EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 82
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Dodgin
Canada39254 Posts
| ||
|
ppgButtercup
United States159 Posts
On March 27 2012 17:49 Dodgin wrote: That game was hardly a standard fast third Protoss build, he lost all of his units in them middle of the map and tried to take it at 12:00 down 70 supply. So what should he have done? Theory craft me that please. | ||
|
Dodgin
Canada39254 Posts
On March 27 2012 17:50 ppgButtercup wrote: So what should he have done? Theory craft me that please. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discredit you guys. I'm glad you are posting replays to back your thoughts up, but anyone who watches that game will understand Protoss didn't lose because of imbalance. The attitude is hardly necessary. | ||
|
UniQ.eu
Sweden82 Posts
On March 27 2012 17:37 ppgButtercup wrote: http://www.sc2replayed.com/replay-videos/18446 Lol at how horrible FGGreen played and how the Protoss player couldn't get an economy at all. Admittedly not the highest-level of play, but both were master-level players. I actually watched it. I think it is hilarious that this is you proof  For those who doesn't watch it, this is what happens: 1. P player builds a forge and does a gas steal. 2. Z player double expands, while P player build agateway. 3. P player proceeds to get +1 atk and warpgate, and adds 2 gates; going for a 3 gate +1 all-in. 4. P player spots that Z has 3 bases up when all his tech is ready for the all-in and expands to his natural instead of killing the Z player. And then I stopped watching. Great proof you brought here, you really convinced me that P cannot expand to their 3rds ever! Or did you..? For me this is the equivalent of saying: "Well, my 4-gate +1 failed to kill a Z who went 3 bases vs my 1. Protoss cannot take 3rds  !" | ||
|
TheGreenMachine
United States730 Posts
On March 27 2012 17:53 Dodgin wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discredit you guys. I'm glad you are posting replays to back your thoughts up, but anyone who watches that game will understand Protoss didn't lose because of imbalance. The attitude is hardly necessary. I lost my 3rd to like 3 units, lost a queen, lost like 10+ lings. Banked 600 gas (not understanding the way gas works faster). Then still easily had enough roach+ling. In current metagame most zergs roach+ling to deny quick protoss 3rd. Protoss ends up taking a 12+ minute 3rd. Now imagine if the protoss had 25% less minerals and gas and every probe he makes after around 8:00 will not pay off. What is he to do? His options are severely limited. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On March 27 2012 17:59 TheGreenMachine wrote: I lost my 3rd to like 3 units, lost a queen, lost like 10+ lings. Banked 600 gas (not understanding the way gas works faster). Then still easily had enough roach+ling. In current metagame most zergs roach+ling to deny quick protoss 3rd. Protoss ends up taking a 12+ minute 3rd. Now imagine if the protoss had 25% less minerals and gas and every probe he makes after around 8:00 will not pay off. What is he to do? His options are severely limited. He could have just. Not tried to take a third that fast and simply teched, or perhaps done some warp prism harass to pull your roaches back while he sets up the groundwork to take a third. The key mistake was loosing everything to lings in the early-midgame. If he'd had all those resources (extra sentries / zealots) with his immortals the so called final battle might have gone differently. The point is. You cannot point at that game and say: Protoss cannot take a third because zerg 3 base roach deny unless you two were at it for 5-10 games practicing that exact scenario. | ||
|
Dodgin
Canada39254 Posts
On March 27 2012 17:59 TheGreenMachine wrote: I lost my 3rd to like 3 units, lost a queen, lost like 10+ lings. Banked 600 gas (not understanding the way gas works faster). Then still easily had enough roach+ling. In current metagame most zergs roach+ling to deny quick protoss 3rd. Protoss ends up taking a 12+ minute 3rd. Now imagine if the protoss had 25% less minerals and gas and every probe he makes after around 8:00 will not pay off. What is he to do? His options are severely limited. I'm not going to argue theorycraft with you, I know perfectly well what the current PvZ metagame is and how it works, and the problems you describe have nothing to do with the idea proposed or the maps. If the Zerg is able to pull off the same thing we see Stephano do to Protoss in almost every game that the Protoss does not use a 2 base timing on him with even greater effect I'll agree wholeheartedly. But I believe It's a problem with Zerg mechanics not anything to do with this. Keep in mind the game would not be the same as it is now if this idea were to be implemented into HOTS. Also, I'm going to go watch GSL now so I probably won't be responding to this thread until it's over, good luck with your games. | ||
|
stebo
United States45 Posts
| ||
|
necrimanci
70 Posts
On March 27 2012 02:21 WniO wrote: is there actually some exciting replays or do most of these games have a boring 10 minutes start? even on 8m when both players open with FE builds often times there is no action till 10 minute mark. Fresh example - first game of todays code S :3 Besides a 2 hellion poke no action till 12 minute mark | ||
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
| ||
|
Tanukki
Finland579 Posts
Also won't Terran be OP because they recycle their orbital commands while Zerg and Protoss end up with increasing amounts of increasingly useless buildings? | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On March 27 2012 18:38 Conti wrote: While certain comments made in the last three pages are pretty annoying (seriously guys, go ahead and make some replays. Play in the tournament and kill everyone. Please, please, do that.), the viability of rushes and early all-ins ought to be tested more. So instead of focusing on how awesome long macro games can be, we could focus on all-ins and early timing attacks for a while and see how easy/not easy they are to defend with these maps. I'd love to see replays/casts of such games. This would be the rational way to proceed with testing. Thank you for a levelheaded comment Conti. ^^ About this: http://www.sc2replayed.com/replay-videos/18446 LOL? Why would you use this replay as evidence? This was a horrible game. But others have pointed out why already, so I won't. I just want to say that you need to share findings in terms of trends, not absolutes. Unless you play 20 games of the same build vs build with various different players of high skill, you can't say anything solid about balance. @buttercup & friends: I could post the game where you fall apart and lose to mass colossus and conclude PvZ imba on Devolution! but that would clearly be unfounded, as well as in poor taste. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
| ||
|
Nerski
United States1095 Posts
On March 27 2012 19:10 MrTortoise wrote: Someone needs to write a tool to analyse replays ... when bases went down etc ... then analyse a *LOT* of replays to get some statistically significant data. SC2Gears, it already exists, and does all of that stuff even for multiple replays I do believe. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
DoDonPachi
Canada69 Posts
On March 27 2012 18:38 Conti wrote: + Show Spoiler + While certain comments made in the last three pages are pretty annoying (seriously guys, go ahead and make some replays. Play in the tournament and kill everyone. Please, please, do that.), the viability of rushes and early all-ins ought to be tested more. So instead of focusing on how awesome long macro games can be, we could focus on all-ins and early timing attacks for a while and see how easy/not easy they are to defend with these maps. I'd love to see replays/casts of such games. In the last 3 page it's the suggestion that make the more sense We know there is some imbalance, we just need to find where it is and try to find solution.Someone before me had say, but i can't remember who, that this thread have now 80 page and it's a lot to read for a newcomer. Butterbup have said that Mule is imba, but we have already talked about it, he just doesn't take the energy for reading the whole thread ( which is comprehensible). A good and simple solution will be to have a Concern section in the first post ( the OP ? Is it the name of it ?), preferably in the top of the text to make sure that everyone can read it, that inform the reader about the conclusion we have come about some issue. Exemple of what i try to say with my bad english: + Show Spoiler + EVENTS! FRB Grand Tournament To play FRB maps, in-game channel: 7m On Battle.net [US/NA]: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/4175832510 On Battle.net [EU]: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3484281522 On Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/qzp7d/breadth_of_gameplay_in_sc2_a_mapmakers/ --- BLIZZARD EMPLOYEE talks about it in email with IronManSC! (creator of Ohana - starts at 49:50) + Show Spoiler + March 24: ADDED '6m Cross Point' TO OFFICIAL POOL - 6m Entombed Valley - 6m Shakuras Plateau - 6m Tal'Darim Altar - 6m Devolution by Barrin - 6m Cross Point by IronManSC March 24: Quotes Updated March 22: 6m1hyg with 2000m/5000g is standard until at least March 29. March 21: FRB Replay Thread! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Concern : There is some imbalance in this concept, the game isnt balance of 6m1hyg, but by talking about it we can make this concept go further. Here is some of the discussion that we have had. Mule: It give the terran more mineral that the other races and might encourage the player to stay on 1base a little longer, but it is counter argumented by the fact that he depleted his base more quickly, and if he wants to really abuse the mule, he need to expand a lot which is exactly what the OP want. Roach/ling vs Toss 3rd: Until GOOD replays are shown that clearly demonstrate that this situation have concern, there is no proof of imbalance. Note that this is just a exemple. The Drawback is that it is Barrin that must update the post, which is more work for him, but i think it's a good idea because it prevent "troll" to go and ruin the thread experience, and also encourage newcomer to join the conversation by making them up-to-date Have a nice day everyone | ||
|
Kallo
United States11 Posts
This led to games where the zerg was on 5 BASES at the 12 minute mark and still had enuf mins to slam out lings and use the gas to get lair, ups, and infestors. ALL AT THE SAME TIME. all of this while still banking like 1500 mins at like the 13 minute mark (which didnt matter cause a round of inejects later it was down to 0 from ling spam) Now I'm not saying that it is imba, it may just be that i'm bad. But I just think that all the pressure is on the terran to kill a hatchery of the zergs before 12 mins, and even then require GREAT engagements and spliting as the terran where as the zerg just has to a-move and control infestors. I can't even seem to get out medivacs in time to drop (which winds up being pointless when the zerg has 5 bases mostly saturated and just a-moves lings back to defent the drops). I just can not believe that a zerg can afford all that shit and still be safe and pressure (It feels like they can do everything at once is what im saying, where as toss and terran have to be carful not to lose even ONE engagement or else they will lose the game.) | ||
|
Kallo
United States11 Posts
Also, just to clarify, my beef is whith larva inject and it giving zerg too much larva to just fuck around with and do whatever the hell they want without having to invest in macro hatches like BW. I just feel that blizz balanced zerg around the 3 base ceiling in 8m and now that we transition that to 6m, they just grow exponentially out of control due to the benefit given by having more bases combined with larva inject (they also benifit the most from the whole losing a base doesnt mean as much change in 6m) compared to terran and toss who are really built to only take 3 to 4 bases anyways. EDIT: just want to state for the record that I think barrin's idea is still good and I would much rather play this than 8m still, so don't think i'm requesting that this entire operation be shut down or something outrageous like that, if anything, I am more or less crying out for some people to show me some master level replays on how to play TvZ so I can learn what I'm doing wrong, but until that happens I think my argument about zerg scaling still stands. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
Offcourse, showing imbalances and posting replays, and even theorycrafting about it in its current state is great and all, and I enjoy reading everything you guys find, but you go as far as dissmising the whole idea. That is fine too, but if you are doing it because of balance issues, then you are doing it wrong. | ||
|
ultimfier
Canada29 Posts
I know you are better at the game than most of us, however being better at the game does not mean your theorycrafting is better than our experience. Sure, protoss may get less gas for sentries, but zerg gets less minerals for roaches. With how large some of these maps are you should be able to get some proxy pylons down and harass the zerg with zealot warp ins to expos. if the zerg is focusing too much on denying a third (which i did in a game last night) these warp ins are incredibly hard to stop due to the large map size. This style of maps is actually played much differently than 8m 2g maps. Strategies and unit compositions are much different. Trying to use a strategy that works in 8m does not always work in 6m. example, terran is my best MU on ladder and protoss is my worst MU. On these 6m maps I constantly get beaten by terrans and have actually beaten 3 masters toss. Now you can claim its due to imbalance, but until you join the channel and obs/play some games people will not take you seriously. | ||
| ||
