|
United States6752 Posts
On September 18 2013 22:02 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question. it was rhetorical, sorry  but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of. actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling". fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will.
In fairness the widow mine is more similar to the lurker than it does to a seige tank. They just gave it to to the wrong race.
They gave Terran the short range burst aoe that burrows
They gave Zerg the long ranged seige unit that wears down enemy defenses
It's actually pretty funny.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 18 2013 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 22:02 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question. it was rhetorical, sorry but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of. actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling". fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will. In fairness the widow mine is more similar to the lurker than it does to a seige tank. They just gave it to to the wrong race. They gave Terran the short range burst aoe that burrows They gave Zerg the long ranged seige unit that wears down enemy defenses It's actually pretty funny.
Terran in 2011 needed GOOD space control unit (hence the addition of shredder and later replacing it with widow mine) and zerg needed good ways to break entrenched positions (hence the SH).
|
On September 18 2013 23:14 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 18 2013 22:02 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question. it was rhetorical, sorry but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of. actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling". fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will. In fairness the widow mine is more similar to the lurker than it does to a seige tank. They just gave it to to the wrong race. They gave Terran the short range burst aoe that burrows They gave Zerg the long ranged seige unit that wears down enemy defenses It's actually pretty funny. Terran in 2011 needed GOOD space control unit (hence the addition of shredder and later replacing it with widow mine) and zerg needed good ways to break entrenched positions (hence the SH).
The widow mine did that, the swarm host did not. Since Terran rarely goes mech in tvz zerg can't go Swarm Host. Swarm hosts are so terrible vs speedivacs and bio that nobody makes them usually outside of zvp and sometimes zvz.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 18 2013 23:40 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 23:14 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 18 2013 22:02 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question. it was rhetorical, sorry but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of. actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling". fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will. In fairness the widow mine is more similar to the lurker than it does to a seige tank. They just gave it to to the wrong race. They gave Terran the short range burst aoe that burrows They gave Zerg the long ranged seige unit that wears down enemy defenses It's actually pretty funny. Terran in 2011 needed GOOD space control unit (hence the addition of shredder and later replacing it with widow mine) and zerg needed good ways to break entrenched positions (hence the SH). The widow mine did that, the swarm host did not. Since Terran rarely goes mech in tvz zerg can't go Swarm Host. Swarm hosts are so terrible vs speedivacs and bio that nobody makes them usually outside of zvp and sometimes zvz.
SH did not accomplish it in ZvT, because entrenched positions effectively died off in this MU. So SH sure does help against entrenched positions but as of now it requires it's own entrenched position to work well. So look at SH as a very tempest like unit in a sense that it's existence discourages usage of something it counters.
|
On September 18 2013 23:40 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 23:14 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 18 2013 22:02 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question. it was rhetorical, sorry but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of. actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling". fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will. In fairness the widow mine is more similar to the lurker than it does to a seige tank. They just gave it to to the wrong race. They gave Terran the short range burst aoe that burrows They gave Zerg the long ranged seige unit that wears down enemy defenses It's actually pretty funny. Terran in 2011 needed GOOD space control unit (hence the addition of shredder and later replacing it with widow mine) and zerg needed good ways to break entrenched positions (hence the SH). The widow mine did that, the swarm host did not. Since Terran rarely goes mech in tvz zerg can't go Swarm Host. Swarm hosts are so terrible vs speedivacs and bio that nobody makes them usually outside of zvp and sometimes zvz.
I think the Swarm host and viper are both very bad from a design perspective.
They both hard counter mech, but are absolutely terrible vs bio. So the underlying issue really is that the new units neutralize mech but are pretty much useless vs bio/mine.
Which of course exposes the biggest problem in TvZ. While the viper and swarmhost are both terrible vs. bio, buffing them in any way would make mech even worse than it already is. It's actuallly a dilemma.
And in that case we are right to blame the Blizzard design team for messing up, if you introduce units to the game that hardcounter other units or playstyles but are effectively useless vs other units or playstyles you limit the options of all players.
This is apparent when you look at all matchups, with perhaps the exception of PvZ, TvZ and TvP are both very linear for all the races involved. Terran goes 4M in TvZ, Zerg goes Muta baneling, Terran goes MMM Ghost viking in tvp, protoss goes for collossus high templar ball.
No mech, next to no infestor or broodlord play, no stargate or starport play (with the exception of proxy oracles, occasional mid game banshee harrass and medivac production).
I understand that most people despise infestor/broodlord, but was the right solution really to remove the unit composition from the equation in almost it's entirety? Same is true for mech in TvZ and TvP. There is next to no variety in gameplay at this point.
I mean think about it this way. If units like tanks, thors, swarm hosts, vipers, infestors broodlords or battlecruisers were removed from the game in TvZ would we even notice it in pro matches? Because as it is it's 4M vs. Ling baneling every match anyway, the units mentioned above have disappeared in the matchup almost entirely. Isn't that sad?
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 18 2013 23:47 SlixSC wrote:
Which of course exposes the biggest problem in TvZ. While the viper and swarmhost are both terrible vs. bio, buffing them in any way would make mech even worse than it already is. It's actuallly a dilemma.
This made me think that if Brood War had a better pathing (SC2) and unlimited unit selection, dark swarm would be so much worse against bio, as you could actually run out of it without getting your army stuck and decimated by whatever and cracklings in a flash. Ensnare and plague would on other side have much more utility.... oh wait, am i getting infestors designed here. Now i start to understand how we came from early SC2 builds with BW units and tech to what we have now.
|
On September 18 2013 23:47 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 23:40 phodacbiet wrote:On September 18 2013 23:14 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 18 2013 22:02 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question. it was rhetorical, sorry but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of. actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling". fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will. In fairness the widow mine is more similar to the lurker than it does to a seige tank. They just gave it to to the wrong race. They gave Terran the short range burst aoe that burrows They gave Zerg the long ranged seige unit that wears down enemy defenses It's actually pretty funny. Terran in 2011 needed GOOD space control unit (hence the addition of shredder and later replacing it with widow mine) and zerg needed good ways to break entrenched positions (hence the SH). The widow mine did that, the swarm host did not. Since Terran rarely goes mech in tvz zerg can't go Swarm Host. Swarm hosts are so terrible vs speedivacs and bio that nobody makes them usually outside of zvp and sometimes zvz. And in that case we are right to blame the Blizzard design team for messing up, if you introduce units to the game that hardcounter other units or playstyles but are effectively useless vs other units or playstyles you limit the options of all players.
I think you hit the nail on the head, and an interesting paradox.
In TvP, T cannot go BC because the Tempest counters it so hard. He simply never builds battlecruisers in the matchup. The Tempest doesn't counter anything else in the matchup that well, so P never builds them.
The addition of the tempest actually reduces the amount of viable units in the matchup. The same could be said of SH/Viper and Terran Mech units, but I think widow mine / medivac boost take as much of the blame there.
|
On September 19 2013 00:09 fdsdfg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 23:47 SlixSC wrote:On September 18 2013 23:40 phodacbiet wrote:On September 18 2013 23:14 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 18 2013 22:02 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question. it was rhetorical, sorry but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of. actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling". fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will. In fairness the widow mine is more similar to the lurker than it does to a seige tank. They just gave it to to the wrong race. They gave Terran the short range burst aoe that burrows They gave Zerg the long ranged seige unit that wears down enemy defenses It's actually pretty funny. Terran in 2011 needed GOOD space control unit (hence the addition of shredder and later replacing it with widow mine) and zerg needed good ways to break entrenched positions (hence the SH). The widow mine did that, the swarm host did not. Since Terran rarely goes mech in tvz zerg can't go Swarm Host. Swarm hosts are so terrible vs speedivacs and bio that nobody makes them usually outside of zvp and sometimes zvz. And in that case we are right to blame the Blizzard design team for messing up, if you introduce units to the game that hardcounter other units or playstyles but are effectively useless vs other units or playstyles you limit the options of all players. I think you hit the nail on the head, and an interesting paradox. In TvP, T cannot go BC because the Tempest counters it so hard. He simply never builds battlecruisers in the matchup. The Tempest doesn't counter anything else in the matchup that well, so P never builds them. The addition of the tempest actually reduces the amount of viable units in the matchup. The same could be said of SH/Viper and Terran Mech units, but I think widow mine / medivac boost take as much of the blame there.
That's not entirely accurate, in Parting v Flash on Daybreak, Parting used Tempest/Storm to counter Flash's Viking-Ghost. (There were BC out too, but they were build (foolishly), after the tempests were built). The reason why tempest is useful in the supreme late-game is that it forces fights.
|
On September 19 2013 00:09 fdsdfg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 23:47 SlixSC wrote:On September 18 2013 23:40 phodacbiet wrote:On September 18 2013 23:14 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 18 2013 22:02 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question. it was rhetorical, sorry but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of. actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling". fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will. In fairness the widow mine is more similar to the lurker than it does to a seige tank. They just gave it to to the wrong race. They gave Terran the short range burst aoe that burrows They gave Zerg the long ranged seige unit that wears down enemy defenses It's actually pretty funny. Terran in 2011 needed GOOD space control unit (hence the addition of shredder and later replacing it with widow mine) and zerg needed good ways to break entrenched positions (hence the SH). The widow mine did that, the swarm host did not. Since Terran rarely goes mech in tvz zerg can't go Swarm Host. Swarm hosts are so terrible vs speedivacs and bio that nobody makes them usually outside of zvp and sometimes zvz. And in that case we are right to blame the Blizzard design team for messing up, if you introduce units to the game that hardcounter other units or playstyles but are effectively useless vs other units or playstyles you limit the options of all players. I think you hit the nail on the head, and an interesting paradox. In TvP, T cannot go BC because the Tempest counters it so hard. He simply never builds battlecruisers in the matchup. The Tempest doesn't counter anything else in the matchup that well, so P never builds them. The addition of the tempest actually reduces the amount of viable units in the matchup. The same could be said of SH/Viper and Terran Mech units, but I think widow mine / medivac boost take as much of the blame there.
Yeah it really is a paradox. They added more units to the game, which resulted in less options for all races. Pretty hilarious when you think about it.
On September 19 2013 00:19 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 00:09 fdsdfg wrote:On September 18 2013 23:47 SlixSC wrote:On September 18 2013 23:40 phodacbiet wrote:On September 18 2013 23:14 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 18 2013 22:02 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question. it was rhetorical, sorry but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of. actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling". fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will. In fairness the widow mine is more similar to the lurker than it does to a seige tank. They just gave it to to the wrong race. They gave Terran the short range burst aoe that burrows They gave Zerg the long ranged seige unit that wears down enemy defenses It's actually pretty funny. Terran in 2011 needed GOOD space control unit (hence the addition of shredder and later replacing it with widow mine) and zerg needed good ways to break entrenched positions (hence the SH). The widow mine did that, the swarm host did not. Since Terran rarely goes mech in tvz zerg can't go Swarm Host. Swarm hosts are so terrible vs speedivacs and bio that nobody makes them usually outside of zvp and sometimes zvz. And in that case we are right to blame the Blizzard design team for messing up, if you introduce units to the game that hardcounter other units or playstyles but are effectively useless vs other units or playstyles you limit the options of all players. I think you hit the nail on the head, and an interesting paradox. In TvP, T cannot go BC because the Tempest counters it so hard. He simply never builds battlecruisers in the matchup. The Tempest doesn't counter anything else in the matchup that well, so P never builds them. The addition of the tempest actually reduces the amount of viable units in the matchup. The same could be said of SH/Viper and Terran Mech units, but I think widow mine / medivac boost take as much of the blame there. That's not entirely accurate, in Parting v Flash on Daybreak, Parting used Tempest/Storm to counter Flash's Viking-Ghost. (There were BC out too, but they were build (foolishly), after the tempests were built). The reason why tempest is useful in the supreme late-game is that it forces fights.
We are arguing a general rule here. Of course you can always find single exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't change the fact that overall he's correct.
|
On September 19 2013 00:19 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 00:09 fdsdfg wrote:On September 18 2013 23:47 SlixSC wrote:On September 18 2013 23:40 phodacbiet wrote:On September 18 2013 23:14 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 18 2013 22:02 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question. it was rhetorical, sorry but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of. actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling". fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will. In fairness the widow mine is more similar to the lurker than it does to a seige tank. They just gave it to to the wrong race. They gave Terran the short range burst aoe that burrows They gave Zerg the long ranged seige unit that wears down enemy defenses It's actually pretty funny. Terran in 2011 needed GOOD space control unit (hence the addition of shredder and later replacing it with widow mine) and zerg needed good ways to break entrenched positions (hence the SH). The widow mine did that, the swarm host did not. Since Terran rarely goes mech in tvz zerg can't go Swarm Host. Swarm hosts are so terrible vs speedivacs and bio that nobody makes them usually outside of zvp and sometimes zvz. And in that case we are right to blame the Blizzard design team for messing up, if you introduce units to the game that hardcounter other units or playstyles but are effectively useless vs other units or playstyles you limit the options of all players. I think you hit the nail on the head, and an interesting paradox. In TvP, T cannot go BC because the Tempest counters it so hard. He simply never builds battlecruisers in the matchup. The Tempest doesn't counter anything else in the matchup that well, so P never builds them. The addition of the tempest actually reduces the amount of viable units in the matchup. The same could be said of SH/Viper and Terran Mech units, but I think widow mine / medivac boost take as much of the blame there. That's not entirely accurate, in Parting v Flash on Daybreak, Parting used Tempest/Storm to counter Flash's Viking-Ghost. (There were BC out too, but they were build (foolishly), after the tempests were built). The reason why tempest is useful in the supreme late-game is that it forces fights.
By now there are way more cases of terran going mech against protoss than protoss going tempests against terran.
If we agree that mech is not working in the match-up then clearly neither do tempests.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 19 2013 00:24 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 00:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 19 2013 00:09 fdsdfg wrote:On September 18 2013 23:47 SlixSC wrote:On September 18 2013 23:40 phodacbiet wrote:On September 18 2013 23:14 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 18 2013 22:02 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question. it was rhetorical, sorry but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of. actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling". fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will. In fairness the widow mine is more similar to the lurker than it does to a seige tank. They just gave it to to the wrong race. They gave Terran the short range burst aoe that burrows They gave Zerg the long ranged seige unit that wears down enemy defenses It's actually pretty funny. Terran in 2011 needed GOOD space control unit (hence the addition of shredder and later replacing it with widow mine) and zerg needed good ways to break entrenched positions (hence the SH). The widow mine did that, the swarm host did not. Since Terran rarely goes mech in tvz zerg can't go Swarm Host. Swarm hosts are so terrible vs speedivacs and bio that nobody makes them usually outside of zvp and sometimes zvz. And in that case we are right to blame the Blizzard design team for messing up, if you introduce units to the game that hardcounter other units or playstyles but are effectively useless vs other units or playstyles you limit the options of all players. I think you hit the nail on the head, and an interesting paradox. In TvP, T cannot go BC because the Tempest counters it so hard. He simply never builds battlecruisers in the matchup. The Tempest doesn't counter anything else in the matchup that well, so P never builds them. The addition of the tempest actually reduces the amount of viable units in the matchup. The same could be said of SH/Viper and Terran Mech units, but I think widow mine / medivac boost take as much of the blame there. That's not entirely accurate, in Parting v Flash on Daybreak, Parting used Tempest/Storm to counter Flash's Viking-Ghost. (There were BC out too, but they were build (foolishly), after the tempests were built). The reason why tempest is useful in the supreme late-game is that it forces fights. By now there are way more cases of terran going mech against protoss than protoss going tempests against terran. If we agree that mech is not working in the match-up then clearly neither do tempests.
I recall at least 4 players that have used Tempests to win games they went Tempests in PvT. I remember only 3 players that tried to go mech though.
|
I would argue that neither mech nor tempests work in TvP. And I'm sorry 2-3 matches (which are circumstantial evidence at best) aren't very convincing of the opposite. 2-3 games out of how ever many hundred or thousand pro matches that were played in HotS so far won't make for a very strong case.
I mean wasn't there a battlecruiser rush in GSL recently (which lost, but just for the sake of argument), are we now to assume that battlecruiser rushes are a viable way of winning at the pro level at a consistent rate? Or isn't it just a hit or miss strategy which probably isn't viable as a standard strategy?
I'm sure we could dream up any number of unit compositions that could work in an all-in or in weird games, but in general, 99% of all TvZ and TvP pro level matches end up with the same unit compositions for all races.
|
On September 19 2013 00:45 SlixSC wrote:
I would argue that neither mech nor tempests work in TvP. And I'm sorry 2-3 matches (which are circumstantial evidence at best) aren't very convincing of the opposite. 2-3 games out of how ever many hundred or thousand pro matches that were played in HotS so far won't make for a very strong case.
I mean wasn't there a battlecruiser rush in GSL recently (which lost, but just for the sake of argument), are we now to assume that battlecruiser rushes are a viable way of winning at the pro level at a consistent rate? Or isn't it just a hit or miss strategy which probably isn't viable as a standard strategy?
I'm sure we could dream up any number of unit compositions that could work in an all-in or in weird games, but in general, 99% of all TvZ and TvP pro level matches end up with the same unit compositions for all races.
Usually PvT end before they reach ultra lategame in the current state of the game, but if the Protoss vs Terran standoff with viking/ghost vs HT/Colossi/Cannons would happen in WoL Terran would be in a good spot once you get that army. In HotS Protoss will start to add tempest for zoning and its really hard to approach a defensive Protoss once he gets a few of those capital ships.
You might say we don't see them often, but thats solely for the reason that either Terran or Protoss is dead before. We also didn't see mech in TvZ for a few years in Broodwar, because it was said to be unplayable but fortunately some guys figured out how to and it became one of the very few reliable standards to play.
|
On September 19 2013 00:55 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 00:45 SlixSC wrote:
I would argue that neither mech nor tempests work in TvP. And I'm sorry 2-3 matches (which are circumstantial evidence at best) aren't very convincing of the opposite. 2-3 games out of how ever many hundred or thousand pro matches that were played in HotS so far won't make for a very strong case.
I mean wasn't there a battlecruiser rush in GSL recently (which lost, but just for the sake of argument), are we now to assume that battlecruiser rushes are a viable way of winning at the pro level at a consistent rate? Or isn't it just a hit or miss strategy which probably isn't viable as a standard strategy?
I'm sure we could dream up any number of unit compositions that could work in an all-in or in weird games, but in general, 99% of all TvZ and TvP pro level matches end up with the same unit compositions for all races. Usually PvT end before they reach ultra lategame in the current state of the game, but if the Protoss vs Terran standoff with viking/ghost vs HT/Colossi/Cannons would happen in WoL Terran would be in a good spot once you get that army. In HotS Protoss will start to add tempest for zoning and its really hard to approach a defensive Protoss once he gets a few of those capital ships. You might say we don't see them often, but thats solely for the reason that either Terran or Protoss is dead before. We also didn't see mech in TvZ for a few years in Broodwar, because it was said to be unplayable but fortunately some guys figured out how to and it became one of the very few reliable standards to play.
Right, but what makes you think that what is true for Broodwar is also true for SC2. I mean we can only discuss the current state of the game, what happens in 2-3 years is just speculation.
|
On September 18 2013 23:56 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 23:47 SlixSC wrote:
Which of course exposes the biggest problem in TvZ. While the viper and swarmhost are both terrible vs. bio, buffing them in any way would make mech even worse than it already is. It's actuallly a dilemma. This made me think that if Brood War had a better pathing (SC2) and unlimited unit selection, dark swarm would be so much worse against bio, as you could actually run out of it without getting your army stuck and decimated by whatever and cracklings in a flash. Ensnare and plague would on other side have much more utility.... oh wait, am i getting infestors designed here. Now i start to understand how we came from early SC2 builds with BW units and tech to what we have now.
the advantage of dark swarm was that it had a massive area of effect; where its literally two steps for bio to leave a blinding cloud, it would be much longer to leave a dark swarm, giving speedy zerg units opportune time to catch up with them.
|
I don't know why anyone would want to go mech. Bio gives you huge advantages. Its drawback is you have to get the hard counter to their hard counter. thats it.
Mech you get this nice slow turtle force that your opponent's going to know is coming. Ultimately it should rely on him executing a solid push in order to break the mech turtle. In the meantime everyone knows mech is immobile, so your opponent goes around the map harrassing you any way he can with mutalisk or warp prism. In Brood War spider mines could protect your army reinforcement lines while vultures could respond quickly enough to drops.
The lack of mech in ZvT isn't very surprising, but in PvT I think it could work. I don't understand why ghost-mech isn't used more. Especially now that you can stick hellbats in front instead of hellions. I'm aware of skytoss, but dealing with skytoss can't be any worse than dealing with templar/colossus.
|
On September 19 2013 01:06 DuneBug wrote:
I don't know why anyone would want to go mech. Bio gives you huge advantages. Its drawback is you have to get the hard counter to their hard counter. thats it.
because siege tanks are were awesome.
|
On September 19 2013 00:59 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 00:55 NarutO wrote:On September 19 2013 00:45 SlixSC wrote:
I would argue that neither mech nor tempests work in TvP. And I'm sorry 2-3 matches (which are circumstantial evidence at best) aren't very convincing of the opposite. 2-3 games out of how ever many hundred or thousand pro matches that were played in HotS so far won't make for a very strong case.
I mean wasn't there a battlecruiser rush in GSL recently (which lost, but just for the sake of argument), are we now to assume that battlecruiser rushes are a viable way of winning at the pro level at a consistent rate? Or isn't it just a hit or miss strategy which probably isn't viable as a standard strategy?
I'm sure we could dream up any number of unit compositions that could work in an all-in or in weird games, but in general, 99% of all TvZ and TvP pro level matches end up with the same unit compositions for all races. Usually PvT end before they reach ultra lategame in the current state of the game, but if the Protoss vs Terran standoff with viking/ghost vs HT/Colossi/Cannons would happen in WoL Terran would be in a good spot once you get that army. In HotS Protoss will start to add tempest for zoning and its really hard to approach a defensive Protoss once he gets a few of those capital ships. You might say we don't see them often, but thats solely for the reason that either Terran or Protoss is dead before. We also didn't see mech in TvZ for a few years in Broodwar, because it was said to be unplayable but fortunately some guys figured out how to and it became one of the very few reliable standards to play. Right, but what makes you think that what is true for Broodwar is also true for SC2. I mean we can only discuss the current state of the game, what happens in 2-3 years is just speculation.
I was making a points with tempest. We already see them if the game enters that stage. You make it sound the reason we don't see them is, because they are bad or not useful. The TvP's simply don't enter the very lategame. That was my initial point
|
On September 19 2013 01:12 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 00:59 SlixSC wrote:On September 19 2013 00:55 NarutO wrote:On September 19 2013 00:45 SlixSC wrote:
I would argue that neither mech nor tempests work in TvP. And I'm sorry 2-3 matches (which are circumstantial evidence at best) aren't very convincing of the opposite. 2-3 games out of how ever many hundred or thousand pro matches that were played in HotS so far won't make for a very strong case.
I mean wasn't there a battlecruiser rush in GSL recently (which lost, but just for the sake of argument), are we now to assume that battlecruiser rushes are a viable way of winning at the pro level at a consistent rate? Or isn't it just a hit or miss strategy which probably isn't viable as a standard strategy?
I'm sure we could dream up any number of unit compositions that could work in an all-in or in weird games, but in general, 99% of all TvZ and TvP pro level matches end up with the same unit compositions for all races. Usually PvT end before they reach ultra lategame in the current state of the game, but if the Protoss vs Terran standoff with viking/ghost vs HT/Colossi/Cannons would happen in WoL Terran would be in a good spot once you get that army. In HotS Protoss will start to add tempest for zoning and its really hard to approach a defensive Protoss once he gets a few of those capital ships. You might say we don't see them often, but thats solely for the reason that either Terran or Protoss is dead before. We also didn't see mech in TvZ for a few years in Broodwar, because it was said to be unplayable but fortunately some guys figured out how to and it became one of the very few reliable standards to play. Right, but what makes you think that what is true for Broodwar is also true for SC2. I mean we can only discuss the current state of the game, what happens in 2-3 years is just speculation. I was making a points with tempest. We already see them if the game enters that stage. You make it sound the reason we don't see them is, because they are bad or not useful. The TvP's simply don't enter the very lategame. That was my initial point
Doesn't the fact that they are almost never used make them useless by definition? Granted, you have much more insight into TvP than I do, because you are a much better player and more knowledgeable in the matchups.
I can accept that the tempest might not be bad, but the fact that it's never used, because almost no game ever gets to the stage where it's useful still makes it a questionable unit from a design perspective.
What's the point of introducing units to the game that are only useful in specific circumstances and cannot be used in any other context, but hardcounter other units (such as mech or BCs) to a point where we see even less of these other unit compositions? Wouldn't you agree that, at the very least, that's a potential problem with the unit, irrespective of how good it is in certain circumstances, when in general it limits the options of the terran player and subsequently also the options of the protoss player?
|
There is no need to compliment me. I don't feel superior to a lower level player as long as he doesn't come off as an idiot. I think the design of the unit in itself isn't interesting and bad, but I dare to say that never used doesn't equal useless. I dare to say , that never used also is a big exaggeration. They are frequently used in Protoss vs Protoss and they are also very useful against Broodlords in PvZ.
While I believe that the best units are units you can make use of at any stage of the game, I feel like there is no problem with a unit that holds value only in a particular situation. Queens were rarely used in Broodwar, but there were games and they did help out greatly in some situations. The general problem with TvP is that its very deathball-ish and often time leads to onesided games were one of the sides gets a clear win or loss, never a back and forth game.
If you were to talk about one match up, I would agree that tempests are rarely seen, but you always have to keep an eye on e very match up. I could mention tanks are rarely to never seen in TvP - or when they are - they usually lose hard. I can mention that Ghosts are rarely to never seen in Terran vs Zerg and Broodlords rarely in ZvZ. Some units are a better fit to fight a race than others, just something we have to work with and I really don't see a problem with the tempest as a unit that is not used as standard everygame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
