|
On January 02 2014 06:52 Genie1 wrote:
It honestly comes down to core design of the game and also the maps. It just feels like you don't even need to bother with map control. If players were forced to get more bases and spread out there units maybe the game would improve but this also shows the core design issue. The deathball needs to go and map control made the primary factor of the game again. I remember in brood war that if you gave up map control you're basically giving away the game.
It must be a nightmare to design maps when you have stuff like warpgate, blink, MsC in the game.
|
seriously, fuck this game. 10 tvps in a row, all of them doing allins. Im master terran and I play unranked and face fucking plat protoss players and I keep losing to retarded shit all the fucking time. Scouting with an scv and a reaper isnt always enough even, you cant find out what the fuck theyre doing in time anyways.
Im this close to quitting the game entirely. Fuck this shit.
|
4713 Posts
On January 02 2014 06:04 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2014 04:59 ZenithM wrote:
I like how Terran's problem is its beautiful design :'(
It's a good thing that top players are able to distinguish themselves from decent players, I wouldn't trade that off for a few % in winrates. It's hardly beautiful design when the race consists of massing their first combat units and a handful of other ones for support. One viable unit comp, no transitions, nothing but the same timing attack game after game. You might consider the race ideal if you thought this a game of mechanics and nothing else, but many of us would rather have more than that. The race needs to be much, much less reliant on the marine, no matter how much of a boner some people have for microing them.
I hate to break it to you, but that's how a well designed race is supposed to operate, the core of the army is still the mass of basic units, but as the game drags on, more bases are taken, higher tech is researched, you add in more units to support and complement your basic army.
That is how marine tank operates to a certain extent, you have the basic army of marines, the support of tanks and medivacs.
That's how zerg works, you have the primary army of lings and/or hydras and roaches, then you have the support cast of infestors, vipers, SH, corrupters and mutas.
That's how the races worked in BW as well. You started off with basic armies of marines, firebats and medics, you transitioned into tanks and you topped it off with science vessels. The zerg would respond by going lings first, transitioning into lurkers for zone control and ambush/delaying tactics and rounded out his army with defilers, scourge and ultralisk.
Toss worked about the same, the primary army consisted of zealots, dragoons and later on shuttles, reavers, templar, arbiters and archons got added.
Hell, that is exactly how real life armies function, the bulk is and always has been the infantry supported by artillery, archers, cavalry and now in modern times tanks and aircraft.
Your argument is bullshit, instead of making terran less reliant on marines it should be the other way around, the other races get their basic units redesigned to be more micro-able and skillful to use and their other units are reworked to fill a support role.
I actually wouldn't even mind if Protoss deviated from this basic design by having the core of its army be the expensive units, if those units required more skill to use. Colossus is a sickening example of that just not being the case.
The reason you perceive no sense of progress in tech and unit composition, is because the macro mechanics in SC2 accelerate the game so much. In BW it took quite a long time to go from marines and lings all the way to science vessels and defilers. You actually had a ton of pushes and fights on the map with just basic units and added more support as the game went on. In SC2 on the other hand you can't have skirmishes, the design of the game is such that either a push is too efficient and it can kill someone off or its too weak and it doesn't even deserve being done because it will be stopped. So often players macro up to a reasonable level, usually unlocking about half or more of their arsenal before a fight even occurs.
If there was some kind of middle ground where you could start skirmishing right off the bat, without it being all-in or crippling good, then the entire tempo of the game would look different and you'd have more of this sense of progression in tech and units as each player would need to juggle economy with defense or offense.
And again, for that to happen you'd need to redesign a lot of things from the get go, you need to remove mechanics that make skirmishes all-in early game, like the retarded speed difference between marines and stalkers, the creep speed, forcefields and concussive shells, that way maybe you could have action start very early and you'd have players slowly adding on the next elements of their armies while expanding and fighting at the same time.
Of course there is still the issue of late game units just flat out sucking, that still needs to be addressed in some way because, if BCs, Carriers, BLs, Thors, Ravens suck outside some niche situation, or are too hard to get too, then they will be ignored. If they, however can fill an important role in the army, and complement the power of the composition, then you certainly would see them added.
So yes, you actually would need to add more synergy between the primary armies and some of the late game units.
|
On January 02 2014 08:36 Fjodorov wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2014 06:52 Genie1 wrote:
It honestly comes down to core design of the game and also the maps. It just feels like you don't even need to bother with map control. If players were forced to get more bases and spread out there units maybe the game would improve but this also shows the core design issue. The deathball needs to go and map control made the primary factor of the game again. I remember in brood war that if you gave up map control you're basically giving away the game. It must be a nightmare to design maps when you have stuff like warpgate, blink, MsC in the game.
Actually, warpgate isn't such a problem for map design any more now that low ground warp-ins are gone. Blink is definitely a problem (although a lot of times maps with really abusable blink cliffs still make it into the map pool), but the MsC is pretty much only a problem because of blink.
Zerglings seem like the biggest thing controlling SC2 map diversity. Every main must have a single small ramp or something else that can be walled with depot rax depot, every natural must be defendable by forge fast expand. Anything else is potentially game-breaking, as Protoss and Terran would have to make absurd defensive investments early game just to survive a 9pool. Has that formula been innovated on since Scrap Station, Jungle Basin, and Blistering Sands? Oh, and I suppose the original Shakuras Plateau also had back rocks into the main.
Don't get me wrong, I love zerglings and will happily play on maps with small-ramp mains and FFE-able naturals for the rest of my days. But it's worth acknowledging that the standards of map design we have now are already to a significant extent designed to maintain a balanced game.
|
On January 02 2014 06:14 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2014 06:04 Bagi wrote:On January 02 2014 04:59 ZenithM wrote:
I like how Terran's problem is its beautiful design :'(
It's a good thing that top players are able to distinguish themselves from decent players, I wouldn't trade that off for a few % in winrates. It's hardly beautiful design when the race consists of massing their first combat units and a handful of other ones for support. One viable unit comp, no transitions, nothing but the same timing attack game after game. You might consider the race ideal if you thought this a game of mechanics and nothing else, but many of us would rather have more than that. The race needs to be much, much less reliant on the marine, no matter how much of a boner some people have for microing them. Thing is, mech issues in TvP/Z (more in TvP than in TvZ) are not only due to the fact mech is not very well built in SC2; it's also because the other side has so much hardcounter nonsense. Units like the Immortal, the Tempest, the Swarm host or the Viper are also, if not mostly, responsible for Terran being forced or "'strongly encouraged" to play bio.
You can look at it as hardcounter nonsense, but you can also look at it as lack of Mech design/balancing.
And with all respect, if amongst 5 Factory units and 4 Starport units you can't find proper ways to deal with stuff that isn't even existent in the ZvZ and TvZ bio metagame and situational in the PvZ metagame I tend to blame Mech for it and not the Blinding Cloud, even if I'd propose to change the cloud because it's the easy way and would allow for an interesting mechanic (Siege Mode) to shine.
Similarily with Immortals and Archons. (don't consider SHs as dealbreakers for anything, especially after the last Mech buffs; and Tempests scenarios are way to exotic and unfigured when we assume a world in which Mech is not an autolose on the ground already).
It's really much less the fault of the Archon that 1.5techpaths of Terran cannot break high HP opponents that aren't armored, nor the Immortals that nearly everything Mech is designed around high burst and basically nothing about constant fireing or reasonable AtG combat at a reasonable timing (like mutas or VRs). That's all on Mech and hardly on the other races for having such stuff.
|
On January 02 2014 08:47 Destructicon wrote:
If there was some kind of middle ground where you could start skirmishing right off the bat, without it being all-in or crippling good, then the entire tempo of the game would look different and you'd have more of this sense of progression in tech and units as each player would need to juggle economy with defense or offense.
I read someone suggest that the gas income per base should be decreased (by mining it slower or just one gas per base). This theoretically give players a mineral bank that could be spent on basic mineral only units which would promote some aggression and it gives players a reason to take more bases faster to increase the gas incoming.
I would love more map experiments with only one gas per base or something like that just to see what happens.
|
On January 02 2014 08:59 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2014 08:36 Fjodorov wrote:On January 02 2014 06:52 Genie1 wrote:
It honestly comes down to core design of the game and also the maps. It just feels like you don't even need to bother with map control. If players were forced to get more bases and spread out there units maybe the game would improve but this also shows the core design issue. The deathball needs to go and map control made the primary factor of the game again. I remember in brood war that if you gave up map control you're basically giving away the game. It must be a nightmare to design maps when you have stuff like warpgate, blink, MsC in the game. Actually, warpgate isn't such a problem for map design any more now that low ground warp-ins are gone. Blink is definitely a problem (although a lot of times maps with really abusable blink cliffs still make it into the map pool), but the MsC is pretty much only a problem because of blink. Zerglings seem like the biggest thing controlling SC2 map diversity. Every main must have a single small ramp or something else that can be walled with depot rax depot, every natural must be defendable by forge fast expand. Anything else is potentially game-breaking, as Protoss and Terran would have to make absurd defensive investments early game just to survive a 9pool. Has that formula been innovated on since Scrap Station, Jungle Basin, and Blistering Sands? Oh, and I suppose the original Shakuras Plateau also had back rocks into the main. Don't get me wrong, I love zerglings and will happily play on maps with small-ramp mains and FFE-able naturals for the rest of my days. But it's worth acknowledging that the standards of map design we have now are already to a significant extent designed to maintain a balanced game.
you have the same problem with hellions, at least in TvT and TvZ. If you make wide-open naturals and double-wide or even wider main ramps, or multiple entrances its hellion galore. And I suppose in TvP also early game stalkers. If you can't defend your natural with that one bunker, you can't expand for ages.
|
4713 Posts
On January 02 2014 09:05 Gullis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2014 08:47 Destructicon wrote:
If there was some kind of middle ground where you could start skirmishing right off the bat, without it being all-in or crippling good, then the entire tempo of the game would look different and you'd have more of this sense of progression in tech and units as each player would need to juggle economy with defense or offense. I read someone suggesting that the gas income per base should be decreased (by mining it slower or just one gas per base). This could theoretically give players a mineral bank that could be spent on basic mineral only units which could promote some aggression and it gives players a reason to take more bases faster to increase the gas incoming. I would love more map experiments with only one gas bases or something like that just to see what happens.
That isn't even completely necessary, you'd just need aggression to be a bit stronger in and of itself, but not strong enough it could be crippling and maybe also give people more reasons to be out on the map, then players would need to dedicate some resources to making army, and some to economy, and this would naturally slow down both the expanding and the teching.
Say, if being out on the map meant you where safer, as in you could see all-ins coming sooner, without risk of losing all your units (because of speedlings, concussive shells, creep speed and faster stalkers then marines), then more players would be out on the map posturing. Posturing and moving around creates tension, resulting in the need for extra safety, that of course comes at the expense off economy or tech.
|
On January 02 2014 08:47 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2014 06:04 Bagi wrote:On January 02 2014 04:59 ZenithM wrote:
I like how Terran's problem is its beautiful design :'(
It's a good thing that top players are able to distinguish themselves from decent players, I wouldn't trade that off for a few % in winrates. It's hardly beautiful design when the race consists of massing their first combat units and a handful of other ones for support. One viable unit comp, no transitions, nothing but the same timing attack game after game. You might consider the race ideal if you thought this a game of mechanics and nothing else, but many of us would rather have more than that. The race needs to be much, much less reliant on the marine, no matter how much of a boner some people have for microing them. I hate to break it to you, but that's how a well designed race is supposed to operate, the core of the army is still the mass of basic units, but as the game drags on, more bases are taken, higher tech is researched, you add in more units to support and complement your basic army. That is how marine tank operates to a certain extent, you have the basic army of marines, the support of tanks and medivacs. That's how zerg works, you have the primary army of lings and/or hydras and roaches, then you have the support cast of infestors, vipers, SH, corrupters and mutas. That's how the races worked in BW as well. You started off with basic armies of marines, firebats and medics, you transitioned into tanks and you topped it off with science vessels. The zerg would respond by going lings first, transitioning into lurkers for zone control and ambush/delaying tactics and rounded out his army with defilers, scourge and ultralisk. Toss worked about the same, the primary army consisted of zealots, dragoons and later on shuttles, reavers, templar, arbiters and archons got added. Hell, that is exactly how real life armies function, the bulk is and always has been the infantry supported by artillery, archers, cavalry and now in modern times tanks and aircraft. Your argument is bullshit, instead of making terran less reliant on marines it should be the other way around, the other races get their basic units redesigned to be more micro-able and skillful to use and their other units are reworked to fill a support role. I actually wouldn't even mind if Protoss deviated from this basic design by having the core of its army be the expensive units, if those units required more skill to use. Colossus is a sickening example of that just not being the case. The reason you perceive no sense of progress in tech and unit composition, is because the macro mechanics in SC2 accelerate the game so much. In BW it took quite a long time to go from marines and lings all the way to science vessels and defilers. You actually had a ton of pushes and fights on the map with just basic units and added more support as the game went on. In SC2 on the other hand you can't have skirmishes, the design of the game is such that either a push is too efficient and it can kill someone off or its too weak and it doesn't even deserve being done because it will be stopped. So often players macro up to a reasonable level, usually unlocking about half or more of their arsenal before a fight even occurs. If there was some kind of middle ground where you could start skirmishing right off the bat, without it being all-in or crippling good, then the entire tempo of the game would look different and you'd have more of this sense of progression in tech and units as each player would need to juggle economy with defense or offense. And again, for that to happen you'd need to redesign a lot of things from the get go, you need to remove mechanics that make skirmishes all-in early game, like the retarded speed difference between marines and stalkers, the creep speed, forcefields and concussive shells, that way maybe you could have action start very early and you'd have players slowly adding on the next elements of their armies while expanding and fighting at the same time. Of course there is still the issue of late game units just flat out sucking, that still needs to be addressed in some way because, if BCs, Carriers, BLs, Thors, Ravens suck outside some niche situation, or are too hard to get too, then they will be ignored. If they, however can fill an important role in the army, and complement the power of the composition, then you certainly would see them added. So yes, you actually would need to add more synergy between the primary armies and some of the late game units.
That's not true at all. A well designed-race leads to good and manifold gameplay and can be tweaked easily without ruining balance with small tweaks on single units. That's a well- designed race, and has nothing to do with basic units.
Also your history is wrong. BW was often Zerg rushing midtech mutalisks.
Terran had this strategy called Mech, which they played ~80% of the time in which they said "fuck early game units, give me more mid and lategame units".
Protoss was relying on rushing hightech stuff all the time (reavers, Templars).
It's just not true that the races started with lots of basic units and then added the other ones, most of the time it was the other way around, you built the tech and your core units and then supported it with what else was possible to grab which means mostly early game units.
In a good RTS, core units are defined by their metagame roles, not by some place in the techtree or their ressource costs.
|
On January 02 2014 09:11 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2014 09:05 Gullis wrote:On January 02 2014 08:47 Destructicon wrote:
If there was some kind of middle ground where you could start skirmishing right off the bat, without it being all-in or crippling good, then the entire tempo of the game would look different and you'd have more of this sense of progression in tech and units as each player would need to juggle economy with defense or offense. I read someone suggesting that the gas income per base should be decreased (by mining it slower or just one gas per base). This could theoretically give players a mineral bank that could be spent on basic mineral only units which could promote some aggression and it gives players a reason to take more bases faster to increase the gas incoming. I would love more map experiments with only one gas bases or something like that just to see what happens. That isn't even completely necessary, you'd just need aggression to be a bit stronger in and of itself, but not strong enough it could be crippling and maybe also give people more reasons to be out on the map, then players would need to dedicate some resources to making army, and some to economy, and this would naturally slow down both the expanding and the teching. Say, if being out on the map meant you where safer, as in you could see all-ins coming sooner, without risk of losing all your units (because of speedlings, concussive shells, creep speed and faster stalkers then marines), then more players would be out on the map posturing. Posturing and moving around creates tension, resulting in the need for extra safety, that of course comes at the expense off economy or tech.
The extra mineral units and the need to get "relatively" faster bases would make aggression, posturing and moving around more natural. Additionally in mid/late game you would fight more with a less gas heavy army to secure more bases which would make the boring "max out on 3 bases" less attractive.
I agree with everything you said especially the second part but to decrease the gas income per base would make it much easier to achieve said goal and would make the game better in the long run.
|
4713 Posts
And, if the basic units, that you mass anyway, can do most of the heavy lifting then its easier to achieve a good and manifold gameplay.
In SC2 we have a problem where protoss and zerg can't extract the same value out of their basic units a lot of the time and it leads to them often having to be more reliant on their support cast, where a lot of issues could be fixed if the basic units where first fixed. Colossus wouldn't have to be so cripplingly strong if GW units where strong on their own.
Yes zerg did rush to mutalisks, but only in order to setup their plan of containing the terran and slowing him down for enough to put into place the building blocks of their next strategy, the primary fighting army was still masses of lings, supported by lurkers, defilers and scourge.
And yes while protoss did often rush to higher tech stuff, the bulk of the army still consisted of zealots and dragoons supported by storms, arbiters, archons, reavers and carriers.
That is a good definition of an RTS, but it isn't mutually exclusive to what I said.
In a good RTS the basic units are the damage dealers and the damage soakers, they allow fights to happen early and often. Later on as more resources and tech is unlocked additional units are fielded to complement the armies.
Lings, for the longest time where still the core of the army, the damage dealers.
Mutalisks complemented the zerg army by delaying long enough to get a economy and Lurkers. Lurkers complemented the zerg army by providing aoe, delaying, ambushing or holding chokes. Defilers complemented the zerg army by making the zerg army more cost efficient, ultralisks by providing more punch needed at times to break fortified positions, and scourge by eliminating vessels.
Marines and medics where the core of the army.
Tanks where added on later to help pushes and for defensive purposes, holding high ground, chokes etc.
Vessels where added to provide more aoe, as anti-casters, spotters.
Now if you look at SC2, you still see most of those basic elements in Terran or Zerg, how about Protoss?
Yes, its not there, with protoss the GW army is there just to act as a meatshield, not as the main fighting force. You add sentries into the GW army just to make it cost efficient or for it to survive, you then add on Colossus, Void Rays or Storm to be even more cost efficient.
So what I'm trying to get at is that. Is that in the most successful RTS, BW the winning formula was often to have a solid core army of basic units, and as the game progressed you added other units that allowed your basic army to do things it couldn't do before, like zone control, bypass defenses, siege etc. Terran and Zerg kind of adhere to this philosophy in SC2, but Protoss flat out break it, by virtue of their basic army flat out sucking. They actually need their pseudo zone control (sentry) very early just to survive and be cost efficient, and because their army is so crap instead of adding in more units that allow them to do more things, and thus complement their army, they just add in even more cost efficient units in terms of damage per supply and critical mass potential.
|
We have too much reliance and strengs on basic units in SC2. Not by far but yeah, it's already too much, I don't want to trade even more efficiently with zerglings and roaches and marines and marauders and zealots against tanks, thors, swarmhosts, ultras, archons, immortals.
I wish there was a game in which I wouldn't have to rely purely on ling/bling/roach throughout the first 12mins of the game and still mostly later on.
I wish there was a game in which building 2-3 tanks would actually make me safe against a lowtier unit spam of P/T/Z.
Having powerful early game units is good because it gives you easy access to safety and aggression, having them dominate fights throughout all of the game is bad because then we get zerglings running berserk all over the map, zealot warpins raping bases and marineballs dominating what strategies the opponent can play.
And: Starcraft 2 is the most successful RTS in all forms of measurable success.
|
Destructicon I'm not sure why are you calling my post "bullshit" and then ranting about marine/tank in SC2. Who goes marine/tank? Its pure MMM, the unit comp you reach at 7 minutes and never stop building until the end of the game.
I'm not arguing against marine being a core unit, I'm arguing against it being the only one that matters. I actually really enjoyed WoL TvZ because it actually worked like you describe: you start with marines, add marauders. tanks, medivacs, thors, later on even ravens or ghosts (when they were still good). All of these felt like meaningful additions to your army, with the marine still as the core unit. Now thanks to Blizzard turning the game speed up a few notches most of all those units are obsolete and you are still massing 90% marines 20 minutes into the game. That's my problem.
|
Imagine how much easier it would be for blizzard to balance if the mechanical requirement was similar for all three races. Achieving racial parity would be so much simpler, and we saw this in action pre widowmine nerf in tvz, where both races had an incredible amount of stuff to be doing, very difficult micro (baneling control, splitting zerglings vs mines, muta control, marine micro, widowmine micro) and actual macro mechanics that required you to look away from the army.
Oh well.
|
On January 02 2014 11:22 Bagi wrote:
Destructicon I'm not sure why are you calling my post "bullshit" and then ranting about marine/tank in SC2. Who goes marine/tank? Its pure MMM, the unit comp you reach at 7 minutes and never stop building until the end of the game.
I'm not arguing against marine being a core unit, I'm arguing against it being the only one that matters. I actually really enjoyed WoL TvZ because it actually worked like you describe: you start with marines, add marauders. tanks, medivacs, thors, later on even ravens or ghosts (when they were still good). All of these felt like meaningful additions to your army, with the marine still as the core unit. Now thanks to Blizzard turning the game speed up a few notches most of all those units are obsolete and you are still massing 90% marines 20 minutes into the game. That's my problem.
I just rewatched Taeja vs Innovation (#1 in the Best games of 2013). Of course, it's probably a special case because that particular game was just off the charts, but TvT generally has always been a great matchup, and every Terran unit can be used almost all game long, in reasonable quantities, no matter the opening.
TvT yields arguably good gameplay, variety of openings and army compositions, micro-intensive engagements, positional play, possibility of defending expands without a huge investment, tech transitions at various speed, constant harassment opportunities. So I don't think it's very fair to put all the burden on Terran, because in fact, in a vacuum, Terran produces enjoyable gameplay experiences.
|
On January 02 2014 06:20 ZenithM wrote:
I think what would be more urgent (but won't be done, obviously) is to give Protoss and Zerg more micro-able shit to do and balance around that, rather than give Terran microless compositions of its own.
This is something blizzard should. A move mech marauders would be a disaster for the game and its depth.
Instead, we all know that if Protoss is played at 100% it becomes near impossible to beat them with a Terran. Maybe by making it harder for the protoss player to reach that level by slowly evolving the 1A unit design of the protoss to something more deep, it would really differentiate the really good protoss to the average/bad ones.
Things like:
-Colossus is now slow like the thor. Emphasizes the importance of positioning and slows the mobility of the deathball somewhat.
-Zealots get movement speed increase instead of charge (with the mindless autohits). Positioning of Zealots become important and perhaps more zealot surrounds and flanks can be emphasized (they can also be used in PvZ more effectively)
-HTs now dont have smart cast on storms but storms are buffed accordingly! I really think this will bring back storm moments similiar to BW and somewhat fix the "mutalisk" problem also if the HTs are controlled well. This will REALLY seperate the pros from the average ladder joe.
-Phoenixes are given normal attacks but can glide and shoot instead of what it does now.
-Oracles firing projectile based energy AOE attack instead of an 1A energy based attack.
The only unit I think that is "microable" is probably the stalker and blink. Instead of making things faster or buffing stats, they should really think about how to make a unit more effective itself if controlled with precision like some Terran units.
This is on top of softening the hard counters like immos or feedbacks to allow for Terran to use some of its other buried away units..
|
I want to hear someone defend 5:50 proxy oracle build in TvP. Someone here make the case.
I recently lost to this. I scouted his main with reaper, and ran the reaper around the map. I somehow didn't see the proxy.
I had 4 marines from my 2 barracks and was making a tech lab on my factory in case of a blink all in from a proxy I might not have seen.
Because I had 4 marines at 5:50 due to making that initial reaper, I lost all my marines and proceeded to lose the game.
Where is the skill there? Where is the actual gameplay? Any terran build that doesn't have 5 marines at 5:50 auto loses to a proxy that you might not scout, even if you make a unit specifically to scout it.
|
On January 02 2014 11:59 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
I want to hear someone defend 5:50 proxy oracle build in TvP. Someone here make the case.
I recently lost to this. I scouted his main with reaper, and ran the reaper around the map. I somehow didn't see the proxy.
I had 4 marines from my 2 barracks and was making a tech lab on my factory in case of a blink all in from a proxy I might not have seen.
Because I had 4 marines at 5:50 due to making that initial reaper, I lost all my marines and proceeded to lose the game.
Where is the skill there? Where is the actual gameplay? Any terran build that doesn't have 5 marines at 5:50 auto loses to a proxy that you might not scout, even if you make a unit specifically to scout it. Mine first, then tech lab.
You failed to account for the fact that you were going to have a low marine count, when you had incomplete knowledge of your opponent's build. If you'd built the mine first, then the tech lab, you would have been able to fend off the Oracle (or at least buy time for more marines), while still being able to get a tank out in time for a blink all-in.
|
On January 02 2014 12:17 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2014 11:59 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
I want to hear someone defend 5:50 proxy oracle build in TvP. Someone here make the case.
I recently lost to this. I scouted his main with reaper, and ran the reaper around the map. I somehow didn't see the proxy.
I had 4 marines from my 2 barracks and was making a tech lab on my factory in case of a blink all in from a proxy I might not have seen.
Because I had 4 marines at 5:50 (or whatever random Oracle timing we are discussing) due to making that initial reaper, I lost all my marines and proceeded to lose the game.
Where is the skill there? Where is the actual gameplay? Any terran build that doesn't have 5 marines at 5:50 auto loses to a proxy that you might not scout, even if you make a unit specifically to scout it. Mine first, then tech lab. You failed to account for the fact that you were going to have a low marine count, when you had incomplete knowledge of your opponent's build. If you'd built the mine first, then the tech lab, you would have been able to fend off the Oracle (or at least buy time for more marines), while still being able to get a tank out in time for a blink all-in.
I think what is so weird with SC2 here is that so early as 5 minutes (or whatever random Oracle timing we are discussing) into the game one of the races have the potenial to make a misstake that straight out loses him the game (Terran) and the other race cannot be killed by anything during the first 10 minutes.
I dont think you should be able to lose vs one unit because you were 3 seconds slow on producing Marine 5/6.
Just my five cents...
I mean, there are no situations in the game when you can say to a Protoss "you scouted bad and started your Stalker 2 seconds to late so you just autodie, blame yourself".
|
Wait I must be doing something weird because for one, I have 6 marines at 5:50 (with reaper then reactor obviously, although it's probably identical with reactor then double reapers), and for 2, I'm far away from even starting my factory by the point I have 4 marines haha. I go e-bay and +1 first though.
Is it really necessary to have the factory up that fast?
Edit: I have 6 marines at 5:50 by not missing a beat indeed, if you miss production time for a few seconds you don't have them "in time". Although I do wonder. If 5:50 is the earliest proxy oracle timing (I don't know the timings very well, oracles seem to be able to pop up in my mineral line at completely random times haha), it should be visible on the reaper scout right? Like, he probably has to skip the MS core or something, he can't possibly build his stargate straight after the cybercore and still have a normal Protoss base look :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
