|
On August 04 2012 02:16 Shiori 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. 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.
Maybe that is another way to define "all-in."
Probably there are 2 definitions people use for "all-in."
1)Builds you have to kill your opponent with. You don't plan to transition out of this.
2)Builds you are bound to do certain damage with.
The idea I presented was that 1) is true all-in, and 2) is just 60% or 30% commitment.
Your idea is that 2) is also all-in because you have to do enough damage or you are dead.
For 2), doing enough damage makes it non "all-in." So, I personally think it should be excluded from the definition. You can disagree. Make no mistake. This is not just about PvZ. I say this about ZvX as well. Roach baneling "all-in" is not quite all-in as someone else pointed out above. You are bound to kill enough SCV to make up for it though.
If you continue to use "all-in" too casually, then anything other than making workers becomes "all-in" as you commit to army rather than economy. We need to draw the line somewhere. I am for making stricter definition, others for loosening side. Assuming we call 50% "all-in" today, I suggested 80% should be criteria, and you might say 30% is enough to call it all-in. This is not about race balance.
|
I'd argue that the difference between all-in and pressure is that pressure is okay with simply trading cost-effectively with the opposing army, and all-ins need to destroy the enemy army and damage the economy as well.
Comparison: 1z1s pressure in PvZ is supposed to just force a few Zerglings, trade the Zealot cost-effectively against them, and then retreat the Stalker. 8gate all-in has to kill the third, or it's considered an utter failure.
|
Someone told me to go here with this post... so , after reading the OP I don't know if it exactly fits the rules... but first off, here you go
The biggest problem to Terran is that everything that COULD damage broodlords, is either slow or has not enough range or both.
Ravens with HSM are great, but fungal outranges it so it will not hit vs a good player. Marines are fast but have low HP and not enough range to threaten broodlords. Tanks sieged up that actually could deny insane fungals with targeting infestors target broodlings.
I for my part would suggest the balance adjustment that tanks to not choose broodlings as target. Right now a perfect terran would need to have a very good split, spam stop on his tanks while stimming and controlling bio, waiting for infestors to get in tank range and making the tanks attack them.
EMP/Storm for example both got a range-nerf. I feel like nerfing either range of fungal or as said not making broodlings a target would already be a huge improvement, as broodlord / infestor isn't to beat on even footing (cost efficient) and the chance of getting such an economy advantage to not have to combat it cost-efficient is nearly impossible.
Protoss for example has the chance to take away part of the Zerg lategame army with a vortex. If you can deny infestors OR broodlords the army goes from nearly undefeatable to nearly ineffective I feel, but as Terran you are not very limited in the given options, but very limited by the POSSIBLE solution and economy.
Raven/BC/Thor .. or actually a complete air+thor mech switch would work, but the Zerg won't leave you alone that you can accomplish that. Not taking anything away from SortOf, but those are my thoughts about how to adjust/balance out the ma tchup in the lategame where Terran really struggles right now.
This obviously is only about Terran vs Zerg. In ZvZ this would not make a huge difference I'd say as it first of all would hit both parties and secondly it doesn't need to be a radical change , but a minor one (about infestors fungal range). Broodlords are rarely seen and a tank change has no impact whatsoever on ZvZ and PvZ.
About ZvP it would probably make the already strong colossi even stronger against infestors, but as they counter them pretty well anyways and Zerg usually has a quiet a buffer in between I don't think it would greatly impact it. Some Zergs are very good with infestors and their control and the side-effect would probably either be losing a few more infestors when chain-fungaling or having to choose not to be as "greedy" with a fungal and not hitting exactly the middle of the Protoss army.
There are lots of other side effects as for example weakend drop defence as you cannot catch medivacs that are further away, but all those changes would not deeply impact the game as the infestor is not the main source of drop defence but support.
Effects on TvZ are at the top
|
I'm really curious as to what leagues the developers of this game are. It's like someone trying to design a car that doesn't even drive.
|
On August 04 2012 05:14 Type|NarutO wrote:
Someone told me to go here with this post... so , after reading the OP I don't know if it exactly fits the rules... but first off, here you go
The biggest problem to Terran is that everything that COULD damage broodlords, is either slow or has not enough range or both.
Ravens with HSM are great, but fungal outranges it so it will not hit vs a good player. Marines are fast but have low HP and not enough range to threaten broodlords. Tanks sieged up that actually could deny insane fungals with targeting infestors target broodlings.
I for my part would suggest the balance adjustment that tanks to not choose broodlings as target. Right now a perfect terran would need to have a very good split, spam stop on his tanks while stimming and controlling bio, waiting for infestors to get in tank range and making the tanks attack them.
EMP/Storm for example both got a range-nerf. I feel like nerfing either range of fungal or as said not making broodlings a target would already be a huge improvement, as broodlord / infestor isn't to beat on even footing (cost efficient) and the chance of getting such an economy advantage to not have to combat it cost-efficient is nearly impossible.
Protoss for example has the chance to take away part of the Zerg lategame army with a vortex. If you can deny infestors OR broodlords the army goes from nearly undefeatable to nearly ineffective I feel, but as Terran you are not very limited in the given options, but very limited by the POSSIBLE solution and economy.
Raven/BC/Thor .. or actually a complete air+thor mech switch would work, but the Zerg won't leave you alone that you can accomplish that. Not taking anything away from SortOf, but those are my thoughts about how to adjust/balance out the ma tchup in the lategame where Terran really struggles right now.
This obviously is only about Terran vs Zerg. In ZvZ this would not make a huge difference I'd say as it first of all would hit both parties and secondly it doesn't need to be a radical change , but a minor one (about infestors fungal range). Broodlords are rarely seen and a tank change has no impact whatsoever on ZvZ and PvZ.
About ZvP it would probably make the already strong colossi even stronger against infestors, but as they counter them pretty well anyways and Zerg usually has a quiet a buffer in between I don't think it would greatly impact it. Some Zergs are very good with infestors and their control and the side-effect would probably either be losing a few more infestors when chain-fungaling or having to choose not to be as "greedy" with a fungal and not hitting exactly the middle of the Protoss army.
There are lots of other side effects as for example weakend drop defence as you cannot catch medivacs that are further away, but all those changes would not deeply impact the game as the infestor is not the main source of drop defence but support.
Effects on TvZ are at the top
I'm a terran player and what you just proposed is the solution that can be solved with micro, late game you want to be more aggressive with your tanks instead of slow pushing, once they seige you must focus fire the infestors, as +2 on tanks shut down infestors very hard. You should have enough dps to thin out the z army then be able to get under the broodlords. What i do is I put my tanks and 2, move army back, 2-shift click all infestors, move army forward to take out Blords.
|
On August 04 2012 05:43 WaKai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 05:14 Type|NarutO wrote:
Someone told me to go here with this post... so , after reading the OP I don't know if it exactly fits the rules... but first off, here you go
The biggest problem to Terran is that everything that COULD damage broodlords, is either slow or has not enough range or both.
Ravens with HSM are great, but fungal outranges it so it will not hit vs a good player. Marines are fast but have low HP and not enough range to threaten broodlords. Tanks sieged up that actually could deny insane fungals with targeting infestors target broodlings.
I for my part would suggest the balance adjustment that tanks to not choose broodlings as target. Right now a perfect terran would need to have a very good split, spam stop on his tanks while stimming and controlling bio, waiting for infestors to get in tank range and making the tanks attack them.
EMP/Storm for example both got a range-nerf. I feel like nerfing either range of fungal or as said not making broodlings a target would already be a huge improvement, as broodlord / infestor isn't to beat on even footing (cost efficient) and the chance of getting such an economy advantage to not have to combat it cost-efficient is nearly impossible.
Protoss for example has the chance to take away part of the Zerg lategame army with a vortex. If you can deny infestors OR broodlords the army goes from nearly undefeatable to nearly ineffective I feel, but as Terran you are not very limited in the given options, but very limited by the POSSIBLE solution and economy.
Raven/BC/Thor .. or actually a complete air+thor mech switch would work, but the Zerg won't leave you alone that you can accomplish that. Not taking anything away from SortOf, but those are my thoughts about how to adjust/balance out the ma tchup in the lategame where Terran really struggles right now.
This obviously is only about Terran vs Zerg. In ZvZ this would not make a huge difference I'd say as it first of all would hit both parties and secondly it doesn't need to be a radical change , but a minor one (about infestors fungal range). Broodlords are rarely seen and a tank change has no impact whatsoever on ZvZ and PvZ.
About ZvP it would probably make the already strong colossi even stronger against infestors, but as they counter them pretty well anyways and Zerg usually has a quiet a buffer in between I don't think it would greatly impact it. Some Zergs are very good with infestors and their control and the side-effect would probably either be losing a few more infestors when chain-fungaling or having to choose not to be as "greedy" with a fungal and not hitting exactly the middle of the Protoss army.
There are lots of other side effects as for example weakend drop defence as you cannot catch medivacs that are further away, but all those changes would not deeply impact the game as the infestor is not the main source of drop defence but support.
Effects on TvZ are at the top I'm a terran player and what you just proposed is the solution that can be solved with micro, late game you want to be more aggressive with your tanks instead of slow pushing, once they seige you must focus fire the infestors, as +2 on tanks shut down infestors very hard. You should have enough dps to thin out the z army then be able to get under the broodlords. What i do is I put my tanks and 2, move army back, 2-shift click all infestors, move army forward to take out Blords.
In what league are you exactly? Because on the level of play we see in the proscene or higher levels of play Zergs usually never send in their infestors if they don't need to. Broodlords have insane range and its just not the solution to try to micro against it.
Its not just me but I watched a ton of Kas, Strelok, Taeja and lots of other higher level players even with a complete concave that nearly split the map and putting unsieged tanks in front to kill infestors fast or marauders , it just doesn't work out as you say. Its not cost efficient NOR viable if you don't have a PERFECT composition or he badly fucks up.
An example of a good Zerg pushing you with broodlord / infestor is you will take a defensive stance and siege up, to not allow infestors to come close. He will stay out of range and let broodlords shoot first. If you try to engage with vikings, he'll move infestors closer. While broodlords are attacking, your tanks will a) either shell themselves or b) need to be unsieged or c) NONSTOP spammed with stop command to not fire.
If you decide however to directly engage the Zerg and send in your marines pre-split with vikings also, you can try to leave your tanks sieged but infestors will still not get in range of the tanks, because marines don't have enough range to scare the broodlords without being out of range from tanks+fungal combined.
Tanks have 13 range, marines won't leave that. But Fungal also has quiet a good range so the infestors are in range of the marines, but not in range of tanks. So yeah. If you move your army back, I will simply stay with my broodlords and leave my infestors behind. Corrupters can be send to attack vikings if they attack broodlords, because they are quiet beefy.
You will be left without a chance but unsiege your tanks, or shell your own forces. If you unsiege the Zerg will probably engage with everything he has got (lings, infestor + bl) possibly even banelings or in some rare cases ultras. You can then siege up again and try shifting through infestors, but I guarantee that you will have less firepower than Zerg. Broodlords are for free and fungals will hit, eventually landing on what they need (marines). Once ANYTHING gets close ,you are dead.
Even if you eventually clean up a medium sized infestor/broodlord force, a bigger force will not be killed by control , splits nor focusfire. It will just crush you. I basically have NEVER seen a Zerg that is still doing well in economy or has not badly fucked up his attack that lost or made the fight cost-inefficient.
Ofcourse, if you can get rid of infestors the army is no problem at all, but usually... you just don't. All that is also assuming that you enter lategame with either an advantage or on very even footing which is also not an easy thing to do as you will have to pressure as terran and either deny his economy or already win there.
Unfortunately, denying a Zergs economy is very hard and costly and very few players are actually capable of doing it and they still lose to that ultimative army. Not even talking about my level, but a lot higher level players that have very good control and engagements.
|
On August 04 2012 05:39 cydial wrote:
I'm really curious as to what leagues the developers of this game are. It's like someone trying to design a car that doesn't even drive.
Customers are very demanding in their business. So, they intentionally ignore some of those even if they know they lose some potential customers that way.
State 1. Imbalanced game = no one watches. Can't sell expansions.
State 2. Somewhat balanced game = enough people watch. Can sell enough expansions to profit.
State 3. Almost perfectly balanced game = many people watch. Can sell a lot of expansions. BUT costs a lot to reach this level.
Now, Blizzard doesn't patch anything to move from 2. to 3. If cost-benefit is optimal at somewhat balanced game state, no need to perfect it because cost for research, maintinance and what not is higher than benefit.
Blizzard will change something if too many people think the game is at state 1. Then, they try to move it from 1. to 2.
We want a perfectly balanced game, but unfortunately cost-benefit analysis line is optimal around "somewhat" balanced game state.
Speak louder and say it is state 1. today or just quit playing and don't buy HOTS to pressure Blizzard financially.
If Blizzard thinks patching/changing will benefit more than it costs, then they would do it. Otherwise, they deserve to go out of business.
|
On August 04 2012 06:06 Type|NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 05:43 WaKai wrote:On August 04 2012 05:14 Type|NarutO wrote:
Someone told me to go here with this post... so , after reading the OP I don't know if it exactly fits the rules... but first off, here you go
The biggest problem to Terran is that everything that COULD damage broodlords, is either slow or has not enough range or both.
Ravens with HSM are great, but fungal outranges it so it will not hit vs a good player. Marines are fast but have low HP and not enough range to threaten broodlords. Tanks sieged up that actually could deny insane fungals with targeting infestors target broodlings.
I for my part would suggest the balance adjustment that tanks to not choose broodlings as target. Right now a perfect terran would need to have a very good split, spam stop on his tanks while stimming and controlling bio, waiting for infestors to get in tank range and making the tanks attack them.
EMP/Storm for example both got a range-nerf. I feel like nerfing either range of fungal or as said not making broodlings a target would already be a huge improvement, as broodlord / infestor isn't to beat on even footing (cost efficient) and the chance of getting such an economy advantage to not have to combat it cost-efficient is nearly impossible.
Protoss for example has the chance to take away part of the Zerg lategame army with a vortex. If you can deny infestors OR broodlords the army goes from nearly undefeatable to nearly ineffective I feel, but as Terran you are not very limited in the given options, but very limited by the POSSIBLE solution and economy.
Raven/BC/Thor .. or actually a complete air+thor mech switch would work, but the Zerg won't leave you alone that you can accomplish that. Not taking anything away from SortOf, but those are my thoughts about how to adjust/balance out the ma tchup in the lategame where Terran really struggles right now.
This obviously is only about Terran vs Zerg. In ZvZ this would not make a huge difference I'd say as it first of all would hit both parties and secondly it doesn't need to be a radical change , but a minor one (about infestors fungal range). Broodlords are rarely seen and a tank change has no impact whatsoever on ZvZ and PvZ.
About ZvP it would probably make the already strong colossi even stronger against infestors, but as they counter them pretty well anyways and Zerg usually has a quiet a buffer in between I don't think it would greatly impact it. Some Zergs are very good with infestors and their control and the side-effect would probably either be losing a few more infestors when chain-fungaling or having to choose not to be as "greedy" with a fungal and not hitting exactly the middle of the Protoss army.
There are lots of other side effects as for example weakend drop defence as you cannot catch medivacs that are further away, but all those changes would not deeply impact the game as the infestor is not the main source of drop defence but support.
Effects on TvZ are at the top I'm a terran player and what you just proposed is the solution that can be solved with micro, late game you want to be more aggressive with your tanks instead of slow pushing, once they seige you must focus fire the infestors, as +2 on tanks shut down infestors very hard. You should have enough dps to thin out the z army then be able to get under the broodlords. What i do is I put my tanks and 2, move army back, 2-shift click all infestors, move army forward to take out Blords. In what league are you exactly? Because on the level of play we see in the proscene or higher levels of play Zergs usually never send in their infestors if they don't need to. Broodlords have insane range and its just not the solution to try to micro against it. Its not just me but I watched a ton of Kas, Strelok, Taeja and lots of other higher level players even with a complete concave that nearly split the map and putting unsieged tanks in front to kill infestors fast or marauders , it just doesn't work out as you say. Its not cost efficient NOR viable if you don't have a PERFECT composition or he badly fucks up. An example of a good Zerg pushing you with broodlord / infestor is you will take a defensive stance and siege up, to not allow infestors to come close. He will stay out of range and let broodlords shoot first. If you try to engage with vikings, he'll move infestors closer. While broodlords are attacking, your tanks will a) either shell themselves or b) need to be unsieged or c) NONSTOP spammed with stop command to not fire. If you decide however to directly engage the Zerg and send in your marines pre-split with vikings also, you can try to leave your tanks sieged but infestors will still not get in range of the tanks, because marines don't have enough range to scare the broodlords without being out of range from tanks+fungal combined. Tanks have 13 range, marines won't leave that. But Fungal also has quiet a good range so the infestors are in range of the marines, but not in range of tanks. So yeah. If you move your army back, I will simply stay with my broodlords and leave my infestors behind. Corrupters can be send to attack vikings if they attack broodlords, because they are quiet beefy. You will be left without a chance but unsiege your tanks, or shell your own forces. If you unsiege the Zerg will probably engage with everything he has got (lings, infestor + bl) possibly even banelings or in some rare cases ultras. You can then siege up again and try shifting through infestors, but I guarantee that you will have less firepower than Zerg. Broodlords are for free and fungals will hit, eventually landing on what they need (marines). Once ANYTHING gets close ,you are dead. Even if you eventually clean up a medium sized infestor/broodlord force, a bigger force will not be killed by control , splits nor focusfire. It will just crush you. I basically have NEVER seen a Zerg that is still doing well in economy or has not badly fucked up his attack that lost or made the fight cost-inefficient. Ofcourse, if you can get rid of infestors the army is no problem at all, but usually... you just don't. All that is also assuming that you enter lategame with either an advantage or on very even footing which is also not an easy thing to do as you will have to pressure as terran and either deny his economy or already win there. Unfortunately, denying a Zergs economy is very hard and costly and very few players are actually capable of doing it and they still lose to that ultimative army. Not even talking about my level, but a lot higher level players that have very good control and engagements.
I made this suggestion earlier, but what if tanks just had a hold fire command or an target fire only command?. It would make them so much better in the situation you describe. I would really like to see that at least in a PTR.
Are you sure that the stop command even stops tanks from firing? Afaik i tried that once several versions ago and it did not work.
|
|
|
Here's another way of putting it, I suppose.
Pressure and all-ins are ways to keep players from playing too greedy. Pressure is supposed to set your opponent back if they're playing greedy, and wind up even if they're playing honest. All-ins are supposed to kill your opponent if they're playing greedy, and set them back a little if they're playing honest. If they're playing smart and safe, then they counter your all-in and take no damage at all and can then move out to win.
|
On August 04 2012 09:04 Acritter wrote:
Here's another way of putting it, I suppose.
Pressure and all-ins are ways to keep players from playing too greedy. Pressure is supposed to set your opponent back if they're playing greedy, and wind up even if they're playing honest. All-ins are supposed to kill your opponent if they're playing greedy, and set them back a little if they're playing honest. If they're playing smart and safe, then they counter your all-in and take no damage at all and can then move out to win.
Basically this. I feel like the line of standard play (particularly for Zerg as of late, but in general for every race) keeps getting pushed forward into greed. I wouldn't mind if this was because of the game getting figured out and people getting better at holding things with great control, but it's actually mostly that Blizzard just spoonfed solutions to the players. Pressure needs to exist. 80 Drones at 10 minutes should represent the Zerg player having played masterfully, not him having hit every Inject. The discussion needs to move away from "what can race X do lategame against race Y" and more into how we can make the lategame happen in a genuine and interesting way, rather than having every game just be a monotonous race to T3 units.
|
Why some people derail the balance thread with pointless discussions about semantics?
|
On August 04 2012 09:04 Acritter wrote:
Here's another way of putting it, I suppose.
Pressure and all-ins are ways to keep players from playing too greedy. Pressure is supposed to set your opponent back if they're playing greedy, and wind up even if they're playing honest. All-ins are supposed to kill your opponent if they're playing greedy, and set them back a little if they're playing honest. If they're playing smart and safe, then they counter your all-in and take no damage at all and can then move out to win.
Really good way of putting it.
Also this may sound a bit random, but imo sc2 started off favoring super early game cheese a little too much. Stuff like proxy rax before depots, 6 pools, proxy gates, rushes like that were a little too much. Every gsl game was someone dying to a super early rush and it was boring.
Similarly, the game has taken the extreme opposite approach 2 years later. We now have extremely greedy styles that reign supreme because all rushes have been nerfed. I think a nice in between would be the best fit with the ultimate goal for their to be plenty of action all game long. It's not particularly enjoyable to watch nor play a game where you can't attack each other for 30 minutes. Nor was it cool playing 5m inute long games constantly.
Anyways this all ties into this balance discussion because I believe greedy styles heavily favor zerg.
|
We're not really looking for rushes to work more than say 10% of the time. What we really need is "superiority timing"s (ie a "timing") where player A can march a small number of units up to the base of Player B and force them to deviate from doing single-player-esque macroing. Else player B risks losing units or buildings on the fringes of their base, or getting stuck in a contain. All with player B never really being at risk of losing immediately from the attack.
What we ought to be looking for, to use an SC1 scenario, is something like PvT dragoon range upgrade forcing uncomfortably early siege tech. If the terran could get away with it, he'd rather research siege mode minutes later, but as soon as goon range is out and the dragoons start taking potshots, he'll need to pull scvs to repair his bunker and lack a good way to fight back. So it becomes economical to tech earlier just to avoid taking too much damage. It doesn't mean that protoss can just walk into the terran base.
|
On August 04 2012 11:01 Resistentialism wrote:
We're not really looking for rushes to work more than say 10% of the time. What we really need is "superiority timing"s (ie a "timing") where player A can march a small number of units up to the base of Player B and force them to deviate from doing single-player-esque macroing. Else player B risks losing units or buildings on the fringes of their base, or getting stuck in a contain. All with player B never really being at risk of losing immediately from the attack.
What we ought to be looking for, to use an SC1 scenario, is something like PvT dragoon range upgrade forcing uncomfortably early siege tech. If the terran could get away with it, he'd rather research siege mode minutes later, but as soon as goon range is out and the dragoons start taking potshots, he'll need to pull scvs to repair his bunker and lack a good way to fight back. So it becomes economical to tech earlier just to avoid taking too much damage. It doesn't mean that protoss can just walk into the terran base.
This. Imagine if Zerg needed to really deviate when he saw a +1 4gate Zealot timing coming, and imagine if a Protoss could safely take a third base behind that. It would be really cool for the matchup, because it would mean less turtley play. It's not about winning with one timing attack or something, but it's about safely macroing up while keeping your opponent from playing singleplayer. Zerg has this a bit with their ability to do runbys against early expansions. Protoss really doesn't get anything like this until lategame Warp Prisms and DTs and so on, by which point the turtle problem is already done.
|
This. Imagine if Zerg needed to really deviate when he saw a +1 4gate Zealot timing coming, and imagine if a Protoss could safely take a third base behind that. It would be really cool for the matchup, because it would mean less turtley play.
Yes, it would be cool from a Toss POV because its an auto win. A very slight drone advantage from the zerg and a tech advantage for the toss whie securing an even number of bases will result in: Toss wins with his follow up, because now he can just go for his +3 Blinkstalker Colossus push and there is no chance in the world that zerg can defend without BL/Infestor... which he will not have as he had to "deviate".
|
On August 04 2012 11:01 Resistentialism wrote:
We're not really looking for rushes to work more than say 10% of the time. What we really need is "superiority timing"s (ie a "timing") where player A can march a small number of units up to the base of Player B and force them to deviate from doing single-player-esque macroing. Else player B risks losing units or buildings on the fringes of their base, or getting stuck in a contain. All with player B never really being at risk of losing immediately from the attack.
What we ought to be looking for, to use an SC1 scenario, is something like PvT dragoon range upgrade forcing uncomfortably early siege tech. If the terran could get away with it, he'd rather research siege mode minutes later, but as soon as goon range is out and the dragoons start taking potshots, he'll need to pull scvs to repair his bunker and lack a good way to fight back. So it becomes economical to tech earlier just to avoid taking too much damage. It doesn't mean that protoss can just walk into the terran base.
If rushes work too well they will become a standard part of the game. What I see is that there isnt really a "defenders advantage" apart from having a wider arc at the other side of a choke ... and that isnt really available everywhere. Buildings die too easily and thus there really isnt that much incentive to build defensive structures for example.
Any tactic should have an advantage AND a disadvantage as a trade off, which you either try to reduce (and thus your offensive tactic will be watered down) OR you accept and take the risk. There should also be enough time to defend against a tactic you werent prepared for and that is a major problem in SC2. The speed at which you can "burst produce" units is too high and this makes the game volatile, because the defender doesnt have a way to catch up.
I personally dont like balancing the game around "timings", because they simply are dependant upon the map. I would much rather have a more adaptable game where a defender has a chance to adapt his strategy and save his base, because it isnt much fun to have prepared for X and then seeing Y barreling down your door. To achieve this the game needs to slow down ... significantly ... on the production speed of units, because that gives everyone the time to scout his opponent and react in time.
|
Just watched game 1 of Squirtle vs Ret
+ Show Spoiler +What is anyone meant to do against late game zerg? I find extra late game zerg just monstorously powerful due to the larvae mechanic and strength of corruptors.
|
On August 05 2012 12:11 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:Just watched game 1 of Squirtle vs Ret + Show Spoiler +What is anyone meant to do against late game zerg? I find extra late game zerg just monstorously powerful due to the larvae mechanic and strength of corruptors. Can someone much smarter please tell me why this is actually balanced?
No one is smart here. Everyone is biased though, including myself.
|
On August 05 2012 12:11 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:Just watched game 1 of Squirtle vs Ret + Show Spoiler +What is anyone meant to do against late game zerg? I find extra late game zerg just monstorously powerful due to the larvae mechanic and strength of corruptors. Can someone much smarter please tell me why this is actually balanced?
Basically comes down to a Vortex or a really stupid engagement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
