|
On August 12 2013 12:52 D_bo wrote:
A great deal of Zergs problems would be solved by tweaking the Queen.
Auto Inject and Massive Classifier.. simple, effective, and not game breaking.
This would almost kill positional forcefields versus zerg. There are scenarios such as blocking ramps, but also cutting off attack paths while attacking the third that would no longer be possible. The only use for forcefield would be defensively or to win engagements in the middle of the map. In the latter case the zerg simply waits until you arrive at the enemy base.
Nevertheless, this mechanic could work if only there were ways to threaten queens to prevent them from trivially shutting down all forcefield aggression. Just as an example that's not very well thought out, if you could instantly kill queens with feedback and you had access to high templar earlier, you could still utilize forcefields for a short amount of time because you could kill the queens that ventured too close.
It's complicated though, you are starting to run into many different more philosophical issues: it might not be a good idea to have a game mechanic (forcefield) that's uncounterable, but the ability to easily neutralize a game mechanic seems undesirable as well. In the first game you break the game, in the latter case you break the unit which is a lesser crime and might be acceptable, but it is hardly elegant game design. Removing the sentry from PvZ with as justification that the unit is too problematic versus zerg and that it still sees use in other match-ups is a rather drastic step as well, especially for a core unit like the sentry that provides some diversity and intricacy to early game protoss, so I can see why Blizzard hesitated in changing them. And of course it would affect balance a lot.
Also, zerg does have some ways of dealing with forcefield: overlord drops, underground roaches, mutalisks, reinforcements that come in waves and can overpower many stranded armies, posturing with roaches and zerglings to draw out sentry energy. Perhaps a better solution is to introduce more 'soft counters' like that. Another approach is to address the sentry itself, albeit at the cost of changing more variables and risking unforeseen changes in other protoss match-ups. I have always wondered if an early game spellcaster that scales well with numbers is not a fundamentally risky endeavour: you can build sentries early on and let them gather energy which translates to an increase in power which translates to a stronger potential for timing attacks. A simple change would be to have sentries have less max. energy, maybe until protoss researches some upgrade, but this makes spellcasters inconsistent so it's not a desirable change, but I don't know.
--
And for auto inject, it's not a bad idea per se but like your other idea it would be game breaking and not appropriate for anything other than as part of an extensive overhaul of core mechanics. Zerg already has some simplifications of their production, they have the ability to select all their hatcheries at once and turn all their resources into units with a single press of a button; they can add those units to control groups with another click, trivializing keeping track of reinforcements. The main mechanical difficulty in zerg macro is inject larva, take that away and nothing is left outside of deciding whether to make drones or units. It also breaks balance as many zergs have 100+ energy on their queens in late game, they certainly could use the additional larva and especially the additional actions which translate to more zergling run-bys and that sort of thing.
That's not to say I'm happy with inject larva. I think that at a higher level players have too much larva available: if there is no real limitation on larva then, since larva is a resource, you can be tempted to play styles that take advantage of this, principally ones that let you build units which have a low (traditional) resource cost, but a higher cost in production. It turns out that the main strategy this characterizes is to produce mass drones, since not only do they cost most larva per minerals, they also make you more minerals and require even more larva. Nevertheless it's rare to be constrained by the availability of larva when mass droning, which I think shows a problem with the design.
It might be the case that Blizzard is unwilling to put some limitations on inject larva because they are worried lower level players will be frustrated by their inability to produce units. Given that zerg has no proper queuing mechanic in their production, it can be more difficult to simply spend your money at lower levels of play (of course queuing is frowned upon at higher levels so it's a vanishing advantage for terran/protoss), so it might be the case that it is more frustrating for zerg to play at lower levels than for the other races. The plentifulness of larva might be a counter to that. In this case allowing for auto-inject levels the playing field and seeks to equalize production for both higher and lower level zerg players, therefore allowing Blizzard to address larva.
In some sense inject is also an ability that gives you an illusion of choice, instead of actual choice. You are always supposed to hit your injects, transfusion becomes a worthwhile use of energy only because you have additional queens or because you slacked on your injects, and creep spread is done again by specially made queens or it's a non-reactive aspect of your build which can easily be copied from a build order. This becomes obvious when you consider auto chronoboost and auto M.U.L.E.s. Yes, there are some cases where those would be very useful to have, but it's quite risky to depend on and odds are it will make you a worse player because you stop thinking about how to use those abilities. Auto inject is almost always good to use outside of some well defined exceptions, so as a thought experiment it demonstrates the macro mechanics of the different races are dissimilar in this regard.
It's good to remember that macro mechanics are a direct result of community complaints about how MBS/AM made the game too easy etc. so Blizzard decided to put some mechanical difficulty back into the game, except that this time you could opt-out because you weren't severely punished for not instantly sending all your new workers to mine and that sort of thing. So it was supposed to be more accessible to newer players because of this, mechanical difficulty still existed but if you wanted to you didn't have to bother with it and in some sense the game hides these mechanics from you. (for instance you have to actively research them in the WoL campaign, while in the HotS campaign you can't even use inject larva, which might be represent another evolution in Blizzard's thinking except of course that they hardly made any changes to the multiplayer in HotS, so who knows) It seems to me that inject larva is the obvious exception here and it's probably responsible for the perception of zerg as a more difficult race that was prevalent in 2010.
Personally I think that removing auto mine is more honest than something like inject larva, but I don't think this shows that auto mine is bad, just that inject larva is not ideally designed.
Anyways, just wanted to write this to show that there are no easy solutions, sorry if this is rambling. 
|
On August 12 2013 22:26 Snowbear wrote:Zergs will keep on losing when they refuse hardcore to step away from 20 minutes of muta ling bane. Zergs who understand this: - Hyun - TLO - Scarlett. Scarlett vs alive: + Show Spoiler +Alive had a 5k bank, maxed army. Scarlett had a 160 supply army, 500 bank. Scarlett won. How? By switching to hive tech in time, and by adding infestors. Infestors are still goddamn cost efficiënt, but zergs think that they are not good enough atm. Why? I don't know.. Zergs refused to switch to infestor style in WOL too. Stephano had to play it for almost a year before the korean zergs took it over. Everyone kept copying idra's ling bling muta style. I'm 100% sure that we will soon see more infestors and hive again, and I promise that zergs will do sick well. Another composition is the roach ling bling, which is actually insanely hard to kill. Hyun and TLO know this, and that's the reason of their success.
what the fuck are you even talking about.
Zergs will keep on losing when they refuse hardcore to step away from 20 minutes of muta ling bane
Scarlett vs alive: Scarlett DID play over 20mins of muta/ling/bane.
Zergs who understand this:
- Hyun
- TLO
- Scarlett.
funny, a little time ago Terrans like you kept on saying that Soulkey, Life and Jaedong are the best ZvT players in the world. They get stomped and suddenly Scarlett, Hyun and TLO are on that list to "watch out for their playstyle".
Another composition is the roach ling bling, which is actually insanely hard to kill. Hyun and TLO know this, and that's the reason of their success.
Wtf are you talking about? TLO nearly always plays muta/ling/bling. And though I believe roach/baneling is a solid midgame style, Hyun's does not have major success with it against top Koreans (such as Polt or Taeja). It's a different (yet very similar) playstyle to muta/ling/bling with a little extra brute force in the midgame, and a little worse dropdefense and lategame transition.
and about that aLive game. How Scarlett won you ask? By playing a mistakefree ling/bling/muta style into ultralisks and then transitioning into the most SUPPLYEFFICIENT zerg army while starving aLive. SUPPLYefficient as in: If you are close to max you rather want one infestor than 4banelings. While when you are not playing close to max 10mins - like in Scarlett vs aLive - and you need units that actually do shit before they have built up energy over the course of 3mins, you can't afford to to rely on a newly spawned infestor to bring some marines into the yellow instead of those 4banelings. That's what we call COSTINEFFICIENT.
It's funny, you mention that roach/baneling style and then you do a pisspoor job of knowing who actually plays that style and who doesn't. Though it's pretty easy to tell who regularily plays that style and who doesn't: Hyun plays it, noone else regularily. Some other zergs mix it in, but for the most part only if they went for a roach/bane bust in the midgame and the game didn't end then and there.
Edit: and btw, didn't you show around a bunch of TvZ winrates to show that Zergs are not losing. And now you come in and say that Zergs will *keep* on losing if they don't change their playstyle...
|
TLO, Hyun and Scarlett all have ZvT as stronger than their other match-ups on aligulac, on the other hand for Jaedong and Soulkey it's quite a bit lower.
|
On August 13 2013 00:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 22:26 Snowbear wrote:Zergs will keep on losing when they refuse hardcore to step away from 20 minutes of muta ling bane. Zergs who understand this: - Hyun - TLO - Scarlett. Scarlett vs alive: + Show Spoiler +Alive had a 5k bank, maxed army. Scarlett had a 160 supply army, 500 bank. Scarlett won. How? By switching to hive tech in time, and by adding infestors. Infestors are still goddamn cost efficiënt, but zergs think that they are not good enough atm. Why? I don't know.. Zergs refused to switch to infestor style in WOL too. Stephano had to play it for almost a year before the korean zergs took it over. Everyone kept copying idra's ling bling muta style. I'm 100% sure that we will soon see more infestors and hive again, and I promise that zergs will do sick well. Another composition is the roach ling bling, which is actually insanely hard to kill. Hyun and TLO know this, and that's the reason of their success. what the fuck are you even talking about. Show nested quote +Zergs will keep on losing when they refuse hardcore to step away from 20 minutes of muta ling bane Scarlett vs alive: Scarlett DID play over 20mins of muta/ling/bane. funny, a little time ago Terrans like you kept on saying that Soulkey, Life and Jaedong are the best ZvT players in the world. They get stomped and suddenly Scarlett, Hyun and TLO are on that list to "watch out for their playstyle". Show nested quote +Another composition is the roach ling bling, which is actually insanely hard to kill. Hyun and TLO know this, and that's the reason of their success. Wtf are you talking about? TLO nearly always plays muta/ling/bling. And though I believe roach/baneling is a solid midgame style, Hyun's does not have major success with it against top Koreans (such as Polt or Taeja). It's a different (yet very similar) playstyle to muta/ling/bling with a little extra brute force in the midgame, and a little worse dropdefense and lategame transition. and about that aLive game. How Scarlett won you ask? By playing a mistakefree ling/bling/muta style into ultralisks and then transitioning into the most SUPPLYEFFICIENT zerg army while starving aLive. SUPPLYefficient as in: If you are close to max you rather want one infestor than 4banelings. While when you are not playing close to max 10mins - like in Scarlett vs aLive - and you need units that actually do shit before they have built up energy over the course of 3mins, you can't afford to to rely on a newly spawned infestor to bring some marines into the yellow instead of those 4banelings. That's what we call COSTINEFFICIENT. It's funny, you mention that roach/baneling style and then you do a pisspoor job of knowing who actually plays that style and who doesn't. Though it's pretty easy to tell who regularily plays that style and who doesn't: Hyun plays it, noone else regularily. Some other zergs mix it in, but for the most part only if they went for a roach/bane bust in the midgame and the game didn't end then and there. Edit: and btw, didn't you show around a bunch of TvZ winrates to show that Zergs are not losing. And now you come in and say that Zergs will *keep* on losing if they don't change their playstyle...
By the way, Alive did not play bio mine style, but a more drop focus kind of game.
I finally did catch up the vod from yesterday finals, game 3 is a little bit ridiculous, yes you can dig in and try to find mistakes from JD to explain why he lost, but lets be honest Polt on that particular game didn't play really well and made a lot of big mistakes. He got big hit from baneling and baneling landmine, lost 50 VCS to baneling runby (seen by his army but never reacted to it) while JD had 4 base saturated and a fifth base to back it up. JD had a huge economy lead, big supply lead (+60 at some point) and good engagement with baneling landmine, and to think it wasn't enough is kinda shocking.
|
Hive tech are not that good vs a Bio player, yes Hive is the only answer to 3-3 bio/mine but hive units are less mobile than muta/bling, have you tried to hold a drop if ultras? This is fucking hard.
And try to kill a terran base using infestors/ultra is hard, marauders kill ultras so fast and infestors need to land a hell of good fungals vs a player who only need to split (yeah is hard to split, but to a pro-gamer? not that much).
Yeah, BLs can be useful if the terran economy is bad or gets when they dont expect BLs. Zergs are a good and strong race, but to kill their opponents are hard at the later stage of the game.
|
On August 13 2013 00:18 Grumbels wrote:
TLO, Hyun and Scarlett all have ZvT as stronger than their other match-ups on aligulac, on the other hand for Jaedong and Soulkey it's quite a bit lower.
And I never said that they are bad at what they do and for the level they play on. But when it comes to games against good Korean Terrans such as Polt, Taeja they haven't been performing really well. Not to mention what would happen if they had to play the OSL topdogs Maru, Supernova, or Innovation.
Meanwhile Soulkeys record shows 12games from his last 23 ZvTs were against Innovation.
While Jaedong's only ZvT loss since 2013-06-16 was against Polt, even featuring a win against Innovation.
It's pretty safe to say that Soulkey and Jaedong are amongst the best 3 ZvT players currently. Not sure about Hyun, his results against Koreans are far from strong, but not really bad either. I'd say those 3guys are the players you want to watch in terms of ZvT currently.
|
I have an idea, we all face forcefields blocking ramps and then losing the main, also when they attack the 3rd, just forcefield everything, kill the 3rd then teletransport back to home; in ZvP forcefields are game changers. What about that you can't forcefield on creep, this way you can't use it to kill hatchs but you can use it to defend and big battles on the middle.
|
On August 13 2013 00:43 Mocking wrote:
Hive tech are not that good vs a Bio player, yes Hive is the only answer to 3-3 bio/mine but hive units are less mobile than muta/bling, have you tried to hold a drop if ultras? This is fucking hard.
And try to kill a terran base using infestors/ultra is hard, marauders kill ultras so fast and infestors need to land a hell of good fungals vs a player who only need to split (yeah is hard to split, but to a pro-gamer? not that much).
Yeah, BLs can be useful if the terran economy is bad or gets when they dont expect BLs. Zergs are a good and strong race, but to kill their opponents are hard at the later stage of the game.
Retain mutas. Retain your fucking mutas. They regen like a reaper and they are super duper fast.
|
ZvT : the widow mine problem
Blizzard is very reserved about buffing or nerfing one of the 2 races regarding the widow mine in ZvT.
Couldn't a possible solution be re-introducing one of the very early 'never made it into the game' hots abilities that would turn the targeted friendly unit into a detector? I thought it was meant to be an overseer ability but I'm not sure.
Nowadays the widow mine is such a limitation to the zerg's mobility (and the attached randomness of suddenly losing half an army) because of the slow overseer. If you are able to turn a muta, ling or any other unit into an observer that would make a huge difference I think, without messing with the numbers.
|
On August 13 2013 03:22 Soss wrote:
ZvT : the widow mine problem
Blizzard is very reserved about buffing or nerfing one of the 2 races regarding the widow mine in ZvT.
Couldn't a possible solution be re-introducing one of the very early 'never made it into the game' hots abilities that would turn the targeted friendly unit into a detector? I thought it was meant to be an overseer ability but I'm not sure.
Nowadays the widow mine is such a limitation to the zerg's mobility (and the attached randomness of suddenly losing half an army) because of the slow overseer. If you are able to turn a muta, ling or any other unit into an observer that would make a huge difference I think, without messing with the numbers.
So the pattern is that Terran wins once ahead in upgrades. And yet widowmines are problem? Widowmines are not affected by upgrades!
|
On August 13 2013 03:23 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 03:22 Soss wrote:
ZvT : the widow mine problem
Blizzard is very reserved about buffing or nerfing one of the 2 races regarding the widow mine in ZvT.
Couldn't a possible solution be re-introducing one of the very early 'never made it into the game' hots abilities that would turn the targeted friendly unit into a detector? I thought it was meant to be an overseer ability but I'm not sure.
Nowadays the widow mine is such a limitation to the zerg's mobility (and the attached randomness of suddenly losing half an army) because of the slow overseer. If you are able to turn a muta, ling or any other unit into an observer that would make a huge difference I think, without messing with the numbers. So the pattern is that Terran wins once ahead in upgrades. And yet widowmines are problem? Widowmines are not affected by upgrades!
Don´t be intentionally stupid. WM is one of the things that allows terran to get to 3-3 while being on equal economic standing with the zerg. It also helps to prevent zerg achieving 3-3 and T3 army with the of the 4m.
|
On August 13 2013 03:20 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 00:43 Mocking wrote:
Hive tech are not that good vs a Bio player, yes Hive is the only answer to 3-3 bio/mine but hive units are less mobile than muta/bling, have you tried to hold a drop if ultras? This is fucking hard.
And try to kill a terran base using infestors/ultra is hard, marauders kill ultras so fast and infestors need to land a hell of good fungals vs a player who only need to split (yeah is hard to split, but to a pro-gamer? not that much).
Yeah, BLs can be useful if the terran economy is bad or gets when they dont expect BLs. Zergs are a good and strong race, but to kill their opponents are hard at the later stage of the game.
Retain mutas. Retain your fucking mutas. They regen like a reaper and they are super duper fast.
They regen at half the speed of a reaper, and with 2x the HP, it's effectively 1/4 the speed.
Doing damage with mutas while never letting them die is simply impossible in a world with widow mines and marines.
|
On August 13 2013 03:28 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 03:23 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 03:22 Soss wrote:
ZvT : the widow mine problem
Blizzard is very reserved about buffing or nerfing one of the 2 races regarding the widow mine in ZvT.
Couldn't a possible solution be re-introducing one of the very early 'never made it into the game' hots abilities that would turn the targeted friendly unit into a detector? I thought it was meant to be an overseer ability but I'm not sure.
Nowadays the widow mine is such a limitation to the zerg's mobility (and the attached randomness of suddenly losing half an army) because of the slow overseer. If you are able to turn a muta, ling or any other unit into an observer that would make a huge difference I think, without messing with the numbers. So the pattern is that Terran wins once ahead in upgrades. And yet widowmines are problem? Widowmines are not affected by upgrades! Don´t be intentionally stupid. WM is one of the things that allows terran to get to 3-3 while being on equal economic standing with the zerg. It also helps to prevent zerg achieving 3-3 and T3 army with the of the 4m.
Obviously it is one of the things that allows Terran to get to 3-3. Marines and SCVs also are some of the things that allow Terran to get 3-3.
Are widow mines responsible for preventing Zerg from achieving 3-3? Let's rule out over-making or not retaining mutas, not splitting and losing 20 clumped units, or not getting hive when it is actually affordable (Polt v Jaedon game 3) first ok?
|
On August 13 2013 03:28 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 03:23 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 03:22 Soss wrote:
ZvT : the widow mine problem
Blizzard is very reserved about buffing or nerfing one of the 2 races regarding the widow mine in ZvT.
Couldn't a possible solution be re-introducing one of the very early 'never made it into the game' hots abilities that would turn the targeted friendly unit into a detector? I thought it was meant to be an overseer ability but I'm not sure.
Nowadays the widow mine is such a limitation to the zerg's mobility (and the attached randomness of suddenly losing half an army) because of the slow overseer. If you are able to turn a muta, ling or any other unit into an observer that would make a huge difference I think, without messing with the numbers. So the pattern is that Terran wins once ahead in upgrades. And yet widowmines are problem? Widowmines are not affected by upgrades! Don´t be intentionally stupid. WM is one of the things that allows terran to get to 3-3 while being on equal economic standing with the zerg. It also helps to prevent zerg achieving 3-3 and T3 army with the of the 4m.
By the time the terran has 3-3, you should have infestors. Ling bling muta is cost INefficient against 3-3 terran, and that is exactly the mistake that zergs make, a lot.
|
On August 13 2013 03:48 fdsdfg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 03:20 plogamer wrote:On August 13 2013 00:43 Mocking wrote:
Hive tech are not that good vs a Bio player, yes Hive is the only answer to 3-3 bio/mine but hive units are less mobile than muta/bling, have you tried to hold a drop if ultras? This is fucking hard.
And try to kill a terran base using infestors/ultra is hard, marauders kill ultras so fast and infestors need to land a hell of good fungals vs a player who only need to split (yeah is hard to split, but to a pro-gamer? not that much).
Yeah, BLs can be useful if the terran economy is bad or gets when they dont expect BLs. Zergs are a good and strong race, but to kill their opponents are hard at the later stage of the game.
Retain mutas. Retain your fucking mutas. They regen like a reaper and they are super duper fast. They regen at half the speed of a reaper, and with 2x the HP, it's effectively 1/4 the speed. Doing damage with mutas while never letting them die is simply impossible in a world with widow mines and marines.
Say that to Scarlett. Her muta retention was fantastic against Alive - which allowed her to get not-only ultras, but even broodlords. Mutas serve a bigger purpose than doing damage - denying drops. Sure if you want to commit to damage, you will trade mutas. But you don't need to. Just having enough muta on field deters drops.
Since when is having more HP a problem for retaining units? 2x hp = 2x more buffer to pull back hurt mutas and let them regen. Reapers have a 10 second delay for their regen, mutas don't. Point is that mutas will regen back to full if you simply don't lose them.
|
On August 13 2013 00:38 Vanadiel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 00:01 Big J wrote:On August 12 2013 22:26 Snowbear wrote:Zergs will keep on losing when they refuse hardcore to step away from 20 minutes of muta ling bane. Zergs who understand this: - Hyun - TLO - Scarlett. Scarlett vs alive: + Show Spoiler +Alive had a 5k bank, maxed army. Scarlett had a 160 supply army, 500 bank. Scarlett won. How? By switching to hive tech in time, and by adding infestors. Infestors are still goddamn cost efficiënt, but zergs think that they are not good enough atm. Why? I don't know.. Zergs refused to switch to infestor style in WOL too. Stephano had to play it for almost a year before the korean zergs took it over. Everyone kept copying idra's ling bling muta style. I'm 100% sure that we will soon see more infestors and hive again, and I promise that zergs will do sick well. Another composition is the roach ling bling, which is actually insanely hard to kill. Hyun and TLO know this, and that's the reason of their success. what the fuck are you even talking about. Zergs will keep on losing when they refuse hardcore to step away from 20 minutes of muta ling bane Scarlett vs alive: Scarlett DID play over 20mins of muta/ling/bane. Zergs who understand this:
- Hyun
- TLO
- Scarlett. funny, a little time ago Terrans like you kept on saying that Soulkey, Life and Jaedong are the best ZvT players in the world. They get stomped and suddenly Scarlett, Hyun and TLO are on that list to "watch out for their playstyle". Another composition is the roach ling bling, which is actually insanely hard to kill. Hyun and TLO know this, and that's the reason of their success. Wtf are you talking about? TLO nearly always plays muta/ling/bling. And though I believe roach/baneling is a solid midgame style, Hyun's does not have major success with it against top Koreans (such as Polt or Taeja). It's a different (yet very similar) playstyle to muta/ling/bling with a little extra brute force in the midgame, and a little worse dropdefense and lategame transition. and about that aLive game. How Scarlett won you ask? By playing a mistakefree ling/bling/muta style into ultralisks and then transitioning into the most SUPPLYEFFICIENT zerg army while starving aLive. SUPPLYefficient as in: If you are close to max you rather want one infestor than 4banelings. While when you are not playing close to max 10mins - like in Scarlett vs aLive - and you need units that actually do shit before they have built up energy over the course of 3mins, you can't afford to to rely on a newly spawned infestor to bring some marines into the yellow instead of those 4banelings. That's what we call COSTINEFFICIENT. It's funny, you mention that roach/baneling style and then you do a pisspoor job of knowing who actually plays that style and who doesn't. Though it's pretty easy to tell who regularily plays that style and who doesn't: Hyun plays it, noone else regularily. Some other zergs mix it in, but for the most part only if they went for a roach/bane bust in the midgame and the game didn't end then and there. Edit: and btw, didn't you show around a bunch of TvZ winrates to show that Zergs are not losing. And now you come in and say that Zergs will *keep* on losing if they don't change their playstyle... By the way, Alive did not play bio mine style, but a more drop focus kind of game. I finally did catch up the vod from yesterday finals, game 3 is a little bit ridiculous, yes you can dig in and try to find mistakes from JD to explain why he lost, but lets be honest Polt on that particular game didn't play really well and made a lot of big mistakes. He got big hit from baneling and baneling landmine, lost 50 VCS to baneling runby (seen by his army but never reacted to it) while JD had 4 base saturated and a fifth base to back it up. JD had a huge economy lead, big supply lead (+60 at some point) and good engagement with baneling landmine, and to think it wasn't enough is kinda shocking.
Sorry, but that's just "selective perception" from your part. For example: the oh so famed baneling bombs usually featured 10+ banelings. this is gas that JD could have spent on tech to get the hive out earlier. Also runbys with a dozen lings usually kill a lot of scv without the need of gas, or 4 banelings damage a mineralline heavily.
And as we all saw in that game: 3/3 is a ticking timebomb, especially against mutas w/o armor. So it can easily be argued that these banelings unintenionally did more harm than good.
|
On August 13 2013 04:03 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 00:38 Vanadiel wrote:On August 13 2013 00:01 Big J wrote:On August 12 2013 22:26 Snowbear wrote:Zergs will keep on losing when they refuse hardcore to step away from 20 minutes of muta ling bane. Zergs who understand this: - Hyun - TLO - Scarlett. Scarlett vs alive: + Show Spoiler +Alive had a 5k bank, maxed army. Scarlett had a 160 supply army, 500 bank. Scarlett won. How? By switching to hive tech in time, and by adding infestors. Infestors are still goddamn cost efficiënt, but zergs think that they are not good enough atm. Why? I don't know.. Zergs refused to switch to infestor style in WOL too. Stephano had to play it for almost a year before the korean zergs took it over. Everyone kept copying idra's ling bling muta style. I'm 100% sure that we will soon see more infestors and hive again, and I promise that zergs will do sick well. Another composition is the roach ling bling, which is actually insanely hard to kill. Hyun and TLO know this, and that's the reason of their success. what the fuck are you even talking about. Zergs will keep on losing when they refuse hardcore to step away from 20 minutes of muta ling bane Scarlett vs alive: Scarlett DID play over 20mins of muta/ling/bane. Zergs who understand this:
- Hyun
- TLO
- Scarlett. funny, a little time ago Terrans like you kept on saying that Soulkey, Life and Jaedong are the best ZvT players in the world. They get stomped and suddenly Scarlett, Hyun and TLO are on that list to "watch out for their playstyle". Another composition is the roach ling bling, which is actually insanely hard to kill. Hyun and TLO know this, and that's the reason of their success. Wtf are you talking about? TLO nearly always plays muta/ling/bling. And though I believe roach/baneling is a solid midgame style, Hyun's does not have major success with it against top Koreans (such as Polt or Taeja). It's a different (yet very similar) playstyle to muta/ling/bling with a little extra brute force in the midgame, and a little worse dropdefense and lategame transition. and about that aLive game. How Scarlett won you ask? By playing a mistakefree ling/bling/muta style into ultralisks and then transitioning into the most SUPPLYEFFICIENT zerg army while starving aLive. SUPPLYefficient as in: If you are close to max you rather want one infestor than 4banelings. While when you are not playing close to max 10mins - like in Scarlett vs aLive - and you need units that actually do shit before they have built up energy over the course of 3mins, you can't afford to to rely on a newly spawned infestor to bring some marines into the yellow instead of those 4banelings. That's what we call COSTINEFFICIENT. It's funny, you mention that roach/baneling style and then you do a pisspoor job of knowing who actually plays that style and who doesn't. Though it's pretty easy to tell who regularily plays that style and who doesn't: Hyun plays it, noone else regularily. Some other zergs mix it in, but for the most part only if they went for a roach/bane bust in the midgame and the game didn't end then and there. Edit: and btw, didn't you show around a bunch of TvZ winrates to show that Zergs are not losing. And now you come in and say that Zergs will *keep* on losing if they don't change their playstyle... By the way, Alive did not play bio mine style, but a more drop focus kind of game. I finally did catch up the vod from yesterday finals, game 3 is a little bit ridiculous, yes you can dig in and try to find mistakes from JD to explain why he lost, but lets be honest Polt on that particular game didn't play really well and made a lot of big mistakes. He got big hit from baneling and baneling landmine, lost 50 VCS to baneling runby (seen by his army but never reacted to it) while JD had 4 base saturated and a fifth base to back it up. JD had a huge economy lead, big supply lead (+60 at some point) and good engagement with baneling landmine, and to think it wasn't enough is kinda shocking. Sorry, but that's just "selective perception" from your part. For example: the oh so famed baneling bombs usually featured 10+ banelings. this is gas that JD could have spent on tech to get the hive out earlier. Also runbys with a dozen lings usually kill a lot of scv without the need of gas, or 4 banelings damage a mineralline heavily. And as we all saw in that game: 3/3 is a ticking timebomb, especially against mutas w/o armor. So it can easily be argued that these banelings unintenionally did more harm than good.
Absolutely.
In game 3, Polt was on roughly even army supply (lost lots harvesters lost) and ahead on upgrades. He pushes and Jaedong charges into choke. Takes a big supply lead as a result of the upgrade advantage + choke position advantage. Polt wins.
And then some people QQ because they can't see that Polt was all-in at that point. He had no follow-up with a broken economy. Yes he won, but he won due to an army already ready to hit Jaedong.
TLDR: Game 3, Polt's army had roughly even supply, better upgrades, better position and Jaedong's army had similar supply, worse upgrade, and bad position (a choke)
|
On August 13 2013 04:20 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 04:03 Hryul wrote:On August 13 2013 00:38 Vanadiel wrote:On August 13 2013 00:01 Big J wrote:On August 12 2013 22:26 Snowbear wrote:Zergs will keep on losing when they refuse hardcore to step away from 20 minutes of muta ling bane. Zergs who understand this: - Hyun - TLO - Scarlett. Scarlett vs alive: + Show Spoiler +Alive had a 5k bank, maxed army. Scarlett had a 160 supply army, 500 bank. Scarlett won. How? By switching to hive tech in time, and by adding infestors. Infestors are still goddamn cost efficiënt, but zergs think that they are not good enough atm. Why? I don't know.. Zergs refused to switch to infestor style in WOL too. Stephano had to play it for almost a year before the korean zergs took it over. Everyone kept copying idra's ling bling muta style. I'm 100% sure that we will soon see more infestors and hive again, and I promise that zergs will do sick well. Another composition is the roach ling bling, which is actually insanely hard to kill. Hyun and TLO know this, and that's the reason of their success. what the fuck are you even talking about. Zergs will keep on losing when they refuse hardcore to step away from 20 minutes of muta ling bane Scarlett vs alive: Scarlett DID play over 20mins of muta/ling/bane. Zergs who understand this:
- Hyun
- TLO
- Scarlett. funny, a little time ago Terrans like you kept on saying that Soulkey, Life and Jaedong are the best ZvT players in the world. They get stomped and suddenly Scarlett, Hyun and TLO are on that list to "watch out for their playstyle". Another composition is the roach ling bling, which is actually insanely hard to kill. Hyun and TLO know this, and that's the reason of their success. Wtf are you talking about? TLO nearly always plays muta/ling/bling. And though I believe roach/baneling is a solid midgame style, Hyun's does not have major success with it against top Koreans (such as Polt or Taeja). It's a different (yet very similar) playstyle to muta/ling/bling with a little extra brute force in the midgame, and a little worse dropdefense and lategame transition. and about that aLive game. How Scarlett won you ask? By playing a mistakefree ling/bling/muta style into ultralisks and then transitioning into the most SUPPLYEFFICIENT zerg army while starving aLive. SUPPLYefficient as in: If you are close to max you rather want one infestor than 4banelings. While when you are not playing close to max 10mins - like in Scarlett vs aLive - and you need units that actually do shit before they have built up energy over the course of 3mins, you can't afford to to rely on a newly spawned infestor to bring some marines into the yellow instead of those 4banelings. That's what we call COSTINEFFICIENT. It's funny, you mention that roach/baneling style and then you do a pisspoor job of knowing who actually plays that style and who doesn't. Though it's pretty easy to tell who regularily plays that style and who doesn't: Hyun plays it, noone else regularily. Some other zergs mix it in, but for the most part only if they went for a roach/bane bust in the midgame and the game didn't end then and there. Edit: and btw, didn't you show around a bunch of TvZ winrates to show that Zergs are not losing. And now you come in and say that Zergs will *keep* on losing if they don't change their playstyle... By the way, Alive did not play bio mine style, but a more drop focus kind of game. I finally did catch up the vod from yesterday finals, game 3 is a little bit ridiculous, yes you can dig in and try to find mistakes from JD to explain why he lost, but lets be honest Polt on that particular game didn't play really well and made a lot of big mistakes. He got big hit from baneling and baneling landmine, lost 50 VCS to baneling runby (seen by his army but never reacted to it) while JD had 4 base saturated and a fifth base to back it up. JD had a huge economy lead, big supply lead (+60 at some point) and good engagement with baneling landmine, and to think it wasn't enough is kinda shocking. Sorry, but that's just "selective perception" from your part. For example: the oh so famed baneling bombs usually featured 10+ banelings. this is gas that JD could have spent on tech to get the hive out earlier. Also runbys with a dozen lings usually kill a lot of scv without the need of gas, or 4 banelings damage a mineralline heavily. And as we all saw in that game: 3/3 is a ticking timebomb, especially against mutas w/o armor. So it can easily be argued that these banelings unintenionally did more harm than good. Absolutely. In game 3, Polt was on roughly even army supply (lost lots harvesters lost) and ahead on upgrades. He pushes and Jaedong charges into choke. Takes a big supply lead as a result of the upgrade advantage + choke position advantage. Polt wins. And then some people QQ because they can't see that Polt was all-in at that point. He had no follow-up with a broken economy. Yes he won, but he won due to an army already ready to hit Jaedong.TLDR: Game 3, Polt's army had roughly even supply, better upgrades, better position and Jaedong's army had similar supply, worse upgrade, and bad position (a choke)
At which point was Polt allin? You mean after Jaedong had killed 30workers and a 50supply/10army lead (~170 vs ~120) against an opponent who had 2-2 vs 1-1 at 16mins? Because Jaedong crushed that push Polt did at that time, and if that was allin Polt would have lost.
Or do you mean the 2-2 vs 2-2 skirmishes between 18mins and 20mins after which Jaedong had a 50supply/10army lead (~170 vs ~120 again)? Because Jaedong didn't take any damage from those, and if that was allin Polt would have lost.
Or do you mean the 3-3 vs 2-2 battle at 21mins with Jaedong 50supply/10army in the lead (~190 vs ~140) where he pushed through and won the game?
I'd really like to know, because Polts economy was basically unchanged after 16mins, yet you call the last situation "allin", while the exact same "bad" scenario had already allowed him to play toe-to-toe with Jaedong for 5mins. Which suggests that he could do it for another long, long periode of time (assuming he knows how to lift that natural CC as the minerals were running out).
TLDR: Polt played a normal paradepush game with ~40workers+3mules on 2mining bases against a zerg on 84workers on 3mining bases.
(not that Jaedong played well, but that was absolutly not one of those "you traded army for economy, but don't have enough to stop me"-type of mistakes that you imply)
|
On August 13 2013 05:08 Big J wrote:
(not that Jaedong played well, but that was absolutly not one of those "you traded army for economy, but don't have enough to stop me"-type of mistakes that you imply)
Of course it was, didn't you see how Jaedong only had 30 mutas and a handful of lings/banes for army? He never had the 55-60 supply of lings/banes necessary to crush Polt's army in order to capitalize on the eco damage.
|
This thread is just terrans and zergs slapping eachother in the face and refusing to listen to the other.
Please continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
