|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
The current problem is that there is NO POINT in fighting in the mid-map for whatever, towers or something, if you want to take something (assuming both players macroed at the same level), like an expansion, just a-move the entire force there and the other side HAS to back off or they will be in a lot of trouble. Neither race can simply attack anything.
Zerg can't deal with Force Fields.
Zerg can't break down the Terran wall+Siege Tanks
Protoss can't break the Zerg's economy and reinforcements if they are attacking.
Protoss can't deal with Marauders+shitload of Marines and they don't have AoE until T3 or T2 with upgrades (which is impossible to pull off off of 1base).
Terran can't simply waltz across creep.
Terran is the only race in TvP where they can actually do something in the early-game. (aside from Protoss 3gate pressure, but it can severely backfire)
(assuming neither side allins)
I hate to play the game at the moment as when I enter a game I scout what my enemy is doing and go "oh, it's a macro game, ok, let me get into the mindset of getting to Hive tech asap, get shitloads of bases without dying and then a-move". I hate that, but guess what, unless I am all-in, I cannot attack the Terran/Protoss. I even asked pro-players how to play an aggressive Zerg besides Muta play and a lucky run-by, they all replied the same way "go all-in".
And to the person that cries about Ultralisks. Ultralisks are god-awful units at the moment, most of players/commentators consider them as Tier 2.5, as they are just horrible, they clump up, most of them die before even getting a single hit off and they take space for Zerglings and other Ultras. But so many Zerg players want to start play the Zerg race again, not some slow grim reaper force called Brood Lords. It is so annoying to get chopped to death slowly by either Terran or Protoss when you're at 10+ Brood Lords, many pro-games ended like that, and that's the only time the game becomes interesting to actually watch.
But, we cannot simply cry over everything, it is what it is. Some adjustments will be made, I just hope Blizzard does not have the same policy with Starcraft II patches as they do with WoW (changing something every 6-8 months) as that would be horrible.
|
On July 10 2012 04:44 Thenerf wrote:
I must be the only one who thinks the tempest is a great unit. It gives a straight forward option against broodlords. It's a flying, more powerful, longer range siege tank that can attack air.
It's the kind of units that FORCES your opponnent to throw themselves into a toss deathball.
Sort of. Unfortunately you'll need about 3 of them to start doing serious damage to BLs, and that sets you back 1k gas + the upgrade + build time, so it's hard to make the transition, much like Carriers.
|
On July 10 2012 04:32 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 04:28 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 04:26 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 04:16 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 04:13 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:53 Darneck wrote:On July 10 2012 03:51 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses. The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd. Again, more scrappy = more better. What you're basically saying is, nerf protoss when they are in need of no nerf in PvZ just to make a match up more scrappy which somehow would make it better. It's nothing but a stupid nerf to protoss Call it whatever you want, if it makes the game more dynamic, I'm all for it. I don't foresee any speedling issues taking the current Protoss units and the addition of the mothership core into account. If it proves to be too costly, I'm sure Blizzard can adjust. The thing about PvZ is that pretty much every pro match is fast forwarding past all the parts of the game where you would be fighting for map control or whatever and just rushing straight toward endgame, which pretty much everybody on both sides would agree is stupid. Anything that opens up the MU for harassment, mid-map fighting and delaying that rush toward endgame deathballs is a good thing. Removing FFE doesn't just nerf Protoss and give Zerg the freedom to 3 base to victory every time, if it does, then Blizz can fix things then. As I see it, removing FFE makes the 1 base vs 2 base portion of the game a lot more important and makes both sides fight for every inch of the game. I currently love it when my opponent goes for gateway openers. Not because I get any kind of lead out of it, but because I know we aren't going to do the same old song and dance I see in every other PvZ. So it's basically TvZ, except Protoss doesn't have the same mobility/early game cost efficiency that Terran does. We need to expand because all of our units are so gas heavy. We can't just reactor a few Hellions and take map control. Besides, didn't you see what happened to TvZ? Blizzard doesn't like 1 vs 2 base, and apparently neither do Zerg players. Sure, prepatch ZvT was a beautiful MU. Anything that makes more matches like that, I am happy with. Post-patch is kinda a train wreck though... It would seem ZvT has moved closer to ZvP where we just skip the early game now. I can see why they made the change, but its a loss overall I think. Yes, but if you want to make PvZ interesting again, you need to give Protoss something non-allin and reliable which the Zerg has to react to. I'm sick of watching professional Protoss players move from +1 4gates to Stargate to whatever just to be even with the Zerg. Give me something risk-free and fair, like the Hellion opener pre-patch, that puts me on even footing with Zergs, and I'll gladly play whatever style is available. Which is where the Oracle comes in...
The Oracle suffers from the same problem Stargate openings suffer from currently in PvZ - it does not have enough combat utility to hold a third base against a dedicated all-in. You can do a bunch of cutesy harassment, but it doesn't mean a whole lot if it doesn't afford you map control and you're still on two bases against a three (possibly four) base Zerg.
The reason PvZ works the way it does is not because of FFE being viable, but because there's no way for Protoss to gain map control in the midgame, while also being forced to either expand or all-in due to larvae mechanics. In BW Zerg would have a lot less workers on their three bases, which allowed the Protoss to sit back in the midgame, and then take a third behind dedicated harassment or a big push. In SC2, this simply does not work, and there's also no incentive for Zerg to do anything as long as they're ahead on bases (which wasn't the case in BW).
In essence, you either need to slow down the Zerg economy (and buff their units), or you need to give Protoss a way to establish map control and pressure safely - like Hellions used to do. Stargate could be one way of accompishing this, but the Oracle is not what Protoss needs.
|
On July 10 2012 05:04 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 04:32 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 04:28 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 04:26 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 04:16 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 04:13 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:53 Darneck wrote:On July 10 2012 03:51 Jermstuddog wrote:On July 10 2012 03:47 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2012 03:45 Jermstuddog wrote:
My argument has nothing to do with the viability of Zerg vs FFE, but the viewability of games involving the opener, they're boring as fuck. Macro for 10 minutes. Protoss does an allin, then Zerg does an allin, then 3462819374 spines all over the map, followed by a mothership.
There is virtually no action due to the fact that Zerg has no viable early gale options and if either side ever wins a fight, the game usually ends immediately. Instead, we get to watch two people macro their asses off with virtually no harassment going on either side and definitely no big army action.
The PvZ has a lot more problems than just BL. Force Fields, Blink Stalkers, Roaches, and Colossus all add to the whole "never attack until you just win" style that permeates throughout the MU.
Anything that makes the MU more scrappy is a big win imo. And that's what the death of FFE really means. Scrappy play on both sides. You can't just remove an opening from one side and say that makes the matchup more scrappy for both sides. Zerg can play as standard as they did before FFE was vogue. Protoss is the one that will need to be devising new timings every other week in order to stop the Zerg from Droning to 80, which is what PvZ is right now. Protoss is the side playing scrappily in a macro game, which is why we elect to all-in, because in a battle of scrappy vs safe/standard, scrappy loses. The 3 hatch opener is dependent on a no gas opener by Protoss, or Zerg risks outright dying. If P is getting gas before he expands, Z is getting gas before he takes his 3rd. This all opens up battles over Ps natural and Zs 3rd. Again, more scrappy = more better. What you're basically saying is, nerf protoss when they are in need of no nerf in PvZ just to make a match up more scrappy which somehow would make it better. It's nothing but a stupid nerf to protoss Call it whatever you want, if it makes the game more dynamic, I'm all for it. I don't foresee any speedling issues taking the current Protoss units and the addition of the mothership core into account. If it proves to be too costly, I'm sure Blizzard can adjust. The thing about PvZ is that pretty much every pro match is fast forwarding past all the parts of the game where you would be fighting for map control or whatever and just rushing straight toward endgame, which pretty much everybody on both sides would agree is stupid. Anything that opens up the MU for harassment, mid-map fighting and delaying that rush toward endgame deathballs is a good thing. Removing FFE doesn't just nerf Protoss and give Zerg the freedom to 3 base to victory every time, if it does, then Blizz can fix things then. As I see it, removing FFE makes the 1 base vs 2 base portion of the game a lot more important and makes both sides fight for every inch of the game. I currently love it when my opponent goes for gateway openers. Not because I get any kind of lead out of it, but because I know we aren't going to do the same old song and dance I see in every other PvZ. So it's basically TvZ, except Protoss doesn't have the same mobility/early game cost efficiency that Terran does. We need to expand because all of our units are so gas heavy. We can't just reactor a few Hellions and take map control. Besides, didn't you see what happened to TvZ? Blizzard doesn't like 1 vs 2 base, and apparently neither do Zerg players. Sure, prepatch ZvT was a beautiful MU. Anything that makes more matches like that, I am happy with. Post-patch is kinda a train wreck though... It would seem ZvT has moved closer to ZvP where we just skip the early game now. I can see why they made the change, but its a loss overall I think. Yes, but if you want to make PvZ interesting again, you need to give Protoss something non-allin and reliable which the Zerg has to react to. I'm sick of watching professional Protoss players move from +1 4gates to Stargate to whatever just to be even with the Zerg. Give me something risk-free and fair, like the Hellion opener pre-patch, that puts me on even footing with Zergs, and I'll gladly play whatever style is available. Which is where the Oracle comes in... The Oracle suffers from the same problem Stargate openings suffer from currently in PvZ - it does not have enough combat utility to hold a third base against a dedicated all-in. You can do a bunch of cutesy harassment, but it doesn't mean a whole lot if it doesn't afford you map control and you're still on two bases against a three (possibly four) base Zerg. The reason PvZ works the way it does is not because of FFE being viable, but because there's no way for Protoss to gain map control in the midgame, while also being forced to either expand or all-in due to larvae mechanics. In BW Zerg would have a lot less workers on their three bases, which allowed the Protoss to sit back in the midgame, and then take a third behind dedicated harassment or a big push. In SC2, this simply does not work, and there's also no incentive for Zerg to do anything as long as they're ahead on bases (which wasn't the case in BW). In essence, you either need to slow down the Zerg economy (and buff their units), or you need to give Protoss a way to establish map control and pressure safely - like Hellions used to do. Stargate could be one way of accompishing this, but the Oracle is not what Protoss needs.
invis shield will probably do a great job against all-ins
|
On July 10 2012 04:48 ysnake wrote:
Zerg can't break down the Terran wall+Siege Tanks
...I literally haven't seen this for a year now
|
On July 10 2012 11:14 Sroobz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 04:48 ysnake wrote:
Zerg can't break down the Terran wall+Siege Tanks
...I literally haven't seen this for a year now
1-7 minute Mark = Banling Bust
7-12 minute Mark = Roach Banling Bust
12minutes and onward = Brood Lords
|
On July 10 2012 11:18 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 11:14 Sroobz wrote:On July 10 2012 04:48 ysnake wrote:
Zerg can't break down the Terran wall+Siege Tanks
...I literally haven't seen this for a year now 1-7 minute Mark = Banling Bust 7-12 minute Mark = Roach Banling Bust 12minutes and onward = Brood Lords
I meant to say - I literally haven't seen zerg be UNABLE to break down the terran wall for more than a year now 
|
On July 10 2012 11:22 Sroobz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 11:18 GinDo wrote:On July 10 2012 11:14 Sroobz wrote:On July 10 2012 04:48 ysnake wrote:
Zerg can't break down the Terran wall+Siege Tanks
...I literally haven't seen this for a year now 1-7 minute Mark = Banling Bust 7-12 minute Mark = Roach Banling Bust 12minutes and onward = Brood Lords I meant to say - I literally haven't seen zerg be UNABLE to break down the terran wall for more than a year now
My Bad
|
|
|
On July 10 2012 11:36 Scrubwave wrote:
Reapers with 7 range, outranging both marines and marauders? Might be cool.
It's probably a typo, but damn if it isn't interesting..
Although, TvT would become 1 base. and TvZ... and probably TvP too.. actually... I'm kind of glad it's a typo.
|
On July 10 2012 11:22 Sroobz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 11:18 GinDo wrote:On July 10 2012 11:14 Sroobz wrote:On July 10 2012 04:48 ysnake wrote:
Zerg can't break down the Terran wall+Siege Tanks
...I literally haven't seen this for a year now 1-7 minute Mark = Banling Bust 7-12 minute Mark = Roach Banling Bust 12minutes and onward = Brood Lords I meant to say - I literally haven't seen zerg be UNABLE to break down the terran wall for more than a year now
it was a issue with zergs complaining beta/early sc2 about how the baneling was too expensive at 25 gas and that they were bad and refusing to use them except in one base baneling busts. -.- expensive huh. bad huh. look who gets made en masse now.
|
I just wish protoss were getting a high DPS, low HP cheapish unit that could be made from the gateway  something that can be used for harass and hold its own like marines. Not fancy gimmicky shit like the Tempest and Oracle.
|
On July 10 2012 12:36 LavaLava wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 11:36 Scrubwave wrote:
Reapers with 7 range, outranging both marines and marauders? Might be cool. It's probably a typo, but damn if it isn't interesting.. Although, TvT would become 1 base. and TvZ... and probably TvP too.. actually... I'm kind of glad it's a typo.
im pretty sure we would just see resurgance of reaper expand in every mu.
On July 10 2012 12:54 Ryder. wrote:I just wish protoss were getting a high DPS, low HP cheapish unit that could be made from the gateway something that can be used for harass and hold its own like marines. Not fancy gimmicky shit like the Tempest and Oracle.
so you want terrans to QQ? toss already have plenty of aoe to hardcounter marines. Also harass, hold its own and cheapish unit doesnt make much sense.
|
And to the person that cries about Ultralisks. Ultralisks are god-awful units at the moment, most of players/commentators consider them as Tier 2.5, as they are just horrible, they clump up, most of them die before even getting a single hit off and they take space for Zerglings and other Ultras. What the heck?
The whole reason you build Ultralisks is to tank Siege Tank and Marine shots, it doesn't matter if they die really quickly as long as the rest of the Zerg army gets in there and kills the Terran army, any remaining Ultralisks is a bonus.
They have a large unit size, which makes them far less vulnerable to splash damage. They just get in the way of other units if you attack in a choke or with 10 Ultralisks without spreading your army in a concave, which I guess is why Blizzard is adding Burrow-Charge, to appeal to the masses. I just hope it needs an upgrade and isn't too OP. :/
As for casters calling them 'useless', people used to build them by themselves without any real support, and would attack into huge siege lines with 10+ tanks without Infestors and things like that. It was just bad play, and it gave the Ultralisk the reputation of being the unit that people build when they want to lose a won game.
|
|
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On July 10 2012 11:14 Sroobz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 04:48 ysnake wrote:
Zerg can't break down the Terran wall+Siege Tanks
...I literally haven't seen this for a year now
Assuming you did not read the bottom brackets, this was the case if neither side allins. It was a sentiment regarding skirmishes. Not using 10 Banelings (50 minerals 25 gas for each) to break down a wall, since when you used 500 Minerals and 250 Gas just to open a path into somewhere in that early stages of the game, you NEED to do damage, which is impossible if the tanks are on the high ground.
On July 10 2012 17:22 Fencar wrote:Show nested quote +And to the person that cries about Ultralisks. Ultralisks are god-awful units at the moment, most of players/commentators consider them as Tier 2.5, as they are just horrible, they clump up, most of them die before even getting a single hit off and they take space for Zerglings and other Ultras. What the heck? The whole reason you build Ultralisks is to tank Siege Tank and Marine shots, it doesn't matter if they die really quickly as long as the rest of the Zerg army gets in there and kills the Terran army, any remaining Ultralisks is a bonus. They have a large unit size, which makes them far less vulnerable to splash damage. They just get in the way of other units if you attack in a choke or with 10 Ultralisks without spreading your army in a concave, which I guess is why Blizzard is adding Burrow-Charge, to appeal to the masses. I just hope it needs an upgrade and isn't too OP. :/ As for casters calling them 'useless', people used to build them by themselves without any real support, and would attack into huge siege lines with 10+ tanks without Infestors and things like that. It was just bad play, and it gave the Ultralisk the reputation of being the unit that people build when they want to lose a won game.
They are just there to tank shots? Assuming you make 4 Ultralisks, that is 24 supply in just 4 Ultralisks, that could have been 48 Zerglings. There is a reason why everyone jokes about Ultralisks "when I want to lose, I just make Ultras", yes, that's how bad they are.
|
ultralisks aren't bad, they haven't been for a while now since every map is huge with very open areas with multiple pathways
|
On July 10 2012 17:35 ysnake wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 11:14 Sroobz wrote:On July 10 2012 04:48 ysnake wrote:
Zerg can't break down the Terran wall+Siege Tanks
...I literally haven't seen this for a year now Assuming you did not read the bottom brackets, this was the case if neither side allins. It was a sentiment regarding skirmishes. Not using 10 Banelings (50 minerals 25 gas for each) to break down a wall, since when you used 500 Minerals and 250 Gas just to open a path into somewhere in that early stages of the game, you NEED to do damage, which is impossible if the tanks are on the high ground. Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 17:22 Fencar wrote:And to the person that cries about Ultralisks. Ultralisks are god-awful units at the moment, most of players/commentators consider them as Tier 2.5, as they are just horrible, they clump up, most of them die before even getting a single hit off and they take space for Zerglings and other Ultras. What the heck? The whole reason you build Ultralisks is to tank Siege Tank and Marine shots, it doesn't matter if they die really quickly as long as the rest of the Zerg army gets in there and kills the Terran army, any remaining Ultralisks is a bonus. They have a large unit size, which makes them far less vulnerable to splash damage. They just get in the way of other units if you attack in a choke or with 10 Ultralisks without spreading your army in a concave, which I guess is why Blizzard is adding Burrow-Charge, to appeal to the masses. I just hope it needs an upgrade and isn't too OP. :/ As for casters calling them 'useless', people used to build them by themselves without any real support, and would attack into huge siege lines with 10+ tanks without Infestors and things like that. It was just bad play, and it gave the Ultralisk the reputation of being the unit that people build when they want to lose a won game. They are just there to tank shots? Assuming you make 4 Ultralisks, that is 24 supply in just 4 Ultralisks, that could have been 48 Zerglings. There is a reason why everyone jokes about Ultralisks "when I want to lose, I just make Ultras", yes, that's how bad they are.
WTF man. Ultra ling bling infestor runs over everything on the ground. Even more so on creep. If you wanna really be cute you can even bring queens and transfuse those ultras. They fit very well into the current ling, (bling) infestor style and are used very often. You should watch some current games.
|
On July 10 2012 18:06 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 17:35 ysnake wrote:On July 10 2012 11:14 Sroobz wrote:On July 10 2012 04:48 ysnake wrote:
Zerg can't break down the Terran wall+Siege Tanks
...I literally haven't seen this for a year now Assuming you did not read the bottom brackets, this was the case if neither side allins. It was a sentiment regarding skirmishes. Not using 10 Banelings (50 minerals 25 gas for each) to break down a wall, since when you used 500 Minerals and 250 Gas just to open a path into somewhere in that early stages of the game, you NEED to do damage, which is impossible if the tanks are on the high ground. On July 10 2012 17:22 Fencar wrote:And to the person that cries about Ultralisks. Ultralisks are god-awful units at the moment, most of players/commentators consider them as Tier 2.5, as they are just horrible, they clump up, most of them die before even getting a single hit off and they take space for Zerglings and other Ultras. What the heck? The whole reason you build Ultralisks is to tank Siege Tank and Marine shots, it doesn't matter if they die really quickly as long as the rest of the Zerg army gets in there and kills the Terran army, any remaining Ultralisks is a bonus. They have a large unit size, which makes them far less vulnerable to splash damage. They just get in the way of other units if you attack in a choke or with 10 Ultralisks without spreading your army in a concave, which I guess is why Blizzard is adding Burrow-Charge, to appeal to the masses. I just hope it needs an upgrade and isn't too OP. :/ As for casters calling them 'useless', people used to build them by themselves without any real support, and would attack into huge siege lines with 10+ tanks without Infestors and things like that. It was just bad play, and it gave the Ultralisk the reputation of being the unit that people build when they want to lose a won game. They are just there to tank shots? Assuming you make 4 Ultralisks, that is 24 supply in just 4 Ultralisks, that could have been 48 Zerglings. There is a reason why everyone jokes about Ultralisks "when I want to lose, I just make Ultras", yes, that's how bad they are. WTF man. Ultra ling bling infestor runs over everything on the ground. Even more so on creep. If you wanna really be cute you can even bring queens and transfuse those ultras. They fit very well into the current ling, (bling) infestor style and are used very often. You should watch some current games.
Every Unit you listed there sucks against Archons/Templartech. And they are just a bit more efficient against MMM, not that much.
|
No, don't you get it? Ultralisks are literally only for if you want to lose. That's why pro players frequently use them in late-game compositions, it's because they play to lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
