|
On August 26 2013 18:45 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 18:19 ChristianS wrote:
...Then you brought up a lot of weird evolutionary sociology about how women are more adaptive and Zerg-like or something, and tried to show that she won in spite of the matchup's imbalance because she's a woman. Here's where you lost me (and anyone else reading it). First of all, the premise that being female makes you better at playing Zerg in the current metagame is just as stupid as the premise that being male makes you better at Starcraft. It was of course rather theoretical. It could be an explanation why Scarlett is so good especially in ZvT and not any other matchup. Of course it doesnt have to be the reason. Sure to say is that "women are more adaptable than men", when you just google this you find alot of stuff about it. I didnt say she won in spite of heavy imbalance because she is a woman. I said that being a woman can support right decisionmaking when having excellenct ZvT skills, cause women are known for being more adaptable and patient than males and this is what is required in current ZvT and also it is what I observed in her play as well, espacially when comparing it to alot of korean zergs that have equal, maybe even better overall skills (mechanics/macro/micro). This way round. I wanted to point out why Scarlett games are a bad indicator for balance for several minor reasons, besides the major ones. And it was expectable that alot of people use Scarletts great perfromance to indicate that balance is alright overall, which it is not in my opinion. That doesnt mean its all bad or Z cant win of course. The exact issues have been named a hundred times, so no need to repeat it over and over again. Edit: I didnt even know that she is a born male so what I wrote about this part is at least questionable.
Wow you are still talking about this.
To burst your bubble:
Gender attributes describe a large number of people. Single individuals can be found everywhere on the spectrum. Scarlett is a single individual. Therefore your "women are known for..." argument is total BS.
It's like saying "Germans are punctual and reliable, but are also badly dressed and have no sense of humor." and therefore LSN and submarine are also punctual, reliable, badly dressed and have no sense of humor. That might be true for you but its not for me. :D
|
On August 26 2013 18:23 Kharnage wrote:
I think it is worth asking is hive too large a requirement for T3 zerg upgrades. I wouldn't mind seeing 'infestation pit' requirement for hive being replaced with 'pit, hydra den or spire' as requirement. That way no matter what path zerg have chosen they can move on to hive relatively quickly instead of being forced to build a building they may not want just to advance to hive tech.
This idea of 3/3 ups from infestation pit is very interesting imo. I am a bit afraid that it may affect ZvP, or make an ultra switch too powerful (you could get 3/5 ultras from first wave I guess). It certainly would make the "4M 3/3 death-timer" less of an issue (for now assuming it is an issue).
But I am nowhere close to to skilled enough to understand the details of these timings, just want to put some more light on this idea.
edited for clarity.
|
[QUOTE]On August 26 2013 19:20 Cascade wrote:
[QUOTE]On August 26 2013 18:23 Kharnage wrote:
I think it is worth asking is hive too large a requirement for T3 zerg upgrades. I wouldn't mind seeing 'infestation pit' requirement for hive being replaced with 'pit, hydra den or spire' as requirement. That way no matter what path zerg have chosen they can move on to hive relatively quickly instead of being forced to build a building they may not want just to advance to hive tech.[/QUOTE]
This is a very interesting idea imo. I am a bit afraid that it may affect ZvP, or make an ultra switch too powerful (you could get 3/5 ultras from first wave I guess).
But I am nowhere close to to skilled enough to understand the details of these timings, just want to put some more light on this idea.[/QUOTE
Yep, tweaking upgrades, like merging melee and range upgrade, or remove the hive requirement would mess up ZvP in my opinion.
|
On August 26 2013 19:18 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 18:45 LSN wrote:On August 26 2013 18:19 ChristianS wrote:
...Then you brought up a lot of weird evolutionary sociology about how women are more adaptive and Zerg-like or something, and tried to show that she won in spite of the matchup's imbalance because she's a woman. Here's where you lost me (and anyone else reading it). First of all, the premise that being female makes you better at playing Zerg in the current metagame is just as stupid as the premise that being male makes you better at Starcraft. It was of course rather theoretical. It could be an explanation why Scarlett is so good especially in ZvT and not any other matchup. Of course it doesnt have to be the reason. Sure to say is that "women are more adaptable than men", when you just google this you find alot of stuff about it. I didnt say she won in spite of heavy imbalance because she is a woman. I said that being a woman can support right decisionmaking when having excellenct ZvT skills, cause women are known for being more adaptable and patient than males and this is what is required in current ZvT and also it is what I observed in her play as well, espacially when comparing it to alot of korean zergs that have equal, maybe even better overall skills (mechanics/macro/micro). This way round. I wanted to point out why Scarlett games are a bad indicator for balance for several minor reasons, besides the major ones. And it was expectable that alot of people use Scarletts great perfromance to indicate that balance is alright overall, which it is not in my opinion. That doesnt mean its all bad or Z cant win of course. The exact issues have been named a hundred times, so no need to repeat it over and over again. Edit: I didnt even know that she is a born male so what I wrote about this part is at least questionable. Wow you are still talking about this. To burst your bubble: Gender attributes describe a large number of people. Single individuals can be found everywhere on the spectrum. Scarlett is a single individual. Therefore your "women are known for..." argument is total BS. It's like saying "Germans are punctual and reliable, but are also badly dressed and have no sense of humor." and therefore LSN and submarine are also punctual, reliable, badly dressed and have no sense of humor. That might be true for you but its not for me. :D
I wonder why you keep addressing this. I already admitted that I didnt know that she is a transgender and therefore withdraw my sayings about the gender things. Anyway it was a potential thing. I said it might be supporting decisionmaking, not it defenitely is. I wouldn't say this anymore with the updated knowledge because I know little to nothing about behaviour patterns of transgenders, which doesnt mean it must be wrong at all. Maybe she can combine some stuff of what each gender in general is good at?
Single individuals can be found everywhere on the spectrum for sure but it is more likely to find certain individuals on either of the sides that apply to well known role models in behaviour/thinking patterns and also strengths and weaknesses. Anyway I didnt want to emphasize this passage too much, it was a minor thing that I wanted to mention that could play a role for her exceptional ZvT strength.
I think important for balance is to look at quantities and when looking at single matches to look for the quality. How did one race win? 2/16 is quite obvious, other tournaments on high level doesnt have better numbers for zergs these days.
In a close view on quality of TvZ games, my opinion is that e.g. Bomber focused in many games too much on 3 base rally and expected to kill her with it instead of transitioning into 4base + Ravens at some earlier point and it lost him some games. This implies that if Zergs like scarlett manage to hold perfectly a transition for terran is necessary. I think it is too hard for zergs to reach this threshold though and it is much more likely that the terran succeeds with 3 base rally play. But I guess this has been figured out by most ppl already.
|
On August 26 2013 19:34 Vanadiel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 19:20 Cascade wrote:On August 26 2013 18:23 Kharnage wrote:
I think it is worth asking is hive too large a requirement for T3 zerg upgrades. I wouldn't mind seeing 'infestation pit' requirement for hive being replaced with 'pit, hydra den or spire' as requirement. That way no matter what path zerg have chosen they can move on to hive relatively quickly instead of being forced to build a building they may not want just to advance to hive tech. This is a very interesting idea imo. I am a bit afraid that it may affect ZvP, or make an ultra switch too powerful (you could get 3/5 ultras from first wave I guess). But I am nowhere close to to skilled enough to understand the details of these timings, just want to put some more light on this idea. Yep, tweaking upgrades, like merging melee and range upgrade, or remove the hive requirement would mess up ZvP in my opinion.
Could you please elaborate how merging ground weapons would mess up ZvP?
IMHO it would help to defend various 2 base attacks and it would make T3 units a bit better when they first enter the field.
Sure this change will have an positive impact on the zerg-performance over all and some other changes might be needed to restore balance. But over all i think it would make the game better, less streamlined and open up different play styles.
|
On August 26 2013 19:54 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 19:34 Vanadiel wrote:On August 26 2013 19:20 Cascade wrote:On August 26 2013 18:23 Kharnage wrote:
I think it is worth asking is hive too large a requirement for T3 zerg upgrades. I wouldn't mind seeing 'infestation pit' requirement for hive being replaced with 'pit, hydra den or spire' as requirement. That way no matter what path zerg have chosen they can move on to hive relatively quickly instead of being forced to build a building they may not want just to advance to hive tech. This is a very interesting idea imo. I am a bit afraid that it may affect ZvP, or make an ultra switch too powerful (you could get 3/5 ultras from first wave I guess). But I am nowhere close to to skilled enough to understand the details of these timings, just want to put some more light on this idea. Yep, tweaking upgrades, like merging melee and range upgrade, or remove the hive requirement would mess up ZvP in my opinion. Could you please elaborate how merging ground weapons would mess up ZvP? IMHO it would help to defend various 2 base attacks and it would make T3 units a bit better when they first enter the field. Sure this change will have an positive impact on the zerg-performance over all and some other changes might be needed to restore balance. But over all i think it would make the game better, less streamlined and open up different play styles.
Merging any more upgrades would seriously reduce the number of choices a player has to make and thus dumb down the game. Sure, it could be a viable method to "make the game work better", but that doesnt mean it is a good way of doing it. Choices are necessary to a game and hard choices force a player into thinking and this is always a good thing. The Terran upgrade merger [and removal of Siege upgrade] was bad enough already ...
|
I don't think merging upgrades for neither T nor Z is a good way to address balance/design issues. The different styles of upgrades are what makes the race unique and require decisionmaking beforehand.
Downgrades for protoss that I consider viable are:
1. nerfing mothership core in any way: bubble shorter time or lesser radius. I see whole armies vanish between forcefields and in this slow down bubble frequently without the ability to fight back. I think it is way too strong for both defense and offense, especially all-in offense and escpecially in combination with forcefields.
2. either making P upgrades a little more expensive again (as they were before) or increasing the upgrade time, so that upgrades need to be chronoboosted all the time.
For TvZ it might help to increase the requirements for T 3-3 upgrades instead of lowering Z 3-3 upgrades to lair tech, which would be really bad. Maybe requirement of 1 fusion core per lvl 3 upgrade for terran? (because one of them doesnt make a real difference).
|
Sure, Terran needs to build 2 fusion cores to get 3-3, also 13 ebays to build a turret and 34 barracks to build a factory.
|
On August 26 2013 19:54 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 19:34 Vanadiel wrote:On August 26 2013 19:20 Cascade wrote:On August 26 2013 18:23 Kharnage wrote:
I think it is worth asking is hive too large a requirement for T3 zerg upgrades. I wouldn't mind seeing 'infestation pit' requirement for hive being replaced with 'pit, hydra den or spire' as requirement. That way no matter what path zerg have chosen they can move on to hive relatively quickly instead of being forced to build a building they may not want just to advance to hive tech. This is a very interesting idea imo. I am a bit afraid that it may affect ZvP, or make an ultra switch too powerful (you could get 3/5 ultras from first wave I guess). But I am nowhere close to to skilled enough to understand the details of these timings, just want to put some more light on this idea. Yep, tweaking upgrades, like merging melee and range upgrade, or remove the hive requirement would mess up ZvP in my opinion. Could you please elaborate how merging ground weapons would mess up ZvP? IMHO it would help to defend various 2 base attacks and it would make T3 units a bit better when they first enter the field. Sure this change will have an positive impact on the zerg-performance over all and some other changes might be needed to restore balance. But over all i think it would make the game better, less streamlined and open up different play styles.
The reason it would make a mess of every match-up (including ZvZ) is that zerg don't have to scout. You have the 'everything build' and mind games and hiding tech is no longer important. Basically there is no risk for the zerg either way. You were thinking ling infestor into ultra but OMG 2 base push incoming. no dramas, just build roaches, they already have 2/2.
That's my point on the robo / stargate merge. Protoss are thinking double robo immortal all in, but OMG, MUTAS! so they just start making phoenix right away. It's rubbish. It's not opening up play styles, it's allowing you to never make a mistake in your choices.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
Merging zerg upgrades (more so than Terran) also causes a massive issue in that it's so easy for a zerg to suddenly tech switch into something else, some of which with certain styles need specific responses unlike Terran who either has to get a lot of production buildings and is scoutable, it's completely unscoutable from a zerg side if they have all the tech buildings anyway. I think that'd cause more balance issues than solve them.
|
On August 26 2013 20:12 NarutO wrote:
Sure, Terran needs to build 2 fusion cores to get 3-3, also 13 ebays to build a turret and 34 barracks to build a factory.
Naruto, you are of the opinion that TvZ is all fine. I am not and most other people are not too. A fusion core is 150/150. Maybe the price of fusion cores could be reduced to 100/150 or 100/200 with such a change so it is 4 marines less for being able to make 2x lvl3 upgrades for bio. This wouldnt be a too bad deal for terran at all and at the same time start to fix some of the terran needs not to worry about gas in TvZ issues at least. Z needs hive before being able to 3-3 which is a much more costy switch from muta/ling/bane still. For what reason terran doesnt need anything for their 3-3 bio?
|
On August 26 2013 20:07 LSN wrote:
I don't think merging upgrades for neither T nor Z is a good way to address balance/design issues. The different styles of upgrades are what makes the race unique and require decisionmaking beforehand.
Downgrades for protoss that I consider viable are:
1. nerfing mothership core in any way: bubble shorter time or lesser radius. I see whole armies vanish between forcefields and in this slow down bubble frequently without the ability to fight back. I think it is way too strong for both defense and offense, especially all-in offense and escpecially in combination with forcefields.
2. either making P upgrades a little more expensive again (as they were before) or increasing the upgrade time, so that upgrades need to be chronoboosted all the time.
For TvZ it might help to increase the requirements for T 3-3 upgrades instead of lowering Z 3-3 upgrades to lair tech, which would be really bad. Maybe requirement of 1 fusion core per lvl 3 upgrade for terran? (because one of them doesnt make a real difference).
I think chrono boost is the greatest misconception about protoss.
It is protosses mechanic for getting ahead, as in, an advantage. It's like saying terran can only have 2 scvs per mineral patch because mules. Mules are an advantage.
Chrono is also an advantage. Choosing to use it on upgrades means you're NOT using it on army or economy.
|
On August 26 2013 20:15 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 20:12 NarutO wrote:
Sure, Terran needs to build 2 fusion cores to get 3-3, also 13 ebays to build a turret and 34 barracks to build a factory. Naruto, you are of the opinion that TvZ is all fine. I am not and most other people are not too. A fusion core is 150/150. Maybe the price of fusion cores could be reduced to 100/150 or 100/200 with such a change so it is 4 marines less for being able to make 2x lvl3 upgrades for bio. This wouldnt be a too bad deal for terran at all and at the same time start to fix some of the terran needs not to worry about gas in TvZ issues at least.
LSN, you said you'd stop posting a few pages ago. What happened?
|
On August 26 2013 20:15 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 20:12 NarutO wrote:
Sure, Terran needs to build 2 fusion cores to get 3-3, also 13 ebays to build a turret and 34 barracks to build a factory. Naruto, you are of the opinion that TvZ is all fine. I am not and most other people are not too. A fusion core is 150/150. Maybe the price of fusion cores could be reduced to 100/150 with such a change so it is 4 marines less for being able to make 2x lvl3 upgrades for bio. This wouldnt be a too bad deal for terran at all.
Don't you realize how little sense this 100% arbitrary requirement would make? Maybe if we switch races, you will see the absurdity of something like "Protoss now requires a Fleet Beacon to upgrade 3-0-3"?
|
On August 26 2013 20:17 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 20:07 LSN wrote:
I don't think merging upgrades for neither T nor Z is a good way to address balance/design issues. The different styles of upgrades are what makes the race unique and require decisionmaking beforehand.
Downgrades for protoss that I consider viable are:
1. nerfing mothership core in any way: bubble shorter time or lesser radius. I see whole armies vanish between forcefields and in this slow down bubble frequently without the ability to fight back. I think it is way too strong for both defense and offense, especially all-in offense and escpecially in combination with forcefields.
2. either making P upgrades a little more expensive again (as they were before) or increasing the upgrade time, so that upgrades need to be chronoboosted all the time.
For TvZ it might help to increase the requirements for T 3-3 upgrades instead of lowering Z 3-3 upgrades to lair tech, which would be really bad. Maybe requirement of 1 fusion core per lvl 3 upgrade for terran? (because one of them doesnt make a real difference).
I think chrono boost is the greatest misconception about protoss. It is protosses mechanic for getting ahead, as in, an advantage. It's like saying terran can only have 2 scvs per mineral patch because mules. Mules are an advantage. Chrono is also an advantage. Choosing to use it on upgrades means you're NOT using it on army or economy.
Well it is enaugh to start with the MSC nerf and see developments afterwards. Still Protoss has 3-0/3-1 quite early, I think a bit too early. Letting it come a bit later could be worth a try afterwards.
I also support infested terran +1 base damage. This is not relevant for balance, but would make infestors a little more attractive again as 0-0 infested terrans basically do nothing against a 2-2 or 3-3 upgraded army.
On August 26 2013 20:19 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 20:15 LSN wrote:On August 26 2013 20:12 NarutO wrote:
Sure, Terran needs to build 2 fusion cores to get 3-3, also 13 ebays to build a turret and 34 barracks to build a factory. Naruto, you are of the opinion that TvZ is all fine. I am not and most other people are not too. A fusion core is 150/150. Maybe the price of fusion cores could be reduced to 100/150 with such a change so it is 4 marines less for being able to make 2x lvl3 upgrades for bio. This wouldnt be a too bad deal for terran at all. Don't you realize how little sense this 100% arbitrary requirement would make? Maybe if we switch races, you will see the absurdity of something like "Protoss now requires a Fleet Beacon to upgrade 3-0-3"?
It makes little to no difference. What is your suggestion being a terran yourself then?
The fusion core thing would at least increase gas costs for terran for 3-3 bio a bit and a few less marines. Of course a fundamental change would be much more appreciated but I dont believe it is possible and blizzard is going to go for any fundamental changes now.
In fact terran has all the means of putting up a decent defenses with mines, planetary fortresses, tanks and bunkers. So I would like a fundamental switch of ZvT metagame. Z should be in terrans position, always attacking, not letting T become to strong and terran should be more in the defensive + drop + harrassment position and getting too strong in lategame so that Z has to keep him small in order to not to lose. This would be a healthy state of the game but I doubt it will happen or is possible with the current unit design. And if you want to switch races, switch to Z and you will see that apart from any balance issues this pure defensive Z playstyle is in no way fun to play anymore. It is in fact discouraging.
|
On August 26 2013 19:54 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 19:34 Vanadiel wrote:On August 26 2013 19:20 Cascade wrote:On August 26 2013 18:23 Kharnage wrote:
I think it is worth asking is hive too large a requirement for T3 zerg upgrades. I wouldn't mind seeing 'infestation pit' requirement for hive being replaced with 'pit, hydra den or spire' as requirement. That way no matter what path zerg have chosen they can move on to hive relatively quickly instead of being forced to build a building they may not want just to advance to hive tech. This is a very interesting idea imo. I am a bit afraid that it may affect ZvP, or make an ultra switch too powerful (you could get 3/5 ultras from first wave I guess). But I am nowhere close to to skilled enough to understand the details of these timings, just want to put some more light on this idea. Yep, tweaking upgrades, like merging melee and range upgrade, or remove the hive requirement would mess up ZvP in my opinion. Could you please elaborate how merging ground weapons would mess up ZvP? IMHO it would help to defend various 2 base attacks and it would make T3 units a bit better when they first enter the field. Sure this change will have an positive impact on the zerg-performance over all and some other changes might be needed to restore balance. But over all i think it would make the game better, less streamlined and open up different play styles.
It would help 2 base timing for sure, but it would help too much, and I do really think that Zerg needs it anyways as ZvP doesn't appears to be protoss favored, in my opinion the match seems to have found a good spot balance and design wise, it's rich in term of timing, various composition and so on. Yeah the Swarmhost/Skytoss kind of sucks, but it's rarely seen nowadays and will disappear with maps like Akilon waste.
With a merging of both upgrades, you could to some crazy strong tech switch from roach/hydra to 3(+2)/3 ling/ultralisk or the other way around, while both army requires different composition and high tech protoss production facility (SG/robot) are not flexible enough to handle it.
You can often see strategies with full remax on mutalisk after a fight killing protoss, but to do so you need to invest into a spire and upgrades before. If you merge upgrades you're basically giving this option for free.
|
Right now ingame:
ZvT: No one goes for missile upgrades. Therefore Hydras and Roaches are not an option. Missile upgrades are also a dead end because T3 units don't use them. The differentiation just says: Don't build your mid-game on Hydras or roaches. There is no choise to be made.
ZvP: You may have a small point here. There are actually some people that get melee instead of missile upgrades in this MU. But i Think the investments for a tech switch are still big enough. To switch from ling bane to roach hydra you still need the buildings+the unit specific upgrades. To build a fuckton of lings you also need to invest into larvae production.
The biggest problem might just be a T3 switch after a Hydra Roach SH mid-game. But this needs testing.
Over all i am convinced zerg matchups would be more interesting if ling-bane and roach-hydra mid-games could be combined better. Even if the melee and range upgrades were combined, i would expect that zergs would be going down one route more often then not. A lot of you are complaining about the very high cost for the hive. Well, adding roach-hydra to ling-bane even with combined upgrades is still more expensive.
|
On August 26 2013 20:23 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 20:17 Kharnage wrote:On August 26 2013 20:07 LSN wrote:
I don't think merging upgrades for neither T nor Z is a good way to address balance/design issues. The different styles of upgrades are what makes the race unique and require decisionmaking beforehand.
Downgrades for protoss that I consider viable are:
1. nerfing mothership core in any way: bubble shorter time or lesser radius. I see whole armies vanish between forcefields and in this slow down bubble frequently without the ability to fight back. I think it is way too strong for both defense and offense, especially all-in offense and escpecially in combination with forcefields.
2. either making P upgrades a little more expensive again (as they were before) or increasing the upgrade time, so that upgrades need to be chronoboosted all the time.
For TvZ it might help to increase the requirements for T 3-3 upgrades instead of lowering Z 3-3 upgrades to lair tech, which would be really bad. Maybe requirement of 1 fusion core per lvl 3 upgrade for terran? (because one of them doesnt make a real difference).
I think chrono boost is the greatest misconception about protoss. It is protosses mechanic for getting ahead, as in, an advantage. It's like saying terran can only have 2 scvs per mineral patch because mules. Mules are an advantage. Chrono is also an advantage. Choosing to use it on upgrades means you're NOT using it on army or economy. Well it is enaugh to start with the MSC nerf and see developments afterwards. Still Protoss has 3-0/3-1 quite early, I think a bit too early. Letting it come a bit later could be worth a try afterwards. I also support infested terran +1 base damage. This is not relevant for balance, but would make infestors a little more attractive again as 0-0 infested terrans basically do nothing against a 2-2 or 3-3 upgraded army.
You're missing the point.
For protoss to get 3-0/3-1 quite early they have to make cuts somewhere else. Their templar, or colossus are delayed. their army size isn't as big. they delay taking or saturating the 3rd. Whatever it is, something else is delayed in some way to make faster upgrades the priority.
Not only that, but like injects or creep spread, if you spend the attention and you chrono properly on your upgrades you can get the fastest 3-3 of all the races, but if you're distracted by drop defense and didn't chrono your forge for 20 secs? bad luck. And to do this you are slowing down everything else. You have to cut from your colossus production, or storm research, or probe production, or whatever else you're trying to do.
In addition to all this you have to have a super crisp build to have enough army and production to hit in the window where you have 3-0-3 and they only have 2-2. If your push is delayed, or your macro was sloppy then forget it. you have a really nicely upgraded, tiny army that can't do anything. It's not like getting 3-0-3 auto wins you the game, especially if your opponent has 2-2 with 3-3 on the way.
|
On August 26 2013 20:15 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 20:12 NarutO wrote:
Sure, Terran needs to build 2 fusion cores to get 3-3, also 13 ebays to build a turret and 34 barracks to build a factory. Naruto, you are of the opinion that TvZ is all fine. I am not and most other people are not too. A fusion core is 150/150. Maybe the price of fusion cores could be reduced to 100/150 or 100/200 with such a change so it is 4 marines less for being able to make 2x lvl3 upgrades for bio. This wouldnt be a too bad deal for terran at all and at the same time start to fix some of the terran needs not to worry about gas in TvZ issues at least. Z needs hive before being able to 3-3 which is a much more costy switch from muta/ling/bane still. For what reason terran doesnt need anything for their 3-3 bio?
We need an armory to upgrade 2-2. Zergs need a lair which is needed to begin with. Going up to hive isn't really that much extra units either, having 3 less mutas is not going to make a difference, having 3-3 is. So you can decide having 3 more mutas and all your units lacking behind in upgrades or having 3 less while all your ground forces gain additional upgrades.
Terran isn't all that cheap in terms of gas either. Its right that its CHEAPER than Zerg, but if you believe Terran doesn't need gas at all you are wrong. What makes it 'cheap/cheaper' is the fact that the likes of INnoVation rarely lose medivacs / mines. Bomber on the other hand for example (vs Scarlett) lost tons of shit.
Terran vs Zerg has the broodwar-synergie for Terran. Gasheavy (Medivacs+Mines (275 every 40~ seconds) have good synergy and support function to our mineral heavy (marines) style. Its the same with Marine Tank and when Marine/Tank was played, no one did question the value of ressources in Terrans favor.
Just because Terrans value Minerals more than gas, just makes your argument about "Zerg is trading gas vs minerals" void, as the critical ressource for Terran is actually not gas, but minerals.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On August 26 2013 20:12 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 19:54 submarine wrote:On August 26 2013 19:34 Vanadiel wrote:On August 26 2013 19:20 Cascade wrote:On August 26 2013 18:23 Kharnage wrote:
I think it is worth asking is hive too large a requirement for T3 zerg upgrades. I wouldn't mind seeing 'infestation pit' requirement for hive being replaced with 'pit, hydra den or spire' as requirement. That way no matter what path zerg have chosen they can move on to hive relatively quickly instead of being forced to build a building they may not want just to advance to hive tech. This is a very interesting idea imo. I am a bit afraid that it may affect ZvP, or make an ultra switch too powerful (you could get 3/5 ultras from first wave I guess). But I am nowhere close to to skilled enough to understand the details of these timings, just want to put some more light on this idea. Yep, tweaking upgrades, like merging melee and range upgrade, or remove the hive requirement would mess up ZvP in my opinion. Could you please elaborate how merging ground weapons would mess up ZvP? IMHO it would help to defend various 2 base attacks and it would make T3 units a bit better when they first enter the field. Sure this change will have an positive impact on the zerg-performance over all and some other changes might be needed to restore balance. But over all i think it would make the game better, less streamlined and open up different play styles. The reason it would make a mess of every match-up (including ZvZ) is that zerg don't have to scout. You have the 'everything build' and mind games and hiding tech is no longer important. Basically there is no risk for the zerg either way. You were thinking ling infestor into ultra but OMG 2 base push incoming. no dramas, just build roaches, they already have 2/2. That's my point on the robo / stargate merge. Protoss are thinking double robo immortal all in, but OMG, MUTAS! so they just start making phoenix right away. It's rubbish. It's not opening up play styles, it's allowing you to never make a mistake in your choices.
First of all, no one has 2/2 by the time Protoss allins occur. I highly agree that early-game tech switches would cause imbalance in all match-ups, but again, having Ling/Roach/Hydra would be awesome (getting a good number of Roaches or Hydras isn't really cheap). I'd make a radical idea that Blizzard would never implement, and that is, when Infestation Pit is morphed, you have some 100/100 upgrade that merges your melee and range upgrades (should be put on a short research time, 80sec maybe). Lategame Zerg is all about tech switches, and would encourage Zergs to get Hive sooner with Roach/Hydra so that they can switch into Ling/Ultra or whatever your choice is. This solves the problem Zergs are having of not achieving 3/3 as fast as other races, but gives them a boost in terms of mid-game, where you can build all T1 units.
Mutas have separate upgrades anyhow, so this would not affect them in the slightest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
