it impossible to try and break down a wall without severely losing to Siege Tanks, and plus, Siege Tanks still continue to pound your army as they are on the high ground, even if you break through. Please get your facts straight or try and cheese your way as Zerg and tell me how it went. Nydus in pro games are wayyy underused IMO especially when the opponent (Protoss only since Terrans need a lot more space for buildings) doesnt cover his main base with Pylons ... which is very likely if he goes the "fast expand" route. A fast lair will allow you to abuse this weakness and Protoss main bases are scouted regularly through Overlords. Usually the Protoss on a heavy economy/expansion build has a forge and cannon at his choke outside the natural and this FORCES many buildings to be built not in the main base, so there should be a LOT of space to get a Nydus in on a lot of maps. Can you really spot if those Overlords heading for your main base are actually full? No, but they could be and that is the key. You are NOT forced to fight against the full force at the front and you might even have only a few Banelings in the Overlords to get some worker kills. Even more damaging is a drop of Banelings on Terran add-ons IMO, because they cost time to build, reduce the available tech and slow down the Terran. Might be much better than rolling them into the front wall ... Who said a Zerg should be able to BREAK A FRONT? Seriously? You should use attacks in many places through drops or attacks on other outlying bases to "pull strings" while abusing the Zerg mobility to strike where you want. Sneakiness like burrow (also rarely seen) would help a lot, but Zerg players are too lazy (because I dont dare say "dumb") to use it. Especially against Protoss it should be easy to "siege-break" a front simply because the wall-in also reduces their mobility AND because they might not have blink yet (in early mid-game?). Just get a Nydus Worm, plant it outside the enemy base to start some creep. Then get a Queen to drop creep tumors and grow some Spine Crawlers as base siege units. At 7 range they outrange anything pre-Colossus (with upgrade) or sieged tank. With some Queens behind them a siege or blockade should be possible. The possibilities are there, just get creative and use EVERY weapon in your arsenal and not just the stuff categorized as "unit". Actually, I went through my last 50 games played, and guess what, NEVER have I defeated an opponent by breaking their front, it is their army that moves out and I kill it. If you say "well, why you should break a front", that means a Zerg player cannot finish off a game in which he has MAJOR advantage in (let's say a Terran did an allin that miserably failed but continued to stay in the game). Burrow cannot be used against Toss, ever, simply because every decent Protoss player has an Observer with his death ball, I was tempted to never spread creep beyond where I had to, simply because they have such an easy time clearing it. You cannot burrow into someone's base because they always have a cannon or two, also, if a Terran sees Spire (regardless if the Zerg player is not even going Mutas), most of them throw 2-3 Turrets around, just to stall the Mutas until Marines get there, also, the only units that can move while burrowed are Infestors and Roaches, and Roaches are bad, in general, against a big bio ball. Burrow is also bad because it takes 0.7 seconds until unburrowing units can attack, while others can shoot a MASSIVE volley (as everything moves around in a death ball) at the unburrowing units, so it is better (and takes more coordination and skill) to attack from different directions at once. Mutas are the only way a Zerg can "encroach" on the opponent's main, and Nydus networks are bad, what you are suggesting is a massive allin, putting Queens (150 minerals, 50 second build time) at your front is close to suicide. Zerg cannot contain anyone because as soon as Siege Mode or Thermal Lance is out, it's game over. Nydus Networks are costly and are similar to Ravens, they can either work AWESOME or they usually just end up being a waste of money. Nukes are not used nearly as enough considering their power, because it involves the other player to be braindead. They are only used for harassing, but with Zergling mobility, Nydus networks are not needed if you want to harass stray expansions.
What is your stance on roach bane aggression or all ins of 2 or even 3 bases or even 3 base muta ling bling busts?
Pretty much any successful zerg right now does this against terran in a lot of games. If thats not "breaking the front" i do not know what else is. If terran wants to play a macro game in the current meta game, terran is very vulnerable to all kinds of aggressive zerg play. That was also true before the queen change.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On August 03 2012 19:36 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 08:57 ysnake wrote:On August 03 2012 03:44 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 03:01 ysnake wrote:On August 03 2012 02:46 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^. Zerg simply arent being creative, because they hardly ever try out the Nydus Worm or do drops to get inside an enemy Protoss base in the early minutes. Protoss are only good at blocking a choke and Cannons at the front of the natural expansion dont help against Zerg inside the main. So dont pull the "nerf the others" card please, because simply the threat of a drop is enough to pull off some forces from the front and could be enough to break in. All YOU have to do it is actually use those tactics and stop whining about "Terran OP" or "Protoss OP"(*1), because there are ways to abuse the weaknesses and circumvent the strengths of those two other races. Baneling carpet-bombing has been popular and effective for a short while. Why isnt it used anymore? Probably because they dont need to do it and the "lazy standard swarm everything" build has removed the need for it. Why arent Baneling drops made on opponents mineral lines? Same answer as above. The creative uses of Zerg technology are there; they arent required to be used and thus Zerg players are becoming lazy and uncreative. (*1) You actually didnt say that, but asking for a nerf to another race is the same ... just phrased the opposite way. Overlords with speed and drop researched cost 300/300, which isn't that big, but you can EASILY spot when a Zerg is going to drop your main. Nydus is not underused, I use it quite frequently, but the fact is that a couple of workers can kill it while it is "building" is stupid and it's a big investment for early/mid game. It costs 150/200 just to put the Nydus network and every additional Nydus worm costs 100/100, that's quite a lot of gas in the period when gas is most needed for Zerg (Zerg is the race that requires most gas for endgame), and to use Roaches in there is an allin. Nydus Worm has 200 Hit Points, two units can shut it down pretty easily and it's not hard to miss it on most maps, since the entire base is visible to the player. That's like saying "why don't you use Nukes when they 1shot almost all units", they are bad and require the other player to respond horribly, same applies to Nydus Network. No Zerg can break a front in the mid-game without being allin, sorry, but Force Fields and Siege Tanks make it impossible to try and break down a wall without severely losing to Siege Tanks, and plus, Siege Tanks still continue to pound your army as they are on the high ground, even if you break through. Please get your facts straight or try and cheese your way as Zerg and tell me how it went. Nydus in pro games are wayyy underused IMO especially when the opponent (Protoss only since Terrans need a lot more space for buildings) doesnt cover his main base with Pylons ... which is very likely if he goes the "fast expand" route. A fast lair will allow you to abuse this weakness and Protoss main bases are scouted regularly through Overlords. Usually the Protoss on a heavy economy/expansion build has a forge and cannon at his choke outside the natural and this FORCES many buildings to be built not in the main base, so there should be a LOT of space to get a Nydus in on a lot of maps. Can you really spot if those Overlords heading for your main base are actually full? No, but they could be and that is the key. You are NOT forced to fight against the full force at the front and you might even have only a few Banelings in the Overlords to get some worker kills. Even more damaging is a drop of Banelings on Terran add-ons IMO, because they cost time to build, reduce the available tech and slow down the Terran. Might be much better than rolling them into the front wall ... Who said a Zerg should be able to BREAK A FRONT? Seriously? You should use attacks in many places through drops or attacks on other outlying bases to "pull strings" while abusing the Zerg mobility to strike where you want. Sneakiness like burrow (also rarely seen) would help a lot, but Zerg players are too lazy (because I dont dare say "dumb") to use it. Especially against Protoss it should be easy to "siege-break" a front simply because the wall-in also reduces their mobility AND because they might not have blink yet (in early mid-game?). Just get a Nydus Worm, plant it outside the enemy base to start some creep. Then get a Queen to drop creep tumors and grow some Spine Crawlers as base siege units. At 7 range they outrange anything pre-Colossus (with upgrade) or sieged tank. With some Queens behind them a siege or blockade should be possible. The possibilities are there, just get creative and use EVERY weapon in your arsenal and not just the stuff categorized as "unit". Actually, I went through my last 50 games played, and guess what, NEVER have I defeated an opponent by breaking their front, it is their army that moves out and I kill it. If you say "well, why you should break a front", that means a Zerg player cannot finish off a game in which he has MAJOR advantage in (let's say a Terran did an allin that miserably failed but continued to stay in the game). Burrow cannot be used against Toss, ever, simply because every decent Protoss player has an Observer with his death ball, I was tempted to never spread creep beyond where I had to, simply because they have such an easy time clearing it. You cannot burrow into someone's base because they always have a cannon or two, also, if a Terran sees Spire (regardless if the Zerg player is not even going Mutas), most of them throw 2-3 Turrets around, just to stall the Mutas until Marines get there, also, the only units that can move while burrowed are Infestors and Roaches, and Roaches are bad, in general, against a big bio ball. Burrow is also bad because it takes 0.7 seconds until unburrowing units can attack, while others can shoot a MASSIVE volley (as everything moves around in a death ball) at the unburrowing units, so it is better (and takes more coordination and skill) to attack from different directions at once. Mutas are the only way a Zerg can "encroach" on the opponent's main, and Nydus networks are bad, what you are suggesting is a massive allin, putting Queens (150 minerals, 50 second build time) at your front is close to suicide. Zerg cannot contain anyone because as soon as Siege Mode or Thermal Lance is out, it's game over. Nydus Networks are costly and are similar to Ravens, they can either work AWESOME or they usually just end up being a waste of money. Nukes are not used nearly as enough considering their power, because it involves the other player to be braindead. They are only used for harassing, but with Zergling mobility, Nydus networks are not needed if you want to harass stray expansions. What is your stance on roach bane aggression or all ins of 2 or even 3 bases or even 3 base muta ling bling busts? Pretty much any successful zerg right now does this against terran in a lot of games. If thats not "breaking the front" i do not know what else is. If terran wants to play a macro game in the current meta game, terran is very vulnerable to all kinds of aggressive zerg play. That was also true before the queen change.
Exactly the point I was making in this thread. Zerg cannot break down a wall unless he is allin, that's why they need compensation elsewhere, and I am not saying "yes, go play a catch-up macro game against a best macro race", I am saying that the other races are using timing attacks, Zerg quite frankly cannot. I, for one, like macro games, so I almost never allin, hence why I never break the front unless I have gglords out.
|
On August 03 2012 19:58 ysnake wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 19:36 submarine wrote:On August 03 2012 08:57 ysnake wrote:On August 03 2012 03:44 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 03:01 ysnake wrote:On August 03 2012 02:46 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^. Zerg simply arent being creative, because they hardly ever try out the Nydus Worm or do drops to get inside an enemy Protoss base in the early minutes. Protoss are only good at blocking a choke and Cannons at the front of the natural expansion dont help against Zerg inside the main. So dont pull the "nerf the others" card please, because simply the threat of a drop is enough to pull off some forces from the front and could be enough to break in. All YOU have to do it is actually use those tactics and stop whining about "Terran OP" or "Protoss OP"(*1), because there are ways to abuse the weaknesses and circumvent the strengths of those two other races. Baneling carpet-bombing has been popular and effective for a short while. Why isnt it used anymore? Probably because they dont need to do it and the "lazy standard swarm everything" build has removed the need for it. Why arent Baneling drops made on opponents mineral lines? Same answer as above. The creative uses of Zerg technology are there; they arent required to be used and thus Zerg players are becoming lazy and uncreative. (*1) You actually didnt say that, but asking for a nerf to another race is the same ... just phrased the opposite way. Overlords with speed and drop researched cost 300/300, which isn't that big, but you can EASILY spot when a Zerg is going to drop your main. Nydus is not underused, I use it quite frequently, but the fact is that a couple of workers can kill it while it is "building" is stupid and it's a big investment for early/mid game. It costs 150/200 just to put the Nydus network and every additional Nydus worm costs 100/100, that's quite a lot of gas in the period when gas is most needed for Zerg (Zerg is the race that requires most gas for endgame), and to use Roaches in there is an allin. Nydus Worm has 200 Hit Points, two units can shut it down pretty easily and it's not hard to miss it on most maps, since the entire base is visible to the player. That's like saying "why don't you use Nukes when they 1shot almost all units", they are bad and require the other player to respond horribly, same applies to Nydus Network. No Zerg can break a front in the mid-game without being allin, sorry, but Force Fields and Siege Tanks make it impossible to try and break down a wall without severely losing to Siege Tanks, and plus, Siege Tanks still continue to pound your army as they are on the high ground, even if you break through. Please get your facts straight or try and cheese your way as Zerg and tell me how it went. Nydus in pro games are wayyy underused IMO especially when the opponent (Protoss only since Terrans need a lot more space for buildings) doesnt cover his main base with Pylons ... which is very likely if he goes the "fast expand" route. A fast lair will allow you to abuse this weakness and Protoss main bases are scouted regularly through Overlords. Usually the Protoss on a heavy economy/expansion build has a forge and cannon at his choke outside the natural and this FORCES many buildings to be built not in the main base, so there should be a LOT of space to get a Nydus in on a lot of maps. Can you really spot if those Overlords heading for your main base are actually full? No, but they could be and that is the key. You are NOT forced to fight against the full force at the front and you might even have only a few Banelings in the Overlords to get some worker kills. Even more damaging is a drop of Banelings on Terran add-ons IMO, because they cost time to build, reduce the available tech and slow down the Terran. Might be much better than rolling them into the front wall ... Who said a Zerg should be able to BREAK A FRONT? Seriously? You should use attacks in many places through drops or attacks on other outlying bases to "pull strings" while abusing the Zerg mobility to strike where you want. Sneakiness like burrow (also rarely seen) would help a lot, but Zerg players are too lazy (because I dont dare say "dumb") to use it. Especially against Protoss it should be easy to "siege-break" a front simply because the wall-in also reduces their mobility AND because they might not have blink yet (in early mid-game?). Just get a Nydus Worm, plant it outside the enemy base to start some creep. Then get a Queen to drop creep tumors and grow some Spine Crawlers as base siege units. At 7 range they outrange anything pre-Colossus (with upgrade) or sieged tank. With some Queens behind them a siege or blockade should be possible. The possibilities are there, just get creative and use EVERY weapon in your arsenal and not just the stuff categorized as "unit". Actually, I went through my last 50 games played, and guess what, NEVER have I defeated an opponent by breaking their front, it is their army that moves out and I kill it. If you say "well, why you should break a front", that means a Zerg player cannot finish off a game in which he has MAJOR advantage in (let's say a Terran did an allin that miserably failed but continued to stay in the game). Burrow cannot be used against Toss, ever, simply because every decent Protoss player has an Observer with his death ball, I was tempted to never spread creep beyond where I had to, simply because they have such an easy time clearing it. You cannot burrow into someone's base because they always have a cannon or two, also, if a Terran sees Spire (regardless if the Zerg player is not even going Mutas), most of them throw 2-3 Turrets around, just to stall the Mutas until Marines get there, also, the only units that can move while burrowed are Infestors and Roaches, and Roaches are bad, in general, against a big bio ball. Burrow is also bad because it takes 0.7 seconds until unburrowing units can attack, while others can shoot a MASSIVE volley (as everything moves around in a death ball) at the unburrowing units, so it is better (and takes more coordination and skill) to attack from different directions at once. Mutas are the only way a Zerg can "encroach" on the opponent's main, and Nydus networks are bad, what you are suggesting is a massive allin, putting Queens (150 minerals, 50 second build time) at your front is close to suicide. Zerg cannot contain anyone because as soon as Siege Mode or Thermal Lance is out, it's game over. Nydus Networks are costly and are similar to Ravens, they can either work AWESOME or they usually just end up being a waste of money. Nukes are not used nearly as enough considering their power, because it involves the other player to be braindead. They are only used for harassing, but with Zergling mobility, Nydus networks are not needed if you want to harass stray expansions. What is your stance on roach bane aggression or all ins of 2 or even 3 bases or even 3 base muta ling bling busts? Pretty much any successful zerg right now does this against terran in a lot of games. If thats not "breaking the front" i do not know what else is. If terran wants to play a macro game in the current meta game, terran is very vulnerable to all kinds of aggressive zerg play. That was also true before the queen change. Exactly the point I was making in this thread. Zerg cannot break down a wall unless he is allin, that's why they need compensation elsewhere, and I am not saying "yes, go play a catch-up macro game against a best macro race", I am saying that the other races are using timing attacks, Zerg quite frankly cannot. I, for one, like macro games, so I almost never allin, hence why I never break the front unless I have gglords out.
All Protoss timings are basically all-in.
|
On August 03 2012 19:58 ysnake wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 19:36 submarine wrote:On August 03 2012 08:57 ysnake wrote:On August 03 2012 03:44 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 03:01 ysnake wrote:On August 03 2012 02:46 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^. Zerg simply arent being creative, because they hardly ever try out the Nydus Worm or do drops to get inside an enemy Protoss base in the early minutes. Protoss are only good at blocking a choke and Cannons at the front of the natural expansion dont help against Zerg inside the main. So dont pull the "nerf the others" card please, because simply the threat of a drop is enough to pull off some forces from the front and could be enough to break in. All YOU have to do it is actually use those tactics and stop whining about "Terran OP" or "Protoss OP"(*1), because there are ways to abuse the weaknesses and circumvent the strengths of those two other races. Baneling carpet-bombing has been popular and effective for a short while. Why isnt it used anymore? Probably because they dont need to do it and the "lazy standard swarm everything" build has removed the need for it. Why arent Baneling drops made on opponents mineral lines? Same answer as above. The creative uses of Zerg technology are there; they arent required to be used and thus Zerg players are becoming lazy and uncreative. (*1) You actually didnt say that, but asking for a nerf to another race is the same ... just phrased the opposite way. Overlords with speed and drop researched cost 300/300, which isn't that big, but you can EASILY spot when a Zerg is going to drop your main. Nydus is not underused, I use it quite frequently, but the fact is that a couple of workers can kill it while it is "building" is stupid and it's a big investment for early/mid game. It costs 150/200 just to put the Nydus network and every additional Nydus worm costs 100/100, that's quite a lot of gas in the period when gas is most needed for Zerg (Zerg is the race that requires most gas for endgame), and to use Roaches in there is an allin. Nydus Worm has 200 Hit Points, two units can shut it down pretty easily and it's not hard to miss it on most maps, since the entire base is visible to the player. That's like saying "why don't you use Nukes when they 1shot almost all units", they are bad and require the other player to respond horribly, same applies to Nydus Network. No Zerg can break a front in the mid-game without being allin, sorry, but Force Fields and Siege Tanks make it impossible to try and break down a wall without severely losing to Siege Tanks, and plus, Siege Tanks still continue to pound your army as they are on the high ground, even if you break through. Please get your facts straight or try and cheese your way as Zerg and tell me how it went. Nydus in pro games are wayyy underused IMO especially when the opponent (Protoss only since Terrans need a lot more space for buildings) doesnt cover his main base with Pylons ... which is very likely if he goes the "fast expand" route. A fast lair will allow you to abuse this weakness and Protoss main bases are scouted regularly through Overlords. Usually the Protoss on a heavy economy/expansion build has a forge and cannon at his choke outside the natural and this FORCES many buildings to be built not in the main base, so there should be a LOT of space to get a Nydus in on a lot of maps. Can you really spot if those Overlords heading for your main base are actually full? No, but they could be and that is the key. You are NOT forced to fight against the full force at the front and you might even have only a few Banelings in the Overlords to get some worker kills. Even more damaging is a drop of Banelings on Terran add-ons IMO, because they cost time to build, reduce the available tech and slow down the Terran. Might be much better than rolling them into the front wall ... Who said a Zerg should be able to BREAK A FRONT? Seriously? You should use attacks in many places through drops or attacks on other outlying bases to "pull strings" while abusing the Zerg mobility to strike where you want. Sneakiness like burrow (also rarely seen) would help a lot, but Zerg players are too lazy (because I dont dare say "dumb") to use it. Especially against Protoss it should be easy to "siege-break" a front simply because the wall-in also reduces their mobility AND because they might not have blink yet (in early mid-game?). Just get a Nydus Worm, plant it outside the enemy base to start some creep. Then get a Queen to drop creep tumors and grow some Spine Crawlers as base siege units. At 7 range they outrange anything pre-Colossus (with upgrade) or sieged tank. With some Queens behind them a siege or blockade should be possible. The possibilities are there, just get creative and use EVERY weapon in your arsenal and not just the stuff categorized as "unit". Actually, I went through my last 50 games played, and guess what, NEVER have I defeated an opponent by breaking their front, it is their army that moves out and I kill it. If you say "well, why you should break a front", that means a Zerg player cannot finish off a game in which he has MAJOR advantage in (let's say a Terran did an allin that miserably failed but continued to stay in the game). Burrow cannot be used against Toss, ever, simply because every decent Protoss player has an Observer with his death ball, I was tempted to never spread creep beyond where I had to, simply because they have such an easy time clearing it. You cannot burrow into someone's base because they always have a cannon or two, also, if a Terran sees Spire (regardless if the Zerg player is not even going Mutas), most of them throw 2-3 Turrets around, just to stall the Mutas until Marines get there, also, the only units that can move while burrowed are Infestors and Roaches, and Roaches are bad, in general, against a big bio ball. Burrow is also bad because it takes 0.7 seconds until unburrowing units can attack, while others can shoot a MASSIVE volley (as everything moves around in a death ball) at the unburrowing units, so it is better (and takes more coordination and skill) to attack from different directions at once. Mutas are the only way a Zerg can "encroach" on the opponent's main, and Nydus networks are bad, what you are suggesting is a massive allin, putting Queens (150 minerals, 50 second build time) at your front is close to suicide. Zerg cannot contain anyone because as soon as Siege Mode or Thermal Lance is out, it's game over. Nydus Networks are costly and are similar to Ravens, they can either work AWESOME or they usually just end up being a waste of money. Nukes are not used nearly as enough considering their power, because it involves the other player to be braindead. They are only used for harassing, but with Zergling mobility, Nydus networks are not needed if you want to harass stray expansions. What is your stance on roach bane aggression or all ins of 2 or even 3 bases or even 3 base muta ling bling busts? Pretty much any successful zerg right now does this against terran in a lot of games. If thats not "breaking the front" i do not know what else is. If terran wants to play a macro game in the current meta game, terran is very vulnerable to all kinds of aggressive zerg play. That was also true before the queen change. Exactly the point I was making in this thread. Zerg cannot break down a wall unless he is allin, that's why they need compensation elsewhere, and I am not saying "yes, go play a catch-up macro game against a best macro race", I am saying that the other races are using timing attacks, Zerg quite frankly cannot. I, for one, like macro games, so I almost never allin, hence why I never break the front unless I have gglords out.
Roach bane is not always an all in. There are quite a lot of variations. Yes you have to do some damage, but against 3 cc builds that is more or less guaranteed. If the other races go for timings they also have to do some damage with them. If you choose to mimic the passive style of Idra or Ret go ahead, but thats not the only way to play zerg. Zerg can do a lot of aggression, especially if the terran or toss go for a fast 3rd. Just watch DRG or Stephano. There is a lot of room between allins and passive macro style.
The "all in" term gets used far too much around here.
|
On August 03 2012 22:44 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 19:58 ysnake wrote:On August 03 2012 19:36 submarine wrote:On August 03 2012 08:57 ysnake wrote:On August 03 2012 03:44 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 03:01 ysnake wrote:On August 03 2012 02:46 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^. Zerg simply arent being creative, because they hardly ever try out the Nydus Worm or do drops to get inside an enemy Protoss base in the early minutes. Protoss are only good at blocking a choke and Cannons at the front of the natural expansion dont help against Zerg inside the main. So dont pull the "nerf the others" card please, because simply the threat of a drop is enough to pull off some forces from the front and could be enough to break in. All YOU have to do it is actually use those tactics and stop whining about "Terran OP" or "Protoss OP"(*1), because there are ways to abuse the weaknesses and circumvent the strengths of those two other races. Baneling carpet-bombing has been popular and effective for a short while. Why isnt it used anymore? Probably because they dont need to do it and the "lazy standard swarm everything" build has removed the need for it. Why arent Baneling drops made on opponents mineral lines? Same answer as above. The creative uses of Zerg technology are there; they arent required to be used and thus Zerg players are becoming lazy and uncreative. (*1) You actually didnt say that, but asking for a nerf to another race is the same ... just phrased the opposite way. Overlords with speed and drop researched cost 300/300, which isn't that big, but you can EASILY spot when a Zerg is going to drop your main. Nydus is not underused, I use it quite frequently, but the fact is that a couple of workers can kill it while it is "building" is stupid and it's a big investment for early/mid game. It costs 150/200 just to put the Nydus network and every additional Nydus worm costs 100/100, that's quite a lot of gas in the period when gas is most needed for Zerg (Zerg is the race that requires most gas for endgame), and to use Roaches in there is an allin. Nydus Worm has 200 Hit Points, two units can shut it down pretty easily and it's not hard to miss it on most maps, since the entire base is visible to the player. That's like saying "why don't you use Nukes when they 1shot almost all units", they are bad and require the other player to respond horribly, same applies to Nydus Network. No Zerg can break a front in the mid-game without being allin, sorry, but Force Fields and Siege Tanks make it impossible to try and break down a wall without severely losing to Siege Tanks, and plus, Siege Tanks still continue to pound your army as they are on the high ground, even if you break through. Please get your facts straight or try and cheese your way as Zerg and tell me how it went. Nydus in pro games are wayyy underused IMO especially when the opponent (Protoss only since Terrans need a lot more space for buildings) doesnt cover his main base with Pylons ... which is very likely if he goes the "fast expand" route. A fast lair will allow you to abuse this weakness and Protoss main bases are scouted regularly through Overlords. Usually the Protoss on a heavy economy/expansion build has a forge and cannon at his choke outside the natural and this FORCES many buildings to be built not in the main base, so there should be a LOT of space to get a Nydus in on a lot of maps. Can you really spot if those Overlords heading for your main base are actually full? No, but they could be and that is the key. You are NOT forced to fight against the full force at the front and you might even have only a few Banelings in the Overlords to get some worker kills. Even more damaging is a drop of Banelings on Terran add-ons IMO, because they cost time to build, reduce the available tech and slow down the Terran. Might be much better than rolling them into the front wall ... Who said a Zerg should be able to BREAK A FRONT? Seriously? You should use attacks in many places through drops or attacks on other outlying bases to "pull strings" while abusing the Zerg mobility to strike where you want. Sneakiness like burrow (also rarely seen) would help a lot, but Zerg players are too lazy (because I dont dare say "dumb") to use it. Especially against Protoss it should be easy to "siege-break" a front simply because the wall-in also reduces their mobility AND because they might not have blink yet (in early mid-game?). Just get a Nydus Worm, plant it outside the enemy base to start some creep. Then get a Queen to drop creep tumors and grow some Spine Crawlers as base siege units. At 7 range they outrange anything pre-Colossus (with upgrade) or sieged tank. With some Queens behind them a siege or blockade should be possible. The possibilities are there, just get creative and use EVERY weapon in your arsenal and not just the stuff categorized as "unit". Actually, I went through my last 50 games played, and guess what, NEVER have I defeated an opponent by breaking their front, it is their army that moves out and I kill it. If you say "well, why you should break a front", that means a Zerg player cannot finish off a game in which he has MAJOR advantage in (let's say a Terran did an allin that miserably failed but continued to stay in the game). Burrow cannot be used against Toss, ever, simply because every decent Protoss player has an Observer with his death ball, I was tempted to never spread creep beyond where I had to, simply because they have such an easy time clearing it. You cannot burrow into someone's base because they always have a cannon or two, also, if a Terran sees Spire (regardless if the Zerg player is not even going Mutas), most of them throw 2-3 Turrets around, just to stall the Mutas until Marines get there, also, the only units that can move while burrowed are Infestors and Roaches, and Roaches are bad, in general, against a big bio ball. Burrow is also bad because it takes 0.7 seconds until unburrowing units can attack, while others can shoot a MASSIVE volley (as everything moves around in a death ball) at the unburrowing units, so it is better (and takes more coordination and skill) to attack from different directions at once. Mutas are the only way a Zerg can "encroach" on the opponent's main, and Nydus networks are bad, what you are suggesting is a massive allin, putting Queens (150 minerals, 50 second build time) at your front is close to suicide. Zerg cannot contain anyone because as soon as Siege Mode or Thermal Lance is out, it's game over. Nydus Networks are costly and are similar to Ravens, they can either work AWESOME or they usually just end up being a waste of money. Nukes are not used nearly as enough considering their power, because it involves the other player to be braindead. They are only used for harassing, but with Zergling mobility, Nydus networks are not needed if you want to harass stray expansions. What is your stance on roach bane aggression or all ins of 2 or even 3 bases or even 3 base muta ling bling busts? Pretty much any successful zerg right now does this against terran in a lot of games. If thats not "breaking the front" i do not know what else is. If terran wants to play a macro game in the current meta game, terran is very vulnerable to all kinds of aggressive zerg play. That was also true before the queen change. Exactly the point I was making in this thread. Zerg cannot break down a wall unless he is allin, that's why they need compensation elsewhere, and I am not saying "yes, go play a catch-up macro game against a best macro race", I am saying that the other races are using timing attacks, Zerg quite frankly cannot. I, for one, like macro games, so I almost never allin, hence why I never break the front unless I have gglords out. Roach bane is not always an all in. There are quite a lot of variations. Yes you have to do some damage, but against 3 cc builds that is more or less guaranteed. If the other races go for timings they also have to do some damage with them. If you choose to mimic the passive style of Idra or Ret go ahead, but thats not the only way to play zerg. Zerg can do a lot of aggression, especially if the terran or toss go for a fast 3rd. Just watch DRG or Stephano. There is a lot of room between allins and passive macro style. The "all in" term gets used far too much around here.
Agreed.
"Commitment" might be better term.
True "all-in" is 100% commitment.
Some timing attacks have 80% commitment, others have 30% commitment.
But we tend to call everything "all-in" whenever the build is even 1% committed.
You have to damage/cripple opponent according to the commitment you made.
If you commited 50%, yet did 20% damage, then you are behind. If you did 70% damage with the same build, you are ahead.
True "all-in" 100% commitment build has to kill the opponent on the spot.
I think what Protoss is saying today is that there is no build that can do more damage to Zerg than the commitment made by Protoss.
80% commited build does only 60% damage, 50% one does only 30% etc.
Going cloaked banshee in TvT is not all-in, for example, but it is a big commitment. Therefore, you need to do enough damage to your opponent or you are behind. Most of protoss builds work this way. Problem is that it is really hard to do enough damage to compensate your commitment.
Also, blind all-in is conflip, but all-in based on scouting is a smart play to exploit the weakness at particular point of the game.
|
|
|
I've actually tried nydus networks a few times and I think one of the main issues they're not popular at all is because if you have zerglings or roaches, it takes a really, really long time for your army to unload. I managed to get some cool nydus spots off in a few games but even with roaches it took ages for me to actually transport my army and to start dealing serious damage.
|
"Why is Zerg allowed to get 3 bases of production up for free, and, if they are supposed to be allowed to get this, why are their units just as good as the basic Protoss units? I could understand the argument that Zerg needs a third to make up for its relatively weak units, but honestly, their units aren't weak! Roach/Ling is fucking amazing."
Completely agree and maybe it's because I'm a biased protoss. I always felt that their tier 1 units were stronger than ours yet they get a huge macro/production advantage.
Only way for P to "safely" take a 3rd is to tech. I personally feel the game is very balanced especially at levels lower than GM.
|
On August 04 2012 00:28 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 23:43 Orek wrote:
Agreed.
"Commitment" might be better term.
True "all-in" is 100% commitment.
Some timing attacks have 80% commitment, others have 30% commitment.
But we tend to call everything "all-in" whenever the build is even 1% committed.
Not really. Sometimes 80% commitment just doesn't make sense, and 100% commitment is better in every way. Suppose doing a standard all-in build, only that you stop making units as you attack and expand instead. You could call that less of a commitment, but you're still equally fucked if you don't win. Thus different degrees of commitment can be called all in, it's not what you commit with it, but the situation you're in if it fails.
To do a CERTAIN amount of damage depending on how much you commit. If i expand, im going to do less damage, but i also need to do less damage to be ahead or even.
This is his point
|
On August 03 2012 04:13 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 04:04 Shiori wrote:On August 03 2012 04:01 Orek wrote:On August 03 2012 03:49 Zanno wrote:
The last 2 pages of this thread make no sense to me.
How many viable builds did zerg have in BW TvZ? They had exactly one, and virtually everything else remotely viable was super volatile and could fall flat on its face if scouted. Meanwhile Terran could do all sorts of wacky things to try and disrupt this build. Sound familiar?
The entire race is designed in a way that discrete build orders only sort of exist, the exact order of what you use your larva to produce is contingent on what your opponent does. If zerg is finally approaching what will end up being standard play in sc2 then that should be viewed as a good thing. You win the argument. Yes I agree with you. I follow BW for about 6 years, and I would say builds rarely vary. Yeah, Zerg started to prefer no sunken colony at front in favor of units and such, but overall, buids are so refined today that not much room for creativity is left. Still, game has continued to evolve, and is as enjoyable as SC2 if not more. Probably it is a good sign that Zerg found a solid build as you pointed out. Yeah, except their solid build is built on being totally impervious to pressure. In BW, you could force reactions and do a bit of damage with harassment/pressure without all-inning. You cannot do that in Sc2 with Protoss, and, post Queen buff, neither with Terran. i really think that's a map pool issue every map at minimum has an extremely easily defensible third and maps have gotten so large to the point where even daybreak feels small now maps like atlantis spaceship, whirlwind, and formerly taldarim altar were designed intentionally as zerg favored maps, to offset how much trouble zerg used to have on maps with short rush distances by setting it up so any early attack would take a long time to get there either way i don't think the fact that there's a standard build for zerg in any way is a balance problem as long as that build doesn't have like a 100% winrate or something absurd like that. between the map pool and the queen buff the stars pretty much aligned for a new zerg champion last GSL season and we still ended up with a regrettable PvP series instead...what's up with that
Maps can't get better. Mutas are balanced by an easily accessible third. Without a third close enough, Protoss just gets rocked by muta packs because of all the tech toss needs to deal with mass muta balls.... and the number units that would be needed to secure a base far away.
Also map distance can't shorten or you end up with 1/1/1s consistently destroying toss, ezpz.
Lastly, the map makers seem to have forgotten some of the lessons of BW because every map has so much fucking dead space to just park air units like mutas or dropships without paying attention.
edit: Also All-in is correct in the sense Shiori uses it.There's no effective light pressure that gets the drone numbers you would need with inject. Otherwise no big attack can retreat after a certain point because your gas sensitive units are so slow or speedlings & speed roaches surround and murder the rest of the pack
|
On August 04 2012 00:28 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 23:43 Orek wrote:
Agreed.
"Commitment" might be better term.
True "all-in" is 100% commitment.
Some timing attacks have 80% commitment, others have 30% commitment.
But we tend to call everything "all-in" whenever the build is even 1% committed.
Not really. Sometimes 80% commitment just doesn't make sense, and 100% commitment is better in every way. Suppose doing a standard all-in build, only that you stop making units as you attack and expand instead. You could call that less of a commitment, but you're still equally fucked if you don't win. Thus different degrees of commitment can be called all in, it's not what you commit with it, but the situation you're in if it fails.
That is exactly what I said about 80% commitment doing 50% damage.
It was about the term "all-in" used too frequently.
Some call that 80% one "all-in" while others define it simply "aggressive."
We like to use the word "all-in" frequently maybe because it sounds sensational.
|
On August 04 2012 02:13 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 00:28 monkybone wrote:On August 03 2012 23:43 Orek wrote:
Agreed.
"Commitment" might be better term.
True "all-in" is 100% commitment.
Some timing attacks have 80% commitment, others have 30% commitment.
But we tend to call everything "all-in" whenever the build is even 1% committed.
Not really. Sometimes 80% commitment just doesn't make sense, and 100% commitment is better in every way. Suppose doing a standard all-in build, only that you stop making units as you attack and expand instead. You could call that less of a commitment, but you're still equally fucked if you don't win. Thus different degrees of commitment can be called all in, it's not what you commit with it, but the situation you're in if it fails. That is exactly what I said about 80% commitment doing 50% damage. It was about the term "all-in" used too frequently. Some call that 80% one "all-in" while others define it simply "aggressive." We like to use the word "all-in" frequently maybe because it sounds sensational.
I actually think the word all-in is underused. So many things that are "pressures" or "harassments" or "pushes" are actually completely all-in if you don't do a certain amount of damage.
|
On August 04 2012 02:13 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 00:28 monkybone wrote:On August 03 2012 23:43 Orek wrote:
Agreed.
"Commitment" might be better term.
True "all-in" is 100% commitment.
Some timing attacks have 80% commitment, others have 30% commitment.
But we tend to call everything "all-in" whenever the build is even 1% committed.
Not really. Sometimes 80% commitment just doesn't make sense, and 100% commitment is better in every way. Suppose doing a standard all-in build, only that you stop making units as you attack and expand instead. You could call that less of a commitment, but you're still equally fucked if you don't win. Thus different degrees of commitment can be called all in, it's not what you commit with it, but the situation you're in if it fails. That is exactly what I said about 80% commitment doing 50% damage. It was about the term "all-in" used too frequently. Some call that 80% one "all-in" while others define it simply "aggressive." We like to use the word "all-in" frequently maybe because it sounds sensational.
No, people call it an all-in because it is an all-in. Those 2/3 base Protoss timing attacks are complete all-in. There is no retreat, there is no transition into a macro game unless you do massive damage to the point where it negates your heavy investments in Sentries/Immortals/etc.
|
On August 04 2012 02:17 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 02:13 Orek wrote:On August 04 2012 00:28 monkybone wrote:On August 03 2012 23:43 Orek wrote:
Agreed.
"Commitment" might be better term.
True "all-in" is 100% commitment.
Some timing attacks have 80% commitment, others have 30% commitment.
But we tend to call everything "all-in" whenever the build is even 1% committed.
Not really. Sometimes 80% commitment just doesn't make sense, and 100% commitment is better in every way. Suppose doing a standard all-in build, only that you stop making units as you attack and expand instead. You could call that less of a commitment, but you're still equally fucked if you don't win. Thus different degrees of commitment can be called all in, it's not what you commit with it, but the situation you're in if it fails. That is exactly what I said about 80% commitment doing 50% damage. It was about the term "all-in" used too frequently. Some call that 80% one "all-in" while others define it simply "aggressive." We like to use the word "all-in" frequently maybe because it sounds sensational. No, people call it an all-in because it is an all-in. Those 2/3 base Protoss timing attacks are complete all-in. There is no retreat, there is no transition into a macro game unless you do massive damage to the point where it negates your heavy investments in Sentries/Immortals/etc.
This is what happens WHENEVER you invest in army. You need to do damage, equal to what you have invested into your army to be back on equal terms, that doesnt mean its "all in" it means its investing in damage rather than economy :S
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
