EPTIf suddenly zerg, for example can easily hold off attacks with pure spine crawler, the obvious optimal macro strategy is to just expand as quickly as possible and turn every larva into a drone. Zerg players would build far fewer units than they do at the moment. Likewise for protoss and terran.
Too Much Firepower, Not Enough Stalkers - Page 21
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
BronzeLeague
United States17 Posts
If suddenly zerg, for example can easily hold off attacks with pure spine crawler, the obvious optimal macro strategy is to just expand as quickly as possible and turn every larva into a drone. Zerg players would build far fewer units than they do at the moment. Likewise for protoss and terran. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On February 02 2012 08:33 BronzeLeague wrote: I dont think you have actually thought through what more powerful static defense would do. The reason people use greedy builds is because they want to build an economy while building as few units as possible. If suddenly zerg, for example can easily hold off attacks with pure spine crawler, the obvious optimal macro strategy is to just expand as quickly as possible and turn every larva into a drone. Zerg players would build far fewer units than they do at the moment. Likewise for protoss and terran. If they did that though, Protoss and Terran would play in a similar fashion: throwing down ridiculously unsafe expansions because they can cannon/bunker it up after, and powerful timing attacks would become ultra-viable. He's not suggesting that you can defend with just static defense, but that static defense becomes more effective than it is at the moment. You should be able to hold off a larger force in the early/midgame with static defense present, but only if you actually commit to defending. Note that some tech in the game makes static defense worthless, like siege tanks, colossi with range, brood lords etc., and that there are entire ways to avoid static defense (drops, nydus worms, flying, etc.). What stronger static defense does is weaken rushes and make tech more important. | ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
On February 02 2012 08:36 Whitewing wrote: If they did that though, Protoss and Terran would play in a similar fashion: throwing down ridiculously unsafe expansions because they can cannon/bunker it up after, and powerful timing attacks would become ultra-viable. I thought protoss were already doing that to a certain extent? Forge first expands work exactly as they do, because the Cannon alone works perfectly fine against many zerg builds. Fact is balancing static defences is always pretty hard for the game designers. They need to be cost effective or no one would build them, but by the same token they need to be weak after a certain point or everyone would just turtle behind them. Frankly i dislike the metagame shift in ZvP where Zergs turtle behind 20 Spines to get a broodlord ball out. Imho it shows that Zerg static defense is already too strong. Ps: Aside from it's obvious weakness against air and units that outrange static defense, there is almost nothing that can break a Spinecrawler wall cost effectively if they are supported by Queens. That was what made the Spanishiwa builds work for a while, but you can hardly attack with Spinecrawlers which is why most people stopped playing them. | ||
|
Chewie
Denmark708 Posts
SC2 is a game of numbers, and it should be a game of creativity. I think that if you reduce the hardcounters in the game, you would increase the possibility of creativity. The games looks the same, no matter who is playing. The difference is mostly in the numbers. It should be more about clever positioning and forethought, like chess. Chess is a superior strategy game imo. Its no where as fun to watch though. But all the pieces fill a role, and no one piece works alone. And its all about zoning and pushing in a methodical way, using a grand plan, and adapting to the unforseen. SC2 should be more like chess. Also like chess, i guess, you need more time to be methodical. And the point about unit speed and dps in BW vs SC2 is a good point of the OP. | ||
|
AndreiDaGiant
United States394 Posts
| ||
|
Mataza
Germany5364 Posts
On January 18 2012 19:11 Tobberoth wrote: Thors vs Muta overall is just dumb as crap. One minor mistake, such as flying 1 milimeter too close to a thor you haven't seen, and he gets one shot off. Boom, 20 mutas brought to orange HP. The idea that you have to micro mutas against Thors is a good thing, it's a counter which can be overcome by skill. Problem again being firepower and speed, there's NO margin for error. A ½ second is enough to go from a good position to a bad position just because of the insane firepower of a single thor. Like OP said, this fight would also benefit from a 50% balance. Lower the damage by 50%, but increase the splash range, or something like that. Encourange micro, while not making minor mistakes cost too much. Not to rain on your enthusiasm, but the better change would be to increase Thor anti air fire rate and decrease damage per volley. If you increase Thor air splash, then magic boxing stops working. I heartfully agree though, imho photon cannons are glass cannons. The damage is good, but they have less hp than a damn pylon. Other changes are not so obvious to me, but there might be room for improvement anyway *crossfinger for HotS*. | ||
|
unix04
United States89 Posts
| ||
|
Agh
United States902 Posts
I will agree that most all units should be more in line with stalkers (worst dps per cost by a fairly absurd margin) and static defenses should be buffed. Trying to equalize units and buffing static defenses also helps maps, and reduces the never ending feel that maps just need to be 'bigger', which just creates larger game flaws / 'imbalances'. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On February 02 2012 08:47 Tula wrote: I thought protoss were already doing that to a certain extent? Forge first expands work exactly as they do, because the Cannon alone works perfectly fine against many zerg builds. Fact is balancing static defences is always pretty hard for the game designers. They need to be cost effective or no one would build them, but by the same token they need to be weak after a certain point or everyone would just turtle behind them. Frankly i dislike the metagame shift in ZvP where Zergs turtle behind 20 Spines to get a broodlord ball out. Imho it shows that Zerg static defense is already too strong. Ps: Aside from it's obvious weakness against air and units that outrange static defense, there is almost nothing that can break a Spinecrawler wall cost effectively if they are supported by Queens. That was what made the Spanishiwa builds work for a while, but you can hardly attack with Spinecrawlers which is why most people stopped playing them. Not quite. FFE works not because of the strength of a cannon, but because of the strength of a wall off with a cannon or two combined against early game zerg. Note that it is far insufficient to just rely on cannons (you need sentries too to hold all-ins), and it won't help you take a third. It's also useless against protoss and terran. | ||
|
TheRPGAddict
United States1403 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10318 Posts
On January 18 2012 18:58 slytown wrote: If you don't like the game, go back to playing BW. Noone's stopping you. You're listing off complete design changes instead of specific issues. I love BW and won't hate you for switching back.  disagree, these are specific issues o.o and pointing out issues and suggesting design changes... u can't suggest design changes without pointing out specific issues, so what do u mean? | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On February 02 2012 01:23 NoctemSC wrote: TvT is a good matchup? you must not play terran, friend. I can't tell you how many times it's come to the same Viking/tank wars that are drawn out to 35-40 minutes. I'm okay with a semi long game every once in a while but as it stands you either win by cheese or by playing tank wars all about positioning and how many tanks you can pump out. Every time I play a TvT I want to ragequit, not because I'm not good at using tank/viking play but because it's extremely stale and boring. You just described exactly why TvT is fun and the best mirror. It's (usually) a slower paced, positional game that is the polar opposite of the deathball nonsense we get in Protoss play for instance. Instead of bashing armies into each other in single decisive engagements, you can end up trading a lot of units for minimal ground gain in an effort to slowly move into an ideal position, and a single bad engagement doesn't usually mean the game is over because of the strength of defender's advantage. You get the most thoughtful engagements, the most potential for comeback, and some of the most well-developed play in TvT. Maybe you should race switch or something. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10318 Posts
On February 02 2012 13:41 forsooth wrote: You just described exactly why TvT is fun and the best mirror. It's (usually) a slower paced, positional game that is the polar opposite of the deathball nonsense we get in Protoss play for instance. Instead of bashing armies into each other in single decisive engagements, you can end up trading a lot of units for minimal ground gain in an effort to slowly move into an ideal position, and a single bad engagement doesn't usually mean the game is over because of the strength of defender's advantage. You get the most thoughtful engagements, the most potential for comeback, and some of the most well-developed play in TvT. Maybe you should race switch or something. Highly agreed. TvT is a really good match up. It's just some of the maps make it not that interesting to play on (shak for example is really easy to split, making the strategy on it stale) And btw tank/viking is not the only way to play. You're missing out on like 90% of the other units. Marine, hellion, marauder, raven, banshee, medivac, ghost, reaper, thor, battlecruiser Pretty much every single Terran unit is useful and can be used for its own specific purpose in TvT. TvT is really quite beautiful. TvT and TvZ best matchups to me. | ||
|
Flix
Belgium114 Posts
On February 02 2012 01:23 NoctemSC wrote: TvT is a good matchup? you must not play terran, friend. I can't tell you how many times it's come to the same Viking/tank wars that are drawn out to 35-40 minutes. I'm okay with a semi long game every once in a while but as it stands you either win by cheese or by playing tank wars all about positioning and how many tanks you can pump out. Every time I play a TvT I want to ragequit, not because I'm not good at using tank/viking play but because it's extremely stale and boring. I think all mirror match-ups have their issues although ZvZ is getting better and better for me (more than just 4 min long games...). Just a though but wouldn't a Raven seaker missle wreak havoc on a viking tank mix? What level are you playing at? seems weird to me that TvT would always be tank/viking but ima zerg.... | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On February 02 2012 16:18 Flix wrote: I think all mirror match-ups have their issues although ZvZ is getting better and better for me (more than just 4 min long games...). Just a though but wouldn't a Raven seaker missle wreak havoc on a viking tank mix? What level are you playing at? seems weird to me that TvT would always be tank/viking but ima zerg.... TvT isn't always tank viking, just watch the GSL. | ||
|
IMoperator
4476 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10318 Posts
On February 02 2012 16:37 IMoperator wrote: I think the main problem is that keeping your army in a ball is way more beneficial than splitting them up. The maps also don't help this (GSL is doing a good job of changing up the maps so it works better) but a lot of the maps are kinda "middle oriented" where the middle is basically the best position on the map and whoever controls it is in control of the whole game. Shattered temple, Xel'naga caverns, metalopolis, and Shakuras are all like this, where the only way to get into the other guys base besides the middle are from drops. This makes it easier to defend your bases (though players still have a lot of trouble with drop defense), so drops aren't as likely to do much damage. The best way to play the game is to just get a huge army and try to control the middle of the map, and it makes very dull, uninteresting games. It makes TvT especially boring... basically getting the center gives you such a huge advantage (especially cus you have such a great defender's advantage in TvT due to tanks, turrets, sensor towers, etc, etc) that it is really hard to lose. The other terran has to fight such a big uphill battle. | ||
|
ch4ppi
Germany802 Posts
This should be recognized by Blizzard as a well written critic on their gamedesign and I hope we will have a day to remember in SC2 when the "overall dmg nerf" patch hits the servers | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 02 2012 19:10 ch4ppi wrote: You sir deserve a medal, since you're speaking from my heart. This should be recognized by Blizzard as a well written critic on their gamedesign and I hope we will have a day to remember in SC2 when the "overall dmg nerf" patch hits the servers the "overall dmg nerf" patch was BW-->SC2. I really don't think they should patch a lot more in that direction. They should rather give the players better options to develope a more "unitsquad"-friendly metagame. Meaning emphasizing on microable units and compositions. Meaning emphasizing on mobile strategies. Meaning emphasizing on Protoss defense. Meaning emphasizing on units that don't work to well together, but still work well. Meaning emphasizing on giving all races (not only terran) strategic options. And imo that's exactly what they do in HotS. | ||
|
ch4ppi
Germany802 Posts
the "overall dmg nerf" patch was BW-->SC2. Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW .... All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP. | ||
| ||
