|
United Kingdom12023 Posts
On June 29 2013 09:01 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am curious... have terrans experimented with much tank/mine/hellbat play in TvP? Or some other variant using tanks + widow mines?
I think a lot have and people like kop have even done it in proleague.
I do it personally on ladder, and although it's good I think Tank/Hellion is still better for now as archons completely own hellbats harder than you can imagine, that and storm too.
It's still not as strong as it needs to be to be properly viable and the only way you're ever going to be able to close a game out with it is if you get an insurmountable lead early on (like them failing an all-in) or you punish them for being greedy. Immortals and Archons are still crazy good against mech, I mean ghosts help but for it to be used at a pro level I honestly think the tank still needs a buff to damage against shields, they're just far too weak at the minute to pack the punch they need to.
Mines are useful against skytoss, but against ground toss they're not very useful, if they get collosus or stalkers and an observer they get shut down too hard to be worth the supply. Unlike spidermines in BW, they're actually completely useless at slowing people down as well, as to slow someone down you'd need about 10 of them and they're too supply heavy for that.
They're nice to have with your tanks, but they're certainly not a unit you can rely on in TvP like you can in TvZ (although only when mixed with bio).
|
I mostly mean to use widow mines to shut down any possible immortal play. Since widow mines (supposedly) attack as a spell it isnt effected by hardened shields so immortals dont own the tanks immediately and hardened shields is nullified.
|
I posted this on Battle.net but I feel like the community here actually knows what they're talking about. I want to hear your guys thoughts on this.
Watching MLG and many of the most recent tournaments I feel that medivacs with the boost upgrade are too difficult for Zerg to deal with in a late game situation. Bio continues to be effective vs infestor/ultra/broodlord simply because these units, while they wreck bio in a straight up fight simply can't deal with small packs of units split across the map, nor can they force a fight without having multiple undefended counter attacks.
Even if the Z has a superior army and economy, he has a very difficult time push and kill the T without risking drops at every single expansion. The Z must either mass static or trade ineffectively with defensive lings and mutas vs marines, or push, leaving nothing on defense that can kill medivacs.
Specifically the only anti air that Zerg has in the late game that is good vs a single medivac harassing is Hydras and Mutas. In TvZ late game the Zerg is constantly forced to chase back and forth vs non-committal aggression even when his army is vastly superior he can never force a fight because his muta pack cannot be split up (without losing multiple mutas to small numbers of marines) nor can hydras and or queens effectively catch medivacs.
Spores are a good solution but because zerg static is split, without multiple spines per spore the spore can easily be picked off - a base completely safe from a single medivac needs multiple spines and spores and is still very weak vs marauder heavy drops.
I feel this is either a defensive problem from the Zerg:
The inability to have units that shoot up to punish a failed drop, that can be split apart while also being cost effective vs small numbers of well positioned marines and medivacs or that can force a direct engagement while dealing with multi-prong counter drops.
Or this is a too-difficult-to-deal-with harass style from the T:
Drop play requires little commitment - the ability to lift and retreat exists in nearly every case. Drop play is nearly always cost effective for the T, even if no workers are killed because mutas, lings and static are the only real way that multi-prong drops can be dealt with.
Lets look at the defensive capabilities of the TvX matchup as a method to compare how each race is equipped to deal with drop play:
Protoss
[ul]
Mothership Core (Photon Overchange, Recall, Timewarp (Catches units retreating))
Cannons (Denies both the medivac and the units in it)
Simcity and centralized tech/production, increases the effectiveness of static (Limits the weak spots vs drop play)
Warpins (Instantly creating units where defense is needed)
Templars (HT to feedback, DT to force scans and deal with less than quick opponents)
Blink (To catch medivacs)
Phoenix (Not consistently viable at pro level so irrelevant)
[/ul]
Terran
[ul]
Stimmed Marines (Quick enough to catch medivacs)
Turrets (And the ability to upgrade the range)
Vikings (Readily available A2A built out of already available production)
Sensor Tower (Detects air and ground drops in a huge radius)
SimCity (Prevents runbys or small squads from directly running into the mineral line / sniping the expansion)
Planetary Fortress (Allows T to spread out his expansions without mass static)
Floatable CCs (Allows the lift and redrop of the CC without having to rebuy the expansion - makes sniping expansions extremely difficult)
Bunkers (Salvageable, allows simcity)
[/ul]
Zerg
[ul]
Fastest Melee unit in the game (Sling)
Queens (Transfuse, minimal DPS)
Creep Spread (Ground vision, unit speed)
Overlords (Cheap Air vision)
Strong static (Expensive, requires drones, requires 2 static to deny both the dropship and the units in it)
Decentralized production (Queens, each expansion represents a portion of the production)
Mutas (Fast enough to catch medivacs when not boosted, decent DPS but weak to the marines in the dropship)
Corruptors (Medicore air to air, not great vs medivac / drop play)
[/ul]
My thoughts from watching pro games and looking at the tools at a Zergs disposal to deal with drops is this - take it with a grain of salt:
While Zerg is perfectly equipped to deal with drop play
through creep, overlords and strong static zerg suffers
from extremely decentralized and vulnerable production
and having NOT A SINGLE UNIT that can cost effectively
deal with bio + medivac supported harass. Zerg units
are either countered bybio and able to deny or punish
an attempted medivacs drop either through speed
or the ability to DPS down an air unit or able to
counter bio but lacking the mobility to
respond fast enough to drop play or punish the medivac
drop attempt when the Z responds properly.
What this means is that while lings, static and spines
can stop drops but do so at a substantial cost -
If the dropship is killed by Mutalisks or Corruptors it
is done so at the cost of position - by sending all your
mutas to deny the drop the T is free to drop in multiple
other locations undeterred while clearing creep -
even if the drop is shut down you lose creep or are
forced to respond with units that don't effectively deal
with drops. If ground units clean up the drop they
either do so cost ineffectively (with ling bane) or do
so with very poor mobility (roach/hydra).
My Conclusion
Zerg lacks a way to quickly respond to mass drop play effectively while also having units that can fight bio head on. Units that are strong vs bio play such as ultralisks, banelings, infestors and roaches to an extent are TERRIBLE at defending multi prong medivac supported aggression EVEN WITH STATIC AND PROPER SPLITTING OF THE ARMY DEFENSIVELY because these units can't punish a failed drop - the medivac simply escapes at the cost of nothing to the T and continues until a mistake is made by the zerg defensively.
Note: This isn't a balance complaint - I feel like the medivac is a unit that makes SC:II fun to play and fun to watch. My issue specifically is with the inability of Zerg to punish a failed drop attempt or the outright lack of zerg T3 that can deal with medivacs.
I created a brainstorm of potential slight changes to the game that COULD address the medivac vs Zerg perceived issue.
Theoretical Medivac Boost Changes
[ul]
[li] A significant energy requirement or cost for boost - depending on the energy cost a increase in duration or decrease in duration and an adjusted cooldown[/li]
[li] Units take longer to load back into a medivac (Don't load instantly) [/li]
[li] Medivacs take more damage from spores or queens in the late game [/li]
[li] Medivacs can't both heal and be in 'drop mode'. Time based delay between switching between the 2. [/li]
[/ul]
Theoretical Zerg Defense Changes
[ul]
[li]Creep is more difficult to remove (Either receeds slower, tumors have much more health or spread faster/greater amount of space per tumor)[/li]
[li] Zerg static late game Spine buff vs bio or Spore buff vs medivacs [/li]
[li] Zerg expansion change - Able to secure expansions easier - mass static isn't comparable to the defensive capabilities of HT and cannons or PFs with bunker/turrets yet the cost is much greater. [/li]
[li] Nydus Buff - Nydus use allows Zerg to quickly travel between expansions to deal with multi pronged aggression. This would include a cost change, health change or the like. [/li]
[li] Sling Buff - Superior numbers of cracklings should be able to easily deal with 8 marines and a medivac or the like while being cost effective for the Z. [/li]
[/ul]
|
3-3 marines in a dropship is the one serious threat terran can provide in the lategame. Terrans don't have broodlords or ultras, those 3-3 marines are the ultimate units. I don't think their mobility should be nerfed at all, they are the one thing to fear from the terran late game arsenal (besides Hellbats, but thats another story).
|
On June 29 2013 05:32 Karpfen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:52 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity. Do you realize how stupid this is? BW was fair for low level players who played just for fun AND great to watch and awesome when progamers played it. Once and for all ... FUN AND BALANCE FOR LOW LEVELS DO NOT EXCLUDE INTERESTING AND CHALLENGING HIGH LEVEL PLAY!!!I apologize for the caps, but there are some simpletons here who believe these things to be exclusive when we have an older game as proof that it isnt true. The design concept around "faster faster faster" and "more stuff, more stuff, more stuff" is the problem of SC2, because they have designed an "F1 race car" and most of the people will not be able to handle that properly. They should have stuck to the "bicycle" of BW, which was more tedious to play + Show Spoiler + Todays kids apparently cant be bothered to play with only 12 units per control group apparently because it is too tough. None of the "but technology has advanced since the 1990's" kids have ever complained about the 200 supply limit, the lack of formations for the units, the inability to attack the ground in the dark area, ... because there have been games for decades which had those features. So there CAN BE some arbitrary restrictions which are NECESSARY to make the game work! , but fair and easier to handle because of this. To any of those who dont believe me ask yourself these questions: - Is there a point where the game gets too fast? Can Blizzard endlessly increase (buff) them? (Either through unit speed or unit production) - Is a fight with 10 times as many units really 10 times more exciting OR does a smaller fight offer more exciting because every unit that dies/is kept alive is more important? Lower amounts of units equal a lower total dps and this allows enough time to micro and save units, while bigger armies equal more explosions and a fast fight that does not really allow people the time to save their units most of the time. + Show Spoiler +The most amazing fights AND micro are happening when there are 2 Zerglings that fight another 2 Zerglings and one player wins with both of his Zerglings alive. Fights with lower numbers of units last almost as long because the total dps is much lower. - Would it make sense to reduce the density of units on the battlefield for better control? (This would require removing any economic and production speed boosts from the game and adding forced units spreading.) - Have you ever complained about the MULE, Forcefield or Fungal Growth? Arent they only a problem when they exist in larger numbers? + Show Spoiler +IMO a reduced number of units and density on the battlefield would allow for more extreme (= fun and exciting) spells since they dont kill as much at one time. - Do you think the deathball is a good thing to have in the game? + Show Spoiler +Blizzard doesnt really do anything against it and the core design of "unit clumping" really enforces it. A lower production speed - as it was in BW - does NOT mean players will wait until they have 200 supply and start attacking then. Lower numbers of units also mean that the game is more manageable for lower skill players, because the total kill speed is reduced and things like "Marine spreading vs Banelings" are not that much of an issue anymore. You are the one not understanding. The priority should be highest level balance. You questioned this saying that the priority should be balance for the mass. I, myself, questioned your position and suddenly it looks like I said that 0 focus should be put on balancing the game on low levels (never said, never implied). Focus should be put but as a secondary objective.
Are you really saying that "sorry Master level and below players, but you have to play an imbalanced game for your level of skill ... sucks to be you, eh?" is the RIGHT WAY to do it? The game needs to be balanced for EVERYONE or else it needs a warning sticker (kinda like the age restriction).
You are also totally ignoring the fact that BROOD WAR ... a game that is over a decade old ... was balanced for all levels of play. Maybe there were a few "imbalanced tactics" but pulling them off was not easy. Try to prove that it is impossible to balance the game for all levels of play ... I have stated why I believe that it is entirely possible to do it.
Oh and you called me a "babby who wants the game to be balanced arond my level of play" ... which is entirely untrue.
|
On June 29 2013 15:53 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 05:32 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 23:52 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity. Do you realize how stupid this is? BW was fair for low level players who played just for fun AND great to watch and awesome when progamers played it. Once and for all ... FUN AND BALANCE FOR LOW LEVELS DO NOT EXCLUDE INTERESTING AND CHALLENGING HIGH LEVEL PLAY!!!I apologize for the caps, but there are some simpletons here who believe these things to be exclusive when we have an older game as proof that it isnt true. The design concept around "faster faster faster" and "more stuff, more stuff, more stuff" is the problem of SC2, because they have designed an "F1 race car" and most of the people will not be able to handle that properly. They should have stuck to the "bicycle" of BW, which was more tedious to play + Show Spoiler + Todays kids apparently cant be bothered to play with only 12 units per control group apparently because it is too tough. None of the "but technology has advanced since the 1990's" kids have ever complained about the 200 supply limit, the lack of formations for the units, the inability to attack the ground in the dark area, ... because there have been games for decades which had those features. So there CAN BE some arbitrary restrictions which are NECESSARY to make the game work! , but fair and easier to handle because of this. To any of those who dont believe me ask yourself these questions: - Is there a point where the game gets too fast? Can Blizzard endlessly increase (buff) them? (Either through unit speed or unit production) - Is a fight with 10 times as many units really 10 times more exciting OR does a smaller fight offer more exciting because every unit that dies/is kept alive is more important? Lower amounts of units equal a lower total dps and this allows enough time to micro and save units, while bigger armies equal more explosions and a fast fight that does not really allow people the time to save their units most of the time. + Show Spoiler +The most amazing fights AND micro are happening when there are 2 Zerglings that fight another 2 Zerglings and one player wins with both of his Zerglings alive. Fights with lower numbers of units last almost as long because the total dps is much lower. - Would it make sense to reduce the density of units on the battlefield for better control? (This would require removing any economic and production speed boosts from the game and adding forced units spreading.) - Have you ever complained about the MULE, Forcefield or Fungal Growth? Arent they only a problem when they exist in larger numbers? + Show Spoiler +IMO a reduced number of units and density on the battlefield would allow for more extreme (= fun and exciting) spells since they dont kill as much at one time. - Do you think the deathball is a good thing to have in the game? + Show Spoiler +Blizzard doesnt really do anything against it and the core design of "unit clumping" really enforces it. A lower production speed - as it was in BW - does NOT mean players will wait until they have 200 supply and start attacking then. Lower numbers of units also mean that the game is more manageable for lower skill players, because the total kill speed is reduced and things like "Marine spreading vs Banelings" are not that much of an issue anymore. You are the one not understanding. The priority should be highest level balance. You questioned this saying that the priority should be balance for the mass. I, myself, questioned your position and suddenly it looks like I said that 0 focus should be put on balancing the game on low levels (never said, never implied). Focus should be put but as a secondary objective. Are you really saying that "sorry Master level and below players, but you have to play an imbalanced game for your level of skill ... sucks to be you, eh?" is the RIGHT WAY to do it? The game needs to be balanced for EVERYONE or else it needs a warning sticker (kinda like the age restriction). You are also totally ignoring the fact that BROOD WAR ... a game that is over a decade old ... was balanced for all levels of play. Maybe there were a few "imbalanced tactics" but pulling them off was not easy. Try to prove that it is impossible to balance the game for all levels of play ... I have stated why I believe that it is entirely possible to do it. Oh and you called me a "babby who wants the game to be balanced arond my level of play" ... which is entirely untrue.
People already told you that it was not and that Protoss was way stronger on ICCup lower levels.
|
On June 29 2013 15:12 S7EFEN wrote:
Even if the Z has a superior army and economy, he has a very difficult time push and kill the T without risking drops at every single expansion.
If Terran can drop every expansion then he doesn't have an army, as drops are 10 supply each. Furthermore Zerg has supplyless static defense and larva inject (this is often why you see spine/queen walls in the middle of the map, because Zerg on full economy can literally mass static defense and replenish that with drones or army in one cycle), so adequately defending expansions for Zerg isn't a problem if both players are even in skill and Terran wants to go that route.
If Terran has anymore than 2 dropships on the map a Zerg of equal skill can a-move ultra/bling and win.
|
On June 29 2013 16:32 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 15:12 S7EFEN wrote:
Even if the Z has a superior army and economy, he has a very difficult time push and kill the T without risking drops at every single expansion. If Terran can drop every expansion then he doesn't have an army, as drops are 10 supply each. Furthermore Zerg has supplyless static defense and larva inject (this is often why you see spine/queen walls in the middle of the map, because Zerg on full economy can literally mass static defense and replenish that with drones or army in one cycle), so adequately defending expansions for Zerg isn't a problem if both players are even in skill and Terran wants to go that route. If Terran has anymore than 2 dropships on the map a Zerg of equal skill can a-move ultra/bling and win.
I think that last sentence is going a bit too far, especially considering that Terran can entrench, can afford to sack SCVs for more mules, (is even with mules anyhow), and has more efficient units by nature.
And if the Zerg is equal skill to ther Terran he is not going to blindly A-move ultras - they suck off of creep.
|
On June 29 2013 15:12 S7EFEN wrote:I posted this on Battle.net but I feel like the community here actually knows what they're talking about. I want to hear your guys thoughts on this. Watching MLG and many of the most recent tournaments I feel that medivacs with the boost upgrade are too difficult for Zerg to deal with in a late game situation. Bio continues to be effective vs infestor/ultra/broodlord simply because these units, while they wreck bio in a straight up fight simply can't deal with small packs of units split across the map, nor can they force a fight without having multiple undefended counter attacks. Even if the Z has a superior army and economy, he has a very difficult time push and kill the T without risking drops at every single expansion. The Z must either mass static or trade ineffectively with defensive lings and mutas vs marines, or push, leaving nothing on defense that can kill medivacs. Specifically the only anti air that Zerg has in the late game that is good vs a single medivac harassing is Hydras and Mutas. In TvZ late game the Zerg is constantly forced to chase back and forth vs non-committal aggression even when his army is vastly superior he can never force a fight because his muta pack cannot be split up (without losing multiple mutas to small numbers of marines) nor can hydras and or queens effectively catch medivacs. Spores are a good solution but because zerg static is split, without multiple spines per spore the spore can easily be picked off - a base completely safe from a single medivac needs multiple spines and spores and is still very weak vs marauder heavy drops. I feel this is either a defensive problem from the Zerg:The inability to have units that shoot up to punish a failed drop, that can be split apart while also being cost effective vs small numbers of well positioned marines and medivacs or that can force a direct engagement while dealing with multi-prong counter drops. Or this is a too-difficult-to-deal-with harass style from the T: Drop play requires little commitment - the ability to lift and retreat exists in nearly every case. Drop play is nearly always cost effective for the T, even if no workers are killed because mutas, lings and static are the only real way that multi-prong drops can be dealt with. Lets look at the defensive capabilities of the TvX matchup as a method to compare how each race is equipped to deal with drop play:Protoss [ul] Mothership Core (Photon Overchange, Recall, Timewarp (Catches units retreating)) Cannons (Denies both the medivac and the units in it) Simcity and centralized tech/production, increases the effectiveness of static (Limits the weak spots vs drop play) Warpins (Instantly creating units where defense is needed) Templars (HT to feedback, DT to force scans and deal with less than quick opponents) Blink (To catch medivacs) Phoenix (Not consistently viable at pro level so irrelevant) [/ul] Terran [ul] Stimmed Marines (Quick enough to catch medivacs) Turrets (And the ability to upgrade the range) Vikings (Readily available A2A built out of already available production) Sensor Tower (Detects air and ground drops in a huge radius) SimCity (Prevents runbys or small squads from directly running into the mineral line / sniping the expansion) Planetary Fortress (Allows T to spread out his expansions without mass static) Floatable CCs (Allows the lift and redrop of the CC without having to rebuy the expansion - makes sniping expansions extremely difficult) Bunkers (Salvageable, allows simcity) [/ul] Zerg [ul] Fastest Melee unit in the game (Sling) Queens (Transfuse, minimal DPS) Creep Spread (Ground vision, unit speed) Overlords (Cheap Air vision) Strong static (Expensive, requires drones, requires 2 static to deny both the dropship and the units in it) Decentralized production (Queens, each expansion represents a portion of the production) Mutas (Fast enough to catch medivacs when not boosted, decent DPS but weak to the marines in the dropship) Corruptors (Medicore air to air, not great vs medivac / drop play) [/ul] My thoughts from watching pro games and looking at the tools at a Zergs disposal to deal with drops is this - take it with a grain of salt:
While Zerg is perfectly equipped to deal with drop play
through creep, overlords and strong static zerg suffers
from extremely decentralized and vulnerable production
and having NOT A SINGLE UNIT that can cost effectively
deal with bio + medivac supported harass. Zerg units
are either countered bybio and able to deny or punish
an attempted medivacs drop either through speed
or the ability to DPS down an air unit or able to
counter bio but lacking the mobility to
respond fast enough to drop play or punish the medivac
drop attempt when the Z responds properly.
What this means is that while lings, static and spines
can stop drops but do so at a substantial cost -
If the dropship is killed by Mutalisks or Corruptors it
is done so at the cost of position - by sending all your
mutas to deny the drop the T is free to drop in multiple
other locations undeterred while clearing creep -
even if the drop is shut down you lose creep or are
forced to respond with units that don't effectively deal
with drops. If ground units clean up the drop they
either do so cost ineffectively (with ling bane) or do
so with very poor mobility (roach/hydra).
My Conclusion Zerg lacks a way to quickly respond to mass drop play effectively while also having units that can fight bio head on. Units that are strong vs bio play such as ultralisks, banelings, infestors and roaches to an extent are TERRIBLE at defending multi prong medivac supported aggression EVEN WITH STATIC AND PROPER SPLITTING OF THE ARMY DEFENSIVELY because these units can't punish a failed drop - the medivac simply escapes at the cost of nothing to the T and continues until a mistake is made by the zerg defensively. Note: This isn't a balance complaint - I feel like the medivac is a unit that makes SC:II fun to play and fun to watch. My issue specifically is with the inability of Zerg to punish a failed drop attempt or the outright lack of zerg T3 that can deal with medivacs. I created a brainstorm of potential slight changes to the game that COULD address the medivac vs Zerg perceived issue. Theoretical Medivac Boost Changes [ul] [li] A significant energy requirement or cost for boost - depending on the energy cost a increase in duration or decrease in duration and an adjusted cooldown[/li] [li] Units take longer to load back into a medivac (Don't load instantly) [/li] [li] Medivacs take more damage from spores or queens in the late game [/li] [li] Medivacs can't both heal and be in 'drop mode'. Time based delay between switching between the 2. [/li] [/ul] Theoretical Zerg Defense Changes [ul] [li]Creep is more difficult to remove (Either receeds slower, tumors have much more health or spread faster/greater amount of space per tumor)[/li] [li] Zerg static late game Spine buff vs bio or Spore buff vs medivacs [/li] [li] Zerg expansion change - Able to secure expansions easier - mass static isn't comparable to the defensive capabilities of HT and cannons or PFs with bunker/turrets yet the cost is much greater. [/li] [li] Nydus Buff - Nydus use allows Zerg to quickly travel between expansions to deal with multi pronged aggression. This would include a cost change, health change or the like. [/li] [li] Sling Buff - Superior numbers of cracklings should be able to easily deal with 8 marines and a medivac or the like while being cost effective for the Z. [/li] [/ul]
hmm...
I don't think buffing static defence again is a good idea but rather another terrible bandaid like biobuffed spore.
But I think medivac boost does need to have either upgrade (might not be a 'small' nerf) or longer cooldown (small nerf). costing mana woud discourage HT's feedback.
and nydus buff should have been done since starcraft 2 came out but needs only a slight energy/armor buff though. Maybe giving it some extra armor befor hatching? (that was my sily idea of making it comes out as a huge egg xp)
Anyway, I guess everyone is working on hellbat drop (which is 90+% cost efficient), not purely on medivac drops. So they won't touch medivac greatly.
|
On June 29 2013 16:08 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 15:53 Rabiator wrote:On June 29 2013 05:32 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 23:52 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:
[quote]
Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity. Do you realize how stupid this is? BW was fair for low level players who played just for fun AND great to watch and awesome when progamers played it. Once and for all ... FUN AND BALANCE FOR LOW LEVELS DO NOT EXCLUDE INTERESTING AND CHALLENGING HIGH LEVEL PLAY!!!I apologize for the caps, but there are some simpletons here who believe these things to be exclusive when we have an older game as proof that it isnt true. The design concept around "faster faster faster" and "more stuff, more stuff, more stuff" is the problem of SC2, because they have designed an "F1 race car" and most of the people will not be able to handle that properly. They should have stuck to the "bicycle" of BW, which was more tedious to play + Show Spoiler + Todays kids apparently cant be bothered to play with only 12 units per control group apparently because it is too tough. None of the "but technology has advanced since the 1990's" kids have ever complained about the 200 supply limit, the lack of formations for the units, the inability to attack the ground in the dark area, ... because there have been games for decades which had those features. So there CAN BE some arbitrary restrictions which are NECESSARY to make the game work! , but fair and easier to handle because of this. To any of those who dont believe me ask yourself these questions: - Is there a point where the game gets too fast? Can Blizzard endlessly increase (buff) them? (Either through unit speed or unit production) - Is a fight with 10 times as many units really 10 times more exciting OR does a smaller fight offer more exciting because every unit that dies/is kept alive is more important? Lower amounts of units equal a lower total dps and this allows enough time to micro and save units, while bigger armies equal more explosions and a fast fight that does not really allow people the time to save their units most of the time. + Show Spoiler +The most amazing fights AND micro are happening when there are 2 Zerglings that fight another 2 Zerglings and one player wins with both of his Zerglings alive. Fights with lower numbers of units last almost as long because the total dps is much lower. - Would it make sense to reduce the density of units on the battlefield for better control? (This would require removing any economic and production speed boosts from the game and adding forced units spreading.) - Have you ever complained about the MULE, Forcefield or Fungal Growth? Arent they only a problem when they exist in larger numbers? + Show Spoiler +IMO a reduced number of units and density on the battlefield would allow for more extreme (= fun and exciting) spells since they dont kill as much at one time. - Do you think the deathball is a good thing to have in the game? + Show Spoiler +Blizzard doesnt really do anything against it and the core design of "unit clumping" really enforces it. A lower production speed - as it was in BW - does NOT mean players will wait until they have 200 supply and start attacking then. Lower numbers of units also mean that the game is more manageable for lower skill players, because the total kill speed is reduced and things like "Marine spreading vs Banelings" are not that much of an issue anymore. You are the one not understanding. The priority should be highest level balance. You questioned this saying that the priority should be balance for the mass. I, myself, questioned your position and suddenly it looks like I said that 0 focus should be put on balancing the game on low levels (never said, never implied). Focus should be put but as a secondary objective. Are you really saying that "sorry Master level and below players, but you have to play an imbalanced game for your level of skill ... sucks to be you, eh?" is the RIGHT WAY to do it? The game needs to be balanced for EVERYONE or else it needs a warning sticker (kinda like the age restriction). You are also totally ignoring the fact that BROOD WAR ... a game that is over a decade old ... was balanced for all levels of play. Maybe there were a few "imbalanced tactics" but pulling them off was not easy. Try to prove that it is impossible to balance the game for all levels of play ... I have stated why I believe that it is entirely possible to do it. Oh and you called me a "babby who wants the game to be balanced arond my level of play" ... which is entirely untrue. People already told you that it was not and that Protoss was way stronger on ICCup lower levels.
And that wasnt just the maps which had a significant influence on the game balance?
The reason why Protoss could have a lead at lower levels in BW is the fact that they had the toughest and most expensive units and that the density of units was limited. This obviously enables them to be stronger in a "one group vs one group" encounter. But what about the situation in SC2? Here we have the opposite situation of "critical numbers are easily reached and grant increased efficiency". The best game is somewhere in the middle (but closer to BW) where reproduction isnt as important as it is in SC2 right now and where "critical number" is only achievable for air units with considerable risk and skill requirement.
In any case BW seems to be the better balance solution since - by your own admission - one race was easier to win with only at the bottom of the ladder and not beginning from the level right below progamer. The whole "coinflippy" or "volatile" and "speed based" nature of SC2 is entirely questionable, because it makes the game harder to handle for the lower end of the ladder and thus creates random - i.e. not very satisfactory - results.
+ Show Spoiler +When looking at the way in which Blizzard designed SC2 I am reminded of The Lord of the Rings book "The two towers" where the dwarf Gimli sees a beautiful cave which the Rohirrim use as a shelter for women, children and the old. He then says that dwarves would come and improve it by one tiny chip here and there every other month. That is what should have been done with SC2, but instead they used a whole load of dynamite instead and just used the largest remaining pieces.
|
On June 29 2013 16:57 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 16:08 Big J wrote:On June 29 2013 15:53 Rabiator wrote:On June 29 2013 05:32 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 23:52 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:
[quote]
bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity. Do you realize how stupid this is? BW was fair for low level players who played just for fun AND great to watch and awesome when progamers played it. Once and for all ... FUN AND BALANCE FOR LOW LEVELS DO NOT EXCLUDE INTERESTING AND CHALLENGING HIGH LEVEL PLAY!!!I apologize for the caps, but there are some simpletons here who believe these things to be exclusive when we have an older game as proof that it isnt true. The design concept around "faster faster faster" and "more stuff, more stuff, more stuff" is the problem of SC2, because they have designed an "F1 race car" and most of the people will not be able to handle that properly. They should have stuck to the "bicycle" of BW, which was more tedious to play + Show Spoiler + Todays kids apparently cant be bothered to play with only 12 units per control group apparently because it is too tough. None of the "but technology has advanced since the 1990's" kids have ever complained about the 200 supply limit, the lack of formations for the units, the inability to attack the ground in the dark area, ... because there have been games for decades which had those features. So there CAN BE some arbitrary restrictions which are NECESSARY to make the game work! , but fair and easier to handle because of this. To any of those who dont believe me ask yourself these questions: - Is there a point where the game gets too fast? Can Blizzard endlessly increase (buff) them? (Either through unit speed or unit production) - Is a fight with 10 times as many units really 10 times more exciting OR does a smaller fight offer more exciting because every unit that dies/is kept alive is more important? Lower amounts of units equal a lower total dps and this allows enough time to micro and save units, while bigger armies equal more explosions and a fast fight that does not really allow people the time to save their units most of the time. + Show Spoiler +The most amazing fights AND micro are happening when there are 2 Zerglings that fight another 2 Zerglings and one player wins with both of his Zerglings alive. Fights with lower numbers of units last almost as long because the total dps is much lower. - Would it make sense to reduce the density of units on the battlefield for better control? (This would require removing any economic and production speed boosts from the game and adding forced units spreading.) - Have you ever complained about the MULE, Forcefield or Fungal Growth? Arent they only a problem when they exist in larger numbers? + Show Spoiler +IMO a reduced number of units and density on the battlefield would allow for more extreme (= fun and exciting) spells since they dont kill as much at one time. - Do you think the deathball is a good thing to have in the game? + Show Spoiler +Blizzard doesnt really do anything against it and the core design of "unit clumping" really enforces it. A lower production speed - as it was in BW - does NOT mean players will wait until they have 200 supply and start attacking then. Lower numbers of units also mean that the game is more manageable for lower skill players, because the total kill speed is reduced and things like "Marine spreading vs Banelings" are not that much of an issue anymore. You are the one not understanding. The priority should be highest level balance. You questioned this saying that the priority should be balance for the mass. I, myself, questioned your position and suddenly it looks like I said that 0 focus should be put on balancing the game on low levels (never said, never implied). Focus should be put but as a secondary objective. Are you really saying that "sorry Master level and below players, but you have to play an imbalanced game for your level of skill ... sucks to be you, eh?" is the RIGHT WAY to do it? The game needs to be balanced for EVERYONE or else it needs a warning sticker (kinda like the age restriction). You are also totally ignoring the fact that BROOD WAR ... a game that is over a decade old ... was balanced for all levels of play. Maybe there were a few "imbalanced tactics" but pulling them off was not easy. Try to prove that it is impossible to balance the game for all levels of play ... I have stated why I believe that it is entirely possible to do it. Oh and you called me a "babby who wants the game to be balanced arond my level of play" ... which is entirely untrue. People already told you that it was not and that Protoss was way stronger on ICCup lower levels. And that wasnt just the maps which had a significant influence on the game balance? The reason why Protoss could have a lead at lower levels in BW is the fact that they had the toughest and most expensive units and that the density of units was limited. This obviously enables them to be stronger in a "one group vs one group" encounter. But what about the situation in SC2? Here we have the opposite situation of "critical numbers are easily reached and grant increased efficiency". The best game is somewhere in the middle (but closer to BW) where reproduction isnt as important as it is in SC2 right now and where "critical number" is only achievable for air units with considerable risk and skill requirement. In any case BW seems to be the better balance solution since - by your own admission - one race was easier to win with only at the bottom of the ladder and not beginning from the level right below progamer. The whole "coinflippy" or "volatile" and "speed based" nature of SC2 is entirely questionable, because it makes the game harder to handle for the lower end of the ladder and thus creates random - i.e. not very satisfactory - results. + Show Spoiler +When looking at the way in which Blizzard designed SC2 I am reminded of The Lord of the Rings book "The two towers" where the dwarf Gimli sees a beautiful cave which the Rohirrim use as a shelter for women, children and the old. He then says that dwarves would come and improve it by one tiny chip here and there every other month. That is what should have been done with SC2, but instead they used a whole load of dynamite instead and just used the largest remaining pieces.
Nope, not by my own admission. I have always put it that: "people said that Protoss was easier". It would be quite pretentious for someone like me - who has never really played Broodwar on anything but moneymaps, but that I did a lot - to state that a race was definitely easier.
Anyways, I don't think that there are real imbalances for lowlevel players. So I won't discuss this further, just felt like pointing out to you that I have read endless amounts of comments from people who seem to have much more Broodwar experience, who told you that you were quite wrong. And that in fact the opposites of what you say is true. Broodwar was imbalanced for lowlevel players and it was hard and could be very frustrating to play.
|
On June 29 2013 16:44 SsDrKosS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 15:12 S7EFEN wrote:I posted this on Battle.net but I feel like the community here actually knows what they're talking about. I want to hear your guys thoughts on this. Watching MLG and many of the most recent tournaments I feel that medivacs with the boost upgrade are too difficult for Zerg to deal with in a late game situation. Bio continues to be effective vs infestor/ultra/broodlord simply because these units, while they wreck bio in a straight up fight simply can't deal with small packs of units split across the map, nor can they force a fight without having multiple undefended counter attacks. Even if the Z has a superior army and economy, he has a very difficult time push and kill the T without risking drops at every single expansion. The Z must either mass static or trade ineffectively with defensive lings and mutas vs marines, or push, leaving nothing on defense that can kill medivacs. Specifically the only anti air that Zerg has in the late game that is good vs a single medivac harassing is Hydras and Mutas. In TvZ late game the Zerg is constantly forced to chase back and forth vs non-committal aggression even when his army is vastly superior he can never force a fight because his muta pack cannot be split up (without losing multiple mutas to small numbers of marines) nor can hydras and or queens effectively catch medivacs. Spores are a good solution but because zerg static is split, without multiple spines per spore the spore can easily be picked off - a base completely safe from a single medivac needs multiple spines and spores and is still very weak vs marauder heavy drops. I feel this is either a defensive problem from the Zerg:The inability to have units that shoot up to punish a failed drop, that can be split apart while also being cost effective vs small numbers of well positioned marines and medivacs or that can force a direct engagement while dealing with multi-prong counter drops. Or this is a too-difficult-to-deal-with harass style from the T: Drop play requires little commitment - the ability to lift and retreat exists in nearly every case. Drop play is nearly always cost effective for the T, even if no workers are killed because mutas, lings and static are the only real way that multi-prong drops can be dealt with. Lets look at the defensive capabilities of the TvX matchup as a method to compare how each race is equipped to deal with drop play:Protoss [ul] Mothership Core (Photon Overchange, Recall, Timewarp (Catches units retreating)) Cannons (Denies both the medivac and the units in it) Simcity and centralized tech/production, increases the effectiveness of static (Limits the weak spots vs drop play) Warpins (Instantly creating units where defense is needed) Templars (HT to feedback, DT to force scans and deal with less than quick opponents) Blink (To catch medivacs) Phoenix (Not consistently viable at pro level so irrelevant) [/ul] Terran [ul] Stimmed Marines (Quick enough to catch medivacs) Turrets (And the ability to upgrade the range) Vikings (Readily available A2A built out of already available production) Sensor Tower (Detects air and ground drops in a huge radius) SimCity (Prevents runbys or small squads from directly running into the mineral line / sniping the expansion) Planetary Fortress (Allows T to spread out his expansions without mass static) Floatable CCs (Allows the lift and redrop of the CC without having to rebuy the expansion - makes sniping expansions extremely difficult) Bunkers (Salvageable, allows simcity) [/ul] Zerg [ul] Fastest Melee unit in the game (Sling) Queens (Transfuse, minimal DPS) Creep Spread (Ground vision, unit speed) Overlords (Cheap Air vision) Strong static (Expensive, requires drones, requires 2 static to deny both the dropship and the units in it) Decentralized production (Queens, each expansion represents a portion of the production) Mutas (Fast enough to catch medivacs when not boosted, decent DPS but weak to the marines in the dropship) Corruptors (Medicore air to air, not great vs medivac / drop play) [/ul] My thoughts from watching pro games and looking at the tools at a Zergs disposal to deal with drops is this - take it with a grain of salt:
While Zerg is perfectly equipped to deal with drop play
through creep, overlords and strong static zerg suffers
from extremely decentralized and vulnerable production
and having NOT A SINGLE UNIT that can cost effectively
deal with bio + medivac supported harass. Zerg units
are either countered bybio and able to deny or punish
an attempted medivacs drop either through speed
or the ability to DPS down an air unit or able to
counter bio but lacking the mobility to
respond fast enough to drop play or punish the medivac
drop attempt when the Z responds properly.
What this means is that while lings, static and spines
can stop drops but do so at a substantial cost -
If the dropship is killed by Mutalisks or Corruptors it
is done so at the cost of position - by sending all your
mutas to deny the drop the T is free to drop in multiple
other locations undeterred while clearing creep -
even if the drop is shut down you lose creep or are
forced to respond with units that don't effectively deal
with drops. If ground units clean up the drop they
either do so cost ineffectively (with ling bane) or do
so with very poor mobility (roach/hydra).
My Conclusion Zerg lacks a way to quickly respond to mass drop play effectively while also having units that can fight bio head on. Units that are strong vs bio play such as ultralisks, banelings, infestors and roaches to an extent are TERRIBLE at defending multi prong medivac supported aggression EVEN WITH STATIC AND PROPER SPLITTING OF THE ARMY DEFENSIVELY because these units can't punish a failed drop - the medivac simply escapes at the cost of nothing to the T and continues until a mistake is made by the zerg defensively. Note: This isn't a balance complaint - I feel like the medivac is a unit that makes SC:II fun to play and fun to watch. My issue specifically is with the inability of Zerg to punish a failed drop attempt or the outright lack of zerg T3 that can deal with medivacs. I created a brainstorm of potential slight changes to the game that COULD address the medivac vs Zerg perceived issue. Theoretical Medivac Boost Changes [ul] [li] A significant energy requirement or cost for boost - depending on the energy cost a increase in duration or decrease in duration and an adjusted cooldown[/li] [li] Units take longer to load back into a medivac (Don't load instantly) [/li] [li] Medivacs take more damage from spores or queens in the late game [/li] [li] Medivacs can't both heal and be in 'drop mode'. Time based delay between switching between the 2. [/li] [/ul] Theoretical Zerg Defense Changes [ul] [li]Creep is more difficult to remove (Either receeds slower, tumors have much more health or spread faster/greater amount of space per tumor)[/li] [li] Zerg static late game Spine buff vs bio or Spore buff vs medivacs [/li] [li] Zerg expansion change - Able to secure expansions easier - mass static isn't comparable to the defensive capabilities of HT and cannons or PFs with bunker/turrets yet the cost is much greater. [/li] [li] Nydus Buff - Nydus use allows Zerg to quickly travel between expansions to deal with multi pronged aggression. This would include a cost change, health change or the like. [/li] [li] Sling Buff - Superior numbers of cracklings should be able to easily deal with 8 marines and a medivac or the like while being cost effective for the Z. [/li] [/ul] hmm... I don't think buffing static defence again is a good idea but rather another terrible bandaid like biobuffed spore. But I think medivac boost does need to have either upgrade (might not be a 'small' nerf) or longer cooldown (small nerf). costing mana woud discourage HT's feedback. and nydus buff should have been done since starcraft 2 came out but needs only a slight energy/armor buff though. Maybe giving it some extra armor befor hatching? (that was my sily idea of making it comes out as a huge egg xp) Anyway, I guess everyone is working on hellbat drop (which is 90+% cost efficient), not purely on medivac drops. So they won't touch medivac greatly.
Hey S7EFEN i don't understand why zergs are supposed to win once they assemble that superstrong army that would win a direct fight. What you say is: "I have managed to build this army. I am supposed to win now. If I can't win right now the game is not balanced." That was the situation back in WOL with BL+inf. But you are no longer playing that game. You have to work for your win now, the same way terran has to work for his win. That's a good thing.
|
On June 29 2013 17:24 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 16:44 SsDrKosS wrote:On June 29 2013 15:12 S7EFEN wrote:I posted this on Battle.net but I feel like the community here actually knows what they're talking about. I want to hear your guys thoughts on this. Watching MLG and many of the most recent tournaments I feel that medivacs with the boost upgrade are too difficult for Zerg to deal with in a late game situation. Bio continues to be effective vs infestor/ultra/broodlord simply because these units, while they wreck bio in a straight up fight simply can't deal with small packs of units split across the map, nor can they force a fight without having multiple undefended counter attacks. Even if the Z has a superior army and economy, he has a very difficult time push and kill the T without risking drops at every single expansion. The Z must either mass static or trade ineffectively with defensive lings and mutas vs marines, or push, leaving nothing on defense that can kill medivacs. Specifically the only anti air that Zerg has in the late game that is good vs a single medivac harassing is Hydras and Mutas. In TvZ late game the Zerg is constantly forced to chase back and forth vs non-committal aggression even when his army is vastly superior he can never force a fight because his muta pack cannot be split up (without losing multiple mutas to small numbers of marines) nor can hydras and or queens effectively catch medivacs. Spores are a good solution but because zerg static is split, without multiple spines per spore the spore can easily be picked off - a base completely safe from a single medivac needs multiple spines and spores and is still very weak vs marauder heavy drops. I feel this is either a defensive problem from the Zerg:The inability to have units that shoot up to punish a failed drop, that can be split apart while also being cost effective vs small numbers of well positioned marines and medivacs or that can force a direct engagement while dealing with multi-prong counter drops. Or this is a too-difficult-to-deal-with harass style from the T: Drop play requires little commitment - the ability to lift and retreat exists in nearly every case. Drop play is nearly always cost effective for the T, even if no workers are killed because mutas, lings and static are the only real way that multi-prong drops can be dealt with. Lets look at the defensive capabilities of the TvX matchup as a method to compare how each race is equipped to deal with drop play:Protoss [ul] Mothership Core (Photon Overchange, Recall, Timewarp (Catches units retreating)) Cannons (Denies both the medivac and the units in it) Simcity and centralized tech/production, increases the effectiveness of static (Limits the weak spots vs drop play) Warpins (Instantly creating units where defense is needed) Templars (HT to feedback, DT to force scans and deal with less than quick opponents) Blink (To catch medivacs) Phoenix (Not consistently viable at pro level so irrelevant) [/ul] Terran [ul] Stimmed Marines (Quick enough to catch medivacs) Turrets (And the ability to upgrade the range) Vikings (Readily available A2A built out of already available production) Sensor Tower (Detects air and ground drops in a huge radius) SimCity (Prevents runbys or small squads from directly running into the mineral line / sniping the expansion) Planetary Fortress (Allows T to spread out his expansions without mass static) Floatable CCs (Allows the lift and redrop of the CC without having to rebuy the expansion - makes sniping expansions extremely difficult) Bunkers (Salvageable, allows simcity) [/ul] Zerg [ul] Fastest Melee unit in the game (Sling) Queens (Transfuse, minimal DPS) Creep Spread (Ground vision, unit speed) Overlords (Cheap Air vision) Strong static (Expensive, requires drones, requires 2 static to deny both the dropship and the units in it) Decentralized production (Queens, each expansion represents a portion of the production) Mutas (Fast enough to catch medivacs when not boosted, decent DPS but weak to the marines in the dropship) Corruptors (Medicore air to air, not great vs medivac / drop play) [/ul] My thoughts from watching pro games and looking at the tools at a Zergs disposal to deal with drops is this - take it with a grain of salt:
While Zerg is perfectly equipped to deal with drop play
through creep, overlords and strong static zerg suffers
from extremely decentralized and vulnerable production
and having NOT A SINGLE UNIT that can cost effectively
deal with bio + medivac supported harass. Zerg units
are either countered bybio and able to deny or punish
an attempted medivacs drop either through speed
or the ability to DPS down an air unit or able to
counter bio but lacking the mobility to
respond fast enough to drop play or punish the medivac
drop attempt when the Z responds properly.
What this means is that while lings, static and spines
can stop drops but do so at a substantial cost -
If the dropship is killed by Mutalisks or Corruptors it
is done so at the cost of position - by sending all your
mutas to deny the drop the T is free to drop in multiple
other locations undeterred while clearing creep -
even if the drop is shut down you lose creep or are
forced to respond with units that don't effectively deal
with drops. If ground units clean up the drop they
either do so cost ineffectively (with ling bane) or do
so with very poor mobility (roach/hydra).
My Conclusion Zerg lacks a way to quickly respond to mass drop play effectively while also having units that can fight bio head on. Units that are strong vs bio play such as ultralisks, banelings, infestors and roaches to an extent are TERRIBLE at defending multi prong medivac supported aggression EVEN WITH STATIC AND PROPER SPLITTING OF THE ARMY DEFENSIVELY because these units can't punish a failed drop - the medivac simply escapes at the cost of nothing to the T and continues until a mistake is made by the zerg defensively. Note: This isn't a balance complaint - I feel like the medivac is a unit that makes SC:II fun to play and fun to watch. My issue specifically is with the inability of Zerg to punish a failed drop attempt or the outright lack of zerg T3 that can deal with medivacs. I created a brainstorm of potential slight changes to the game that COULD address the medivac vs Zerg perceived issue. Theoretical Medivac Boost Changes [ul] [li] A significant energy requirement or cost for boost - depending on the energy cost a increase in duration or decrease in duration and an adjusted cooldown[/li] [li] Units take longer to load back into a medivac (Don't load instantly) [/li] [li] Medivacs take more damage from spores or queens in the late game [/li] [li] Medivacs can't both heal and be in 'drop mode'. Time based delay between switching between the 2. [/li] [/ul] Theoretical Zerg Defense Changes [ul] [li]Creep is more difficult to remove (Either receeds slower, tumors have much more health or spread faster/greater amount of space per tumor)[/li] [li] Zerg static late game Spine buff vs bio or Spore buff vs medivacs [/li] [li] Zerg expansion change - Able to secure expansions easier - mass static isn't comparable to the defensive capabilities of HT and cannons or PFs with bunker/turrets yet the cost is much greater. [/li] [li] Nydus Buff - Nydus use allows Zerg to quickly travel between expansions to deal with multi pronged aggression. This would include a cost change, health change or the like. [/li] [li] Sling Buff - Superior numbers of cracklings should be able to easily deal with 8 marines and a medivac or the like while being cost effective for the Z. [/li] [/ul] hmm... I don't think buffing static defence again is a good idea but rather another terrible bandaid like biobuffed spore. But I think medivac boost does need to have either upgrade (might not be a 'small' nerf) or longer cooldown (small nerf). costing mana woud discourage HT's feedback. and nydus buff should have been done since starcraft 2 came out but needs only a slight energy/armor buff though. Maybe giving it some extra armor befor hatching? (that was my sily idea of making it comes out as a huge egg xp) Anyway, I guess everyone is working on hellbat drop (which is 90+% cost efficient), not purely on medivac drops. So they won't touch medivac greatly. Hey S7EFEN i don't understand why zergs are supposed to win once they assemble that superstrong army that would win a direct fight. What you say is: "I have managed to build this army. I am supposed to win now. If I can't win right now the game is not balanced." That was the situation back in WOL with BL+inf. But you are no longer playing that game. You have to work for your win now, the same way terran has to work for his win. That's a good thing.
Well, then I guess your posts comes down to "I lack reading comprehension. Please help me!"
|
On June 29 2013 15:53 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 05:32 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 23:52 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity. Do you realize how stupid this is? BW was fair for low level players who played just for fun AND great to watch and awesome when progamers played it. Once and for all ... FUN AND BALANCE FOR LOW LEVELS DO NOT EXCLUDE INTERESTING AND CHALLENGING HIGH LEVEL PLAY!!!I apologize for the caps, but there are some simpletons here who believe these things to be exclusive when we have an older game as proof that it isnt true. The design concept around "faster faster faster" and "more stuff, more stuff, more stuff" is the problem of SC2, because they have designed an "F1 race car" and most of the people will not be able to handle that properly. They should have stuck to the "bicycle" of BW, which was more tedious to play + Show Spoiler + Todays kids apparently cant be bothered to play with only 12 units per control group apparently because it is too tough. None of the "but technology has advanced since the 1990's" kids have ever complained about the 200 supply limit, the lack of formations for the units, the inability to attack the ground in the dark area, ... because there have been games for decades which had those features. So there CAN BE some arbitrary restrictions which are NECESSARY to make the game work! , but fair and easier to handle because of this. To any of those who dont believe me ask yourself these questions: - Is there a point where the game gets too fast? Can Blizzard endlessly increase (buff) them? (Either through unit speed or unit production) - Is a fight with 10 times as many units really 10 times more exciting OR does a smaller fight offer more exciting because every unit that dies/is kept alive is more important? Lower amounts of units equal a lower total dps and this allows enough time to micro and save units, while bigger armies equal more explosions and a fast fight that does not really allow people the time to save their units most of the time. + Show Spoiler +The most amazing fights AND micro are happening when there are 2 Zerglings that fight another 2 Zerglings and one player wins with both of his Zerglings alive. Fights with lower numbers of units last almost as long because the total dps is much lower. - Would it make sense to reduce the density of units on the battlefield for better control? (This would require removing any economic and production speed boosts from the game and adding forced units spreading.) - Have you ever complained about the MULE, Forcefield or Fungal Growth? Arent they only a problem when they exist in larger numbers? + Show Spoiler +IMO a reduced number of units and density on the battlefield would allow for more extreme (= fun and exciting) spells since they dont kill as much at one time. - Do you think the deathball is a good thing to have in the game? + Show Spoiler +Blizzard doesnt really do anything against it and the core design of "unit clumping" really enforces it. A lower production speed - as it was in BW - does NOT mean players will wait until they have 200 supply and start attacking then. Lower numbers of units also mean that the game is more manageable for lower skill players, because the total kill speed is reduced and things like "Marine spreading vs Banelings" are not that much of an issue anymore. You are the one not understanding. The priority should be highest level balance. You questioned this saying that the priority should be balance for the mass. I, myself, questioned your position and suddenly it looks like I said that 0 focus should be put on balancing the game on low levels (never said, never implied). Focus should be put but as a secondary objective. Are you really saying that "sorry Master level and below players, but you have to play an imbalanced game for your level of skill ... sucks to be you, eh?" is the RIGHT WAY to do it? The game needs to be balanced for EVERYONE or else it needs a warning sticker (kinda like the age restriction). You are also totally ignoring the fact that BROOD WAR ... a game that is over a decade old ... was balanced for all levels of play. Maybe there were a few "imbalanced tactics" but pulling them off was not easy. Try to prove that it is impossible to balance the game for all levels of play ... I have stated why I believe that it is entirely possible to do it. Oh and you called me a "babby who wants the game to be balanced arond my level of play" ... which is entirely untrue.
No, I'm not saying that. You are going full straw man. I only said that highest level of play is the priority (it was like this in BW) and, as a secondary objective, balance in all levels. You say BW was balanced for all levels of play but most people seem to disagree. I never said it is impossible to have the game balanced for all levels, I said that the highest level of play is the first that must reach that.
Please go read what priority is before answering, it was already annoying before and now it got obnoxious.
|
|
|
On June 29 2013 15:12 S7EFEN wrote:
I created a brainstorm of potential slight changes to the game that COULD address the medivac vs Zerg perceived issue.
First, I don't think there is such an issue (just from my point of view). And I can't say Z or T late game is clearly better than the other so far.
From all the proposed changes, I only like the Nydus one (all others seem way too strong to me).
Nydus play is usually very fun to watch as a spectator, it is scary to play against, and feels very "zergy". I like it, I wish they could make it viable and not only an "all in" option.
Also, I think we shouldn't "hear" the Nydus scream unless it's in our vision. This way, Zergs would be able to quickly change an army position and surprise a non-knowing T or P (flanks, run by, positioning, etc.)
|
On June 29 2013 17:32 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 17:24 submarine wrote:On June 29 2013 16:44 SsDrKosS wrote:On June 29 2013 15:12 S7EFEN wrote:I posted this on Battle.net but I feel like the community here actually knows what they're talking about. I want to hear your guys thoughts on this. Watching MLG and many of the most recent tournaments I feel that medivacs with the boost upgrade are too difficult for Zerg to deal with in a late game situation. Bio continues to be effective vs infestor/ultra/broodlord simply because these units, while they wreck bio in a straight up fight simply can't deal with small packs of units split across the map, nor can they force a fight without having multiple undefended counter attacks. Even if the Z has a superior army and economy, he has a very difficult time push and kill the T without risking drops at every single expansion. The Z must either mass static or trade ineffectively with defensive lings and mutas vs marines, or push, leaving nothing on defense that can kill medivacs. Specifically the only anti air that Zerg has in the late game that is good vs a single medivac harassing is Hydras and Mutas. In TvZ late game the Zerg is constantly forced to chase back and forth vs non-committal aggression even when his army is vastly superior he can never force a fight because his muta pack cannot be split up (without losing multiple mutas to small numbers of marines) nor can hydras and or queens effectively catch medivacs. Spores are a good solution but because zerg static is split, without multiple spines per spore the spore can easily be picked off - a base completely safe from a single medivac needs multiple spines and spores and is still very weak vs marauder heavy drops. I feel this is either a defensive problem from the Zerg:The inability to have units that shoot up to punish a failed drop, that can be split apart while also being cost effective vs small numbers of well positioned marines and medivacs or that can force a direct engagement while dealing with multi-prong counter drops. Or this is a too-difficult-to-deal-with harass style from the T: Drop play requires little commitment - the ability to lift and retreat exists in nearly every case. Drop play is nearly always cost effective for the T, even if no workers are killed because mutas, lings and static are the only real way that multi-prong drops can be dealt with. Lets look at the defensive capabilities of the TvX matchup as a method to compare how each race is equipped to deal with drop play:Protoss [ul] Mothership Core (Photon Overchange, Recall, Timewarp (Catches units retreating)) Cannons (Denies both the medivac and the units in it) Simcity and centralized tech/production, increases the effectiveness of static (Limits the weak spots vs drop play) Warpins (Instantly creating units where defense is needed) Templars (HT to feedback, DT to force scans and deal with less than quick opponents) Blink (To catch medivacs) Phoenix (Not consistently viable at pro level so irrelevant) [/ul] Terran [ul] Stimmed Marines (Quick enough to catch medivacs) Turrets (And the ability to upgrade the range) Vikings (Readily available A2A built out of already available production) Sensor Tower (Detects air and ground drops in a huge radius) SimCity (Prevents runbys or small squads from directly running into the mineral line / sniping the expansion) Planetary Fortress (Allows T to spread out his expansions without mass static) Floatable CCs (Allows the lift and redrop of the CC without having to rebuy the expansion - makes sniping expansions extremely difficult) Bunkers (Salvageable, allows simcity) [/ul] Zerg [ul] Fastest Melee unit in the game (Sling) Queens (Transfuse, minimal DPS) Creep Spread (Ground vision, unit speed) Overlords (Cheap Air vision) Strong static (Expensive, requires drones, requires 2 static to deny both the dropship and the units in it) Decentralized production (Queens, each expansion represents a portion of the production) Mutas (Fast enough to catch medivacs when not boosted, decent DPS but weak to the marines in the dropship) Corruptors (Medicore air to air, not great vs medivac / drop play) [/ul] My thoughts from watching pro games and looking at the tools at a Zergs disposal to deal with drops is this - take it with a grain of salt:
While Zerg is perfectly equipped to deal with drop play
through creep, overlords and strong static zerg suffers
from extremely decentralized and vulnerable production
and having NOT A SINGLE UNIT that can cost effectively
deal with bio + medivac supported harass. Zerg units
are either countered bybio and able to deny or punish
an attempted medivacs drop either through speed
or the ability to DPS down an air unit or able to
counter bio but lacking the mobility to
respond fast enough to drop play or punish the medivac
drop attempt when the Z responds properly.
What this means is that while lings, static and spines
can stop drops but do so at a substantial cost -
If the dropship is killed by Mutalisks or Corruptors it
is done so at the cost of position - by sending all your
mutas to deny the drop the T is free to drop in multiple
other locations undeterred while clearing creep -
even if the drop is shut down you lose creep or are
forced to respond with units that don't effectively deal
with drops. If ground units clean up the drop they
either do so cost ineffectively (with ling bane) or do
so with very poor mobility (roach/hydra).
My Conclusion Zerg lacks a way to quickly respond to mass drop play effectively while also having units that can fight bio head on. Units that are strong vs bio play such as ultralisks, banelings, infestors and roaches to an extent are TERRIBLE at defending multi prong medivac supported aggression EVEN WITH STATIC AND PROPER SPLITTING OF THE ARMY DEFENSIVELY because these units can't punish a failed drop - the medivac simply escapes at the cost of nothing to the T and continues until a mistake is made by the zerg defensively. Note: This isn't a balance complaint - I feel like the medivac is a unit that makes SC:II fun to play and fun to watch. My issue specifically is with the inability of Zerg to punish a failed drop attempt or the outright lack of zerg T3 that can deal with medivacs. I created a brainstorm of potential slight changes to the game that COULD address the medivac vs Zerg perceived issue. Theoretical Medivac Boost Changes [ul] [li] A significant energy requirement or cost for boost - depending on the energy cost a increase in duration or decrease in duration and an adjusted cooldown[/li] [li] Units take longer to load back into a medivac (Don't load instantly) [/li] [li] Medivacs take more damage from spores or queens in the late game [/li] [li] Medivacs can't both heal and be in 'drop mode'. Time based delay between switching between the 2. [/li] [/ul] Theoretical Zerg Defense Changes [ul] [li]Creep is more difficult to remove (Either receeds slower, tumors have much more health or spread faster/greater amount of space per tumor)[/li] [li] Zerg static late game Spine buff vs bio or Spore buff vs medivacs [/li] [li] Zerg expansion change - Able to secure expansions easier - mass static isn't comparable to the defensive capabilities of HT and cannons or PFs with bunker/turrets yet the cost is much greater. [/li] [li] Nydus Buff - Nydus use allows Zerg to quickly travel between expansions to deal with multi pronged aggression. This would include a cost change, health change or the like. [/li] [li] Sling Buff - Superior numbers of cracklings should be able to easily deal with 8 marines and a medivac or the like while being cost effective for the Z. [/li] [/ul] hmm... I don't think buffing static defence again is a good idea but rather another terrible bandaid like biobuffed spore. But I think medivac boost does need to have either upgrade (might not be a 'small' nerf) or longer cooldown (small nerf). costing mana woud discourage HT's feedback. and nydus buff should have been done since starcraft 2 came out but needs only a slight energy/armor buff though. Maybe giving it some extra armor befor hatching? (that was my sily idea of making it comes out as a huge egg xp) Anyway, I guess everyone is working on hellbat drop (which is 90+% cost efficient), not purely on medivac drops. So they won't touch medivac greatly. Hey S7EFEN i don't understand why zergs are supposed to win once they assemble that superstrong army that would win a direct fight. What you say is: "I have managed to build this army. I am supposed to win now. If I can't win right now the game is not balanced." That was the situation back in WOL with BL+inf. But you are no longer playing that game. You have to work for your win now, the same way terran has to work for his win. That's a good thing. Well, then I guess your posts comes down to "I lack reading comprehension. Please help me!"
No he is correct. Terrans need the strength of drop-play to survive transitions in tech from the Zerg. Going from having to make marines to deal with mutalisks to marauders takes Terrans much longer. At best, they can start producing marauders 10 to 15 at a time against ultras that just popped on the field. In that 30 seconds, the ultras will tear through anything the terran has on the ground that is not hidden behind mass PFs.
Ultras are stronk when played right. Ling/Muta/Bane to Ling/ultra is really good in HotS after the ultra buff. No need for the gas on banelings anymore with good engages.
|
On June 29 2013 09:01 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am curious... have terrans experimented with much tank/mine/hellbat play in TvP? Or some other variant using tanks + widow mines?
Yes. Not good, you lack supply to have a solid buffer.
On June 29 2013 13:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I mostly mean to use widow mines to shut down any possible immortal play. Since widow mines (supposedly) attack as a spell it isnt effected by hardened shields so immortals dont own the tanks immediately and hardened shields is nullified.
They trigger on Zealots. ):
On June 29 2013 15:12 S7EFEN wrote:
I posted this on Battle.net but I feel like the community here actually knows what they're talking about. I want to hear your guys thoughts on this.
Watching MLG and many of the most recent tournaments I feel that medivacs with the boost upgrade are too difficult for Zerg to deal with in a late game situation. Bio continues to be effective vs infestor/ultra/broodlord simply because these units, while they wreck bio in a straight up fight simply can't deal with small packs of units split across the map, nor can they force a fight without having multiple undefended counter attacks.
Even if the Z has a superior army and economy, he has a very difficult time push and kill the T without risking drops at every single expansion. The Z must either mass static or trade ineffectively with defensive lings and mutas vs marines, or push, leaving nothing on defense that can kill medivacs.
Hence why Zerg keep their 15-20 mutas by lategame to deal with drops. I played a game last night against sLivko following the exact scenario you describe and I could only start dropping efficiently once I had killed most of his mutas in a fight; otherwise they come and slaughter the drop before you have time to deal enough damage. There is no "efficient trade" when 1 Medivac and 8 Marines meet 20 mutas, especially as you have to factor the reactor Starport production time a a precious resource too (since you have to produce Vikings too) when facing broods.
I think you also completely underestimate how hard it is to pull off this multi-pronged agression while building the adequate anti-broods/infests army, because even if he loses pretty much everything behind he still has this doom push which you have to defend, otherwise he camps your production and it's instant GG. The threat of Banelings massacring your drops means you have to spend a lot of attention microing them, or you will switch the camera to the sight of a Medivac hovering over green goo. Many Zergs get dismantled this way because they simply keep 1aing their entire army chasing single drops instead of pre-emptively splitting some groups of lings/banes; plus as DemigodcelpH says, if Terran has more than 20 supply flying in drops you can simply bash him most of the time with a massive frontal attack.
|
On June 29 2013 20:02 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 17:32 Big J wrote:On June 29 2013 17:24 submarine wrote:On June 29 2013 16:44 SsDrKosS wrote:On June 29 2013 15:12 S7EFEN wrote:I posted this on Battle.net but I feel like the community here actually knows what they're talking about. I want to hear your guys thoughts on this. Watching MLG and many of the most recent tournaments I feel that medivacs with the boost upgrade are too difficult for Zerg to deal with in a late game situation. Bio continues to be effective vs infestor/ultra/broodlord simply because these units, while they wreck bio in a straight up fight simply can't deal with small packs of units split across the map, nor can they force a fight without having multiple undefended counter attacks. Even if the Z has a superior army and economy, he has a very difficult time push and kill the T without risking drops at every single expansion. The Z must either mass static or trade ineffectively with defensive lings and mutas vs marines, or push, leaving nothing on defense that can kill medivacs. Specifically the only anti air that Zerg has in the late game that is good vs a single medivac harassing is Hydras and Mutas. In TvZ late game the Zerg is constantly forced to chase back and forth vs non-committal aggression even when his army is vastly superior he can never force a fight because his muta pack cannot be split up (without losing multiple mutas to small numbers of marines) nor can hydras and or queens effectively catch medivacs. Spores are a good solution but because zerg static is split, without multiple spines per spore the spore can easily be picked off - a base completely safe from a single medivac needs multiple spines and spores and is still very weak vs marauder heavy drops. I feel this is either a defensive problem from the Zerg:The inability to have units that shoot up to punish a failed drop, that can be split apart while also being cost effective vs small numbers of well positioned marines and medivacs or that can force a direct engagement while dealing with multi-prong counter drops. Or this is a too-difficult-to-deal-with harass style from the T: Drop play requires little commitment - the ability to lift and retreat exists in nearly every case. Drop play is nearly always cost effective for the T, even if no workers are killed because mutas, lings and static are the only real way that multi-prong drops can be dealt with. Lets look at the defensive capabilities of the TvX matchup as a method to compare how each race is equipped to deal with drop play:Protoss [ul] Mothership Core (Photon Overchange, Recall, Timewarp (Catches units retreating)) Cannons (Denies both the medivac and the units in it) Simcity and centralized tech/production, increases the effectiveness of static (Limits the weak spots vs drop play) Warpins (Instantly creating units where defense is needed) Templars (HT to feedback, DT to force scans and deal with less than quick opponents) Blink (To catch medivacs) Phoenix (Not consistently viable at pro level so irrelevant) [/ul] Terran [ul] Stimmed Marines (Quick enough to catch medivacs) Turrets (And the ability to upgrade the range) Vikings (Readily available A2A built out of already available production) Sensor Tower (Detects air and ground drops in a huge radius) SimCity (Prevents runbys or small squads from directly running into the mineral line / sniping the expansion) Planetary Fortress (Allows T to spread out his expansions without mass static) Floatable CCs (Allows the lift and redrop of the CC without having to rebuy the expansion - makes sniping expansions extremely difficult) Bunkers (Salvageable, allows simcity) [/ul] Zerg [ul] Fastest Melee unit in the game (Sling) Queens (Transfuse, minimal DPS) Creep Spread (Ground vision, unit speed) Overlords (Cheap Air vision) Strong static (Expensive, requires drones, requires 2 static to deny both the dropship and the units in it) Decentralized production (Queens, each expansion represents a portion of the production) Mutas (Fast enough to catch medivacs when not boosted, decent DPS but weak to the marines in the dropship) Corruptors (Medicore air to air, not great vs medivac / drop play) [/ul] My thoughts from watching pro games and looking at the tools at a Zergs disposal to deal with drops is this - take it with a grain of salt:
While Zerg is perfectly equipped to deal with drop play
through creep, overlords and strong static zerg suffers
from extremely decentralized and vulnerable production
and having NOT A SINGLE UNIT that can cost effectively
deal with bio + medivac supported harass. Zerg units
are either countered bybio and able to deny or punish
an attempted medivacs drop either through speed
or the ability to DPS down an air unit or able to
counter bio but lacking the mobility to
respond fast enough to drop play or punish the medivac
drop attempt when the Z responds properly.
What this means is that while lings, static and spines
can stop drops but do so at a substantial cost -
If the dropship is killed by Mutalisks or Corruptors it
is done so at the cost of position - by sending all your
mutas to deny the drop the T is free to drop in multiple
other locations undeterred while clearing creep -
even if the drop is shut down you lose creep or are
forced to respond with units that don't effectively deal
with drops. If ground units clean up the drop they
either do so cost ineffectively (with ling bane) or do
so with very poor mobility (roach/hydra).
My Conclusion Zerg lacks a way to quickly respond to mass drop play effectively while also having units that can fight bio head on. Units that are strong vs bio play such as ultralisks, banelings, infestors and roaches to an extent are TERRIBLE at defending multi prong medivac supported aggression EVEN WITH STATIC AND PROPER SPLITTING OF THE ARMY DEFENSIVELY because these units can't punish a failed drop - the medivac simply escapes at the cost of nothing to the T and continues until a mistake is made by the zerg defensively. Note: This isn't a balance complaint - I feel like the medivac is a unit that makes SC:II fun to play and fun to watch. My issue specifically is with the inability of Zerg to punish a failed drop attempt or the outright lack of zerg T3 that can deal with medivacs. I created a brainstorm of potential slight changes to the game that COULD address the medivac vs Zerg perceived issue. Theoretical Medivac Boost Changes [ul] [li] A significant energy requirement or cost for boost - depending on the energy cost a increase in duration or decrease in duration and an adjusted cooldown[/li] [li] Units take longer to load back into a medivac (Don't load instantly) [/li] [li] Medivacs take more damage from spores or queens in the late game [/li] [li] Medivacs can't both heal and be in 'drop mode'. Time based delay between switching between the 2. [/li] [/ul] Theoretical Zerg Defense Changes [ul] [li]Creep is more difficult to remove (Either receeds slower, tumors have much more health or spread faster/greater amount of space per tumor)[/li] [li] Zerg static late game Spine buff vs bio or Spore buff vs medivacs [/li] [li] Zerg expansion change - Able to secure expansions easier - mass static isn't comparable to the defensive capabilities of HT and cannons or PFs with bunker/turrets yet the cost is much greater. [/li] [li] Nydus Buff - Nydus use allows Zerg to quickly travel between expansions to deal with multi pronged aggression. This would include a cost change, health change or the like. [/li] [li] Sling Buff - Superior numbers of cracklings should be able to easily deal with 8 marines and a medivac or the like while being cost effective for the Z. [/li] [/ul] hmm... I don't think buffing static defence again is a good idea but rather another terrible bandaid like biobuffed spore. But I think medivac boost does need to have either upgrade (might not be a 'small' nerf) or longer cooldown (small nerf). costing mana woud discourage HT's feedback. and nydus buff should have been done since starcraft 2 came out but needs only a slight energy/armor buff though. Maybe giving it some extra armor befor hatching? (that was my sily idea of making it comes out as a huge egg xp) Anyway, I guess everyone is working on hellbat drop (which is 90+% cost efficient), not purely on medivac drops. So they won't touch medivac greatly. Hey S7EFEN i don't understand why zergs are supposed to win once they assemble that superstrong army that would win a direct fight. What you say is: "I have managed to build this army. I am supposed to win now. If I can't win right now the game is not balanced." That was the situation back in WOL with BL+inf. But you are no longer playing that game. You have to work for your win now, the same way terran has to work for his win. That's a good thing. Well, then I guess your posts comes down to "I lack reading comprehension. Please help me!" No he is correct. Terrans need the strength of drop-play to survive transitions in tech from the Zerg. Going from having to make marines to deal with mutalisks to marauders takes Terrans much longer. At best, they can start producing marauders 10 to 15 at a time against ultras that just popped on the field. In that 30 seconds, the ultras will tear through anything the terran has on the ground that is not hidden behind mass PFs. Ultras are stronk when played right. Ling/Muta/Bane to Ling/ultra is really good in HotS after the ultra buff. No need for the gas on banelings anymore with good engages.
Well, that's not really what submarine was saying.
I agree with your notion that Terran in it's current state needs to have strong drops, but S7EFEN put a lot of effort into a post where he explicitly said that
This isn't a balance complaint
and basically just pointed out how the current situation is extremely limiting and frustrating for a zerg to face.
You can disagree with him that such a change is not needed balancewise, but you can't put it like submarine:
Hey S7EFEN i don't understand why zergs are supposed to win once they assemble that superstrong army that would win a direct fight. What you say is: "I have managed to build this army. I am supposed to win now. If I can't win right now the game is not balanced."
Because he simply didn't say that.
|
On June 29 2013 20:05 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 09:01 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am curious... have terrans experimented with much tank/mine/hellbat play in TvP? Or some other variant using tanks + widow mines? Yes. Not good, you lack supply to have a solid buffer. Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 13:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I mostly mean to use widow mines to shut down any possible immortal play. Since widow mines (supposedly) attack as a spell it isnt effected by hardened shields so immortals dont own the tanks immediately and hardened shields is nullified. They trigger on Zealots. ): Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 15:12 S7EFEN wrote:
I posted this on Battle.net but I feel like the community here actually knows what they're talking about. I want to hear your guys thoughts on this.
Watching MLG and many of the most recent tournaments I feel that medivacs with the boost upgrade are too difficult for Zerg to deal with in a late game situation. Bio continues to be effective vs infestor/ultra/broodlord simply because these units, while they wreck bio in a straight up fight simply can't deal with small packs of units split across the map, nor can they force a fight without having multiple undefended counter attacks.
Even if the Z has a superior army and economy, he has a very difficult time push and kill the T without risking drops at every single expansion. The Z must either mass static or trade ineffectively with defensive lings and mutas vs marines, or push, leaving nothing on defense that can kill medivacs. Hence why Zerg keep their 15-20 mutas by lategame to deal with drops. I played a game last night against sLivko following the exact scenario you describe and I could only start dropping efficiently once I had killed most of his mutas in a fight; otherwise they come and slaughter the drop before you have time to deal enough damage. There is no "efficient trade" when 1 Medivac and 8 Marines meet 20 mutas, especially as you have to factor the reactor Starport production time a a precious resource too (since you have to produce Vikings too) when facing broods. I think you also completely underestimate how hard it is to pull off this multi-pronged agression while building the adequate anti-broods/infests army, because even if he loses pretty much everything behind he still has this doom push which you have to defend, otherwise he camps your production and it's instant GG. The threat of Banelings massacring your drops means you have to spend a lot of attention microing them, or you will switch the camera to the sight of a Medivac hovering over green goo. Many Zergs get dismantled this way because they simply keep 1aing their entire army chasing single drops instead of pre-emptively splitting some groups of lings/banes; plus as DemigodcelpH says, if Terran has more than 20 supply flying in drops you can simply bash him most of the time with a massive frontal attack.
I would say closer to 30 supply, but yea, pretty much. Especially if they're clearing creep far away from any fortification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
