|
On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents.
Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do.
|
I just tested it for PvP.
Yep. Still balanced.
|
On August 13 2012 05:30 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do.
shouldn't have to respond to this, because it's brain-melting, but between injects and creep spread and economy management, there's always something you can be doing better. compared to chronoboosting an obvious building and dropping mules, yeah i'd say there's a higher ceiling there.
|
On August 13 2012 03:41 iky43210 wrote:
you can't realistically saturate more than 3 bases anyway, the only extra benefit is the additional gas and an production facility.
Actually Zergs often go ~90 drones which is optimal 4-bases saturation (~22*4).
|
On August 13 2012 06:06 RogerChillingworth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:30 DemigodcelpH wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do. shouldn't have to respond to this, because it's brain-melting, but between injects and creep spread and economy management, there's always something you can be doing better. compared to chronoboosting an obvious building and dropping mules, yeah i'd say there's a higher ceiling there.
There is, but micro is generally harder than macro.
|
On August 13 2012 06:08 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 06:06 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 05:30 DemigodcelpH wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do. shouldn't have to respond to this, because it's brain-melting, but between injects and creep spread and economy management, there's always something you can be doing better. compared to chronoboosting an obvious building and dropping mules, yeah i'd say there's a higher ceiling there. There is, but micro is generally harder than macro.
True on the micro part, but even so, it doesn't even have the highest macro skill ceiling among the three races either.
|
On August 13 2012 06:21 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 06:08 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 06:06 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 05:30 DemigodcelpH wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do. shouldn't have to respond to this, because it's brain-melting, but between injects and creep spread and economy management, there's always something you can be doing better. compared to chronoboosting an obvious building and dropping mules, yeah i'd say there's a higher ceiling there. There is, but micro is generally harder than macro. True on the micro part, but even so, it doesn't even have the highest macro skill ceiling among the three races either.
I'd say Zerg's macro is easily the most APM-intensive. But it's still just muscle memory and requires basically no real thought to execute. That means anyone who plays the game a lot is invariably going to become really good at it, because it's something you just memorize and remember to do every 40 seconds. Micro is different because it's reactive and you need to be paying attention to your army and act instantly or die.
|
On August 13 2012 06:24 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 06:21 Dalavita wrote:On August 13 2012 06:08 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 06:06 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 05:30 DemigodcelpH wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do. shouldn't have to respond to this, because it's brain-melting, but between injects and creep spread and economy management, there's always something you can be doing better. compared to chronoboosting an obvious building and dropping mules, yeah i'd say there's a higher ceiling there. There is, but micro is generally harder than macro. True on the micro part, but even so, it doesn't even have the highest macro skill ceiling among the three races either. I'd say Zerg's macro is easily the most APM-intensive. But it's still just muscle memory and requires basically no real thought to execute. That means anyone who plays the game a lot is invariably going to become really good at it, because it's something you just memorize and remember to do every 40 seconds. Micro is different because it's reactive and you need to be paying attention to your army and act instantly or die.
You can say that about any fucking activity your brain carries out regularly. Micro is no different.
|
On August 13 2012 06:29 haffy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 06:24 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 06:21 Dalavita wrote:On August 13 2012 06:08 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 06:06 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 05:30 DemigodcelpH wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do. shouldn't have to respond to this, because it's brain-melting, but between injects and creep spread and economy management, there's always something you can be doing better. compared to chronoboosting an obvious building and dropping mules, yeah i'd say there's a higher ceiling there. There is, but micro is generally harder than macro. True on the micro part, but even so, it doesn't even have the highest macro skill ceiling among the three races either. I'd say Zerg's macro is easily the most APM-intensive. But it's still just muscle memory and requires basically no real thought to execute. That means anyone who plays the game a lot is invariably going to become really good at it, because it's something you just memorize and remember to do every 40 seconds. Micro is different because it's reactive and you need to be paying attention to your army and act instantly or die. You can say that about any fucking activity your brain carries out regularly. Micro is no different.
It is different, though, because it's a reaction. Injecting requires no thought. Creep Spread requires no thought. You don't make a decision there. It's just something you do, like constantly making Probes, or whatever. There's no way for you to mess it up. Micro, though, is usually hard because you have to do other stuff at the same time, and because you don't know when you're going to have to do it. It's pretty hard to be throwing down tech structures, see a blob on the minimap, and instantly have to start landing EMPs/Storms, spreading units, and managing an engagement. It's why we see so many players, even at the highest level, lose because they FFed or split or EMPed a second too late. They weren't just slow. They were distracted. Further, there's way less wiggle room with micro. If you don't split in a timely manner, your entire army is going to die. If your 15th Inject is 5 seconds late, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference to the state of the game.
|
On August 13 2012 06:06 RogerChillingworth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:30 DemigodcelpH wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do. shouldn't have to respond to this, because it's brain-melting, but between injects and creep spread and economy management, there's always something you can be doing better. compared to chronoboosting an obvious building and dropping mules, yeah i'd say there's a higher ceiling there.
Dropping MULEs isn't Terran macro. Just as Zergs have to hit Injects with as little time in between as possible, Terrans have to produce out of all their buildings with as little time in between as possible since we can't stack Larva or Chrono for a sudden boost when required.
|
On August 13 2012 05:20 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Zerg pretty much always takes a fast third base. Please let me know when you figure out what us Protoss players are supposed to do to react to that.
3 gate expand.
Yes i am seriouse about this because its an easy way to throw a zerg off these days...
If i see a toss without FFE i simply cannot take a 3rd without massive risk. You could be 4 gating or doing a sentry pressure expand or even some other retarted shit like rushing DT.
|
On August 13 2012 07:09 Typhoon1789 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:20 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Zerg pretty much always takes a fast third base. Please let me know when you figure out what us Protoss players are supposed to do to react to that. 3 gate expand. Yes i am seriouse. If i see a toss without FFE i simply cannot take a 3rd without massive risk. You could be 4 gating or doing a sentry pressure expand.
3 Gate expand has all kinds of weaknesses, and is still economically behind a 2base Zerg anyway. There's a reason Protoss players stopped doing it, especially after WG timing got nerfed.
|
On August 13 2012 07:10 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 07:09 Typhoon1789 wrote:On August 13 2012 05:20 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Zerg pretty much always takes a fast third base. Please let me know when you figure out what us Protoss players are supposed to do to react to that. 3 gate expand. Yes i am seriouse. If i see a toss without FFE i simply cannot take a 3rd without massive risk. You could be 4 gating or doing a sentry pressure expand. 3 Gate expand has all kinds of weaknesses, and is still economically behind a 2base Zerg anyway. There's a reason Protoss players stopped doing it, especially after WG timing got nerfed.
I don't see you coming up with any ideas mate. Why don't you try 3 gate expanding in this day and age and see the effect it has on zergs these days. Most won't quite know what the fuck to do. Don't get me wrong im not fully disagreeing with you but sometimes it OK to mix stuff up and not do the same old predictable FFE crap.
|
On August 13 2012 07:13 Typhoon1789 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 07:10 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 07:09 Typhoon1789 wrote:On August 13 2012 05:20 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Zerg pretty much always takes a fast third base. Please let me know when you figure out what us Protoss players are supposed to do to react to that. 3 gate expand. Yes i am seriouse. If i see a toss without FFE i simply cannot take a 3rd without massive risk. You could be 4 gating or doing a sentry pressure expand. 3 Gate expand has all kinds of weaknesses, and is still economically behind a 2base Zerg anyway. There's a reason Protoss players stopped doing it, especially after WG timing got nerfed. I don't see you coming up with any ideas mate. Why don't you try 3 gate expanding in this day and age and see the effect it has on zergs these days. Most won't quite know what the fuck to do. Don't get me wrong im not fully disagreeing with you but sometimes it OK to mix stuff up and not do the same old predictable FFE crap.
What makes you think I've not 3gate expanded/
|
On August 13 2012 06:06 RogerChillingworth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:30 DemigodcelpH wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do. shouldn't have to respond to this, because it's brain-melting, but between injects and creep spread and economy management, there's always something you can be doing better. compared to chronoboosting an obvious building and dropping mules, yeah i'd say there's a higher ceiling there.
There's a higher ceiling in terms of Creep spread and Injects when compared to Mules, but Terran macro cycles are by far the hardest to master between the three races.
|
On August 13 2012 06:00 _Search_ wrote:
I just tested it for PvP.
Yep. Still balanced.
Are you...the kind of guy who would 6pool in HOTS beta when everyone wants to test new units?
But I like it.
|
On August 13 2012 03:14 Protosnake wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 02:40 Coffee Zombie wrote:On August 13 2012 02:23 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
No, i think the need for risk-taking is now more evenly spread. Before the patch, Zerg had to take way more risks. Now since terrans are forced to play more macro centric, they face similar decisions like other races. You need to scout and guess (and take risk, yes). I'd like to point out that a lot of Terrans are not used to that, so it will take some time until things even out. Terran has a lot of options to play defensively (wall off, bunkers), so even now I think zerg requires still way more reactive play. Can we get this guy to Comedy Central or something? Pray tell, what RISKS did Zerg have to take before the patch? Apart from the universal burden of scouting all-ins and defending them accordingly, there was only due diligence to be done. If you don't defend Hellions or whatever and just press sdddd, of course you are going to die. That's pretty much the definition of misplay. Zerg could all-in Terrans just fine, and still can. Terrans don't just shrug those things off. You know why T doesn't terribly care if a couple lings or Roaches show up outside their door? They make units. Units kill units. Any non-all-in things could be defended just by making a few units (and you'd usually still end up equal at least in economy). The risk you are taking when not making units is your choice entirely, not something you ever were forced to do. Whether to play fair and make both units and workers or try to go for sddd and thus broken economy was completely a choice. Terrans could just force your hand so both played fair. Because, you know, they needed to. There is nothing reactive about it, you just make the Queens and they defend anything that isn't an all-in. If an all-in comes, oh dear you have to react. That is the same for EVERYONE. For Terran, for Toss, for Magical Tooth Fairies from Fancyland. To say that it is some undue risk is ridiculous hogwash. In short: You are wrong, please either examine your thinking and correct it so it matches reality or shut the hell up. I bolded the important (Stupid) part : Zerg need the econ advantage to keep up with a T, SDDD isnt a choice but a necessity, the choice remaining is about when do you SDDD hard depending on what you scout, or do you want to go all-in. Also, if you were suggesting Z to "Constantly stream unit just as terran do", please stop posting because this is the worst thing to do, you dont keep up on macro and you're not safe against everything. Zerg is not as reactive as it used to be, but it's still the most reactive race.
Eh? Surely you could just go largely SDDD with a few Roaches mixed in pre-patch? You'll still end up outproducing the Terran worker count wise though Mules will even it up. That kind of bipolar thinking is precisely the thing I was railing against: There's nothing wrong with a small security force and the rest being macro. You just end up evenish with your opponent doing similar things. Now it's way worse because Queens are better than those Roaches in just about every way that matters that early on and you have more minerals and Larvae for making Drones.
And again, what the hell about the 6-Queen opener is so highly reactive Zerg would be "the most reactive race"? It's a one-stop shop for everything: It's economically greedy, highly secure against anything that isn't a heavily committed all-in, and techs up to Infestors and then Broodlords pretty stupidly fast, plus it easily punishes very greedy play from the Terran. And Infestors and Broodlords are actual threats unlike Terran lategame units which are pure single purpose counters excepting perhaps mass Thors, which is not terribly good. How this one-stop shop for everything leading into midgame and especially lategame compositions that dictate the match is "most reactive in the game", I know not. Would you please enlighten me?
On August 13 2012 01:38 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:43 Coffee Zombie wrote:One thing I will never understand why people here consider an absolutely brilliant player being dominant a problem to be rectified with faction balance. To make a parallel to fighting games where most of you have less emotional investment, a Japanese guy called Daigo Umehara was very, very good and he played Ryu. He just won stupidly much. But the smart people did not cry "Nerf Ryu": They recognized it was simply Daigo being awesome.* Similarily, at this year's EVO (biggest most prestigious fighting game event), a Korean player called Infiltration just demolished everyone. And I mean absolutely everyone. He was utterly untouchable, defeating players like Daigo (who's at a normal high end pro level or so atm if you ask me) 2-0 first game, 2-0 second one in the top8. He just made everyone look free. Again, are there cries to nerf Akuma, who is already regarded as one of the best characters in the game with very few bad matchups? No. People rightly recognized that it was just Infiltration being a monster, something that has been seen from time to time with different players and different characters. If some poor schmuck won with Oni (who is quite bad)? Well, yeah, perhaps there is still something in there to explore. But instantly "Oni is okay, no problems there"? Not a chance. Similarily, people sometimes win ridiculously bad matchups by being very, very good, but those matchups do not cease to be horrible. Current TvZ has all the traits of a bad matchup that I have ever seen, and the game is an RTS where balance is much more keenly felt in gameplay than an equal imbalance ever could in a fighting game. So, fellow zergies, get some goddamn perspective already. That perspective includes the idea that "pressing sddd without a care about anything not-heavily-allin" is actually not balanced, but broken. * Make no mistake, there were nerf Ryu cries still, and those cries were quite justified - Ryu was indeed pretty goddamn stupid in some gameplay related things. If you've ever thought of warpgates, fungal or forcefields being retarded, you know the kind of annoying design that was the cause. But still people were able to separate Ryu's power from Daigo's power, which is the point here. On August 13 2012 00:20 superstartran wrote:
This is not the same situation at all; not even remotely close. FD was playing on bad maps, when the game was still young and developing. This is a completely different situation. And very safe thirds and naturals on super huge maps with free Ferrarilord parking spots are not bad in the other direction? What? When did I say safe 3rds on super huge maps with tons of dead air space were good? I'm merely pointing out that anyone trying to utilize the FD situation to this one is completely wrong and likely ignorant and dumb all at the same time...
Good stuff for the most part. The main thing I was trying to say was that bringing up TaeJa as some kind of proof that the game is okay is just as stupid as saying the game was okay when Fruitdealer was doing well (granted, much, much more uncertainty about what is actually ultimately good in the game unlike now). But the issue of an underpowered race, a brilliant player and a map pool favouring the dominant faction were clear issues. Ferrarilord parking spots are obviously much less bad than thor drop cliffs and similar stuff.
|
On August 13 2012 01:38 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:43 Coffee Zombie wrote:On August 12 2012 23:23 Assirra wrote:On August 12 2012 22:50 zmansman17 wrote:On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I love how so many Zergs point to Taeja and say "Do that." That's like saying: "Play perfectly and register an average of 300 apm". So? The game should be balanced for the top and not lower. Lets say we buff terran till everyone here is happy, any idea how powerful Teaja will be then considering how he is now? One thing I will never understand why people here consider an absolutely brilliant player being dominant a problem to be rectified with faction balance. To make a parallel to fighting games where most of you have less emotional investment, a Japanese guy called Daigo Umehara was very, very good and he played Ryu. He just won stupidly much. But the smart people did not cry "Nerf Ryu": They recognized it was simply Daigo being awesome.* Similarily, at this year's EVO (biggest most prestigious fighting game event), a Korean player called Infiltration just demolished everyone. And I mean absolutely everyone. He was utterly untouchable, defeating players like Daigo (who's at a normal high end pro level or so atm if you ask me) 2-0 first game, 2-0 second one in the top8. He just made everyone look free. Again, are there cries to nerf Akuma, who is already regarded as one of the best characters in the game with very few bad matchups? No. People rightly recognized that it was just Infiltration being a monster, something that has been seen from time to time with different players and different characters. If some poor schmuck won with Oni (who is quite bad)? Well, yeah, perhaps there is still something in there to explore. But instantly "Oni is okay, no problems there"? Not a chance. Similarily, people sometimes win ridiculously bad matchups by being very, very good, but those matchups do not cease to be horrible. Current TvZ has all the traits of a bad matchup that I have ever seen, and the game is an RTS where balance is much more keenly felt in gameplay than an equal imbalance ever could in a fighting game. So, fellow zergies, get some goddamn perspective already. That perspective includes the idea that "pressing sddd without a care about anything not-heavily-allin" is actually not balanced, but broken. * Make no mistake, there were nerf Ryu cries still, and those cries were quite justified - Ryu was indeed pretty goddamn stupid in some gameplay related things. If you've ever thought of warpgates, fungal or forcefields being retarded, you know the kind of annoying design that was the cause. But still people were able to separate Ryu's power from Daigo's power, which is the point here. On August 13 2012 00:20 superstartran wrote:
This is not the same situation at all; not even remotely close. FD was playing on bad maps, when the game was still young and developing. This is a completely different situation. And very safe thirds and naturals on super huge maps with free Ferrarilord parking spots are not bad in the other direction? What? When did I say safe 3rds on super huge maps with tons of dead air space were good? I'm merely pointing out that anyone trying to utilize the FD situation to this one is completely wrong and likely ignorant and dumb all at the same time. FD was dealing with very bad maps for Z, in a metagame that heavily was biased against Z due to the fact that the game was so young at this point. Anyone trying to say otherwise needs to just stop posting. Taeja is playing when the game is much more fully developed, to the point where we are no longer going to see massive metagame shifts due to maps, new builds, new timing attacks, etc. like we could have during the FD era. This is why alot of Terran players were telling Zerg players to shut up and deal with it, because the game hadn't reached a point where it was anywhere near done yet. Alot of the cheesy things Terran were doing were because of the MAPS not any inherent imbalance in the game itself. Things like 3 rax Reaper, Siege Tank cliff dropping, Thor drops, Medivac race car suicide squads, etc. were actually problems due to the incredibly short rush distances and bad gimmicky things with the maps themselves. High yield minerals was another map issue, not an inherent game balance issue. Alot of people forget that in BW, most balance issues were solved by making better maps, not by bitching and moaning for free buffs, something alot of Z players tend to forget that they got for free. That's not to say Terran players weren't guilty of this either. They were in fact the catalyst for the buff for the Infestor in the first place. I remember Link came onto these very forums bitching about not being able to do a 1-1-1 expand opening against a Protoss that opened 3 gate probe cut Stalker/VR all-in with minimal Marine building. As we all know, today, even with far better execution now adays, a 3 Gate/VR all in is pretty easy to hold if you see it coming, and you utilize the correct build. However, of course, Link, Maka, and a few other Terran players went crying directly to Dustin, David Kim, and the rest of the balance team that this was in fact broken, when the 3 Gate/VR all-in hadn't even made a single appearance in GSL or MLG. There was no time given to Terran players to adapt to the opening, they were just given a free get out of jail free card. It wasn't until Protoss players continually busted Terrans with 4 gates, 3 Gate/Immortal play, and other 2 base 6-8 Gate variations that Terran players stopped being dumb and stopped the whole 1-1-1 = > Expand type of opening. 1-1-1 was no longer a staple, it became a relic of the past unless it was an all-in. So what happened? The VR got changed. In a very, very, very bad way. The removal of the speed buff and the lethality of an all-in forced Blizzard to try and make the VR do something more creative. It became an anti-massive unit. Everyone thought it would be fine and dandy. Except somebody figured out that VRs actually compliment the Protoss Stalker/Colossus ball pretty well, to the point where you had nothing but P players going 200/200 deathballs. Alot of P players continued to just clown on Z players badly with this 200/200 deathball all over the place, while Z players continued to attempt to play ultra greedy and not aggressive (I actually got into an argument with many high level players on this forum that a Z player should be doing a 3 Hatch aggression before the P hits critical mass, killing off their 3rd because there's an actual window where they can do such a thing; many high level Z players dismissed this and just said "GAME IS BROKEN"). Fair enough; maybe it isn't fair Z couldn't match that P deathball (even though Z had ample opportunity to pretty much crunch on a P player badly before critical mass deathball hit). What happens though? Infestor buff. And we all know what happened here. You had idiotic matches where people would do nothing but make 20+ Infestors and just simply run you over. So what's the point of my hilariously long dragged out post? It's that people bitched and moaned too much early on for changes. Everyone did. Protoss players, Zerg players, Terran players, everyone did. Alot of the stuff that you saw back in the day wasn't even legitimately broken; it was mainly due to the way the maps were designed with dumb shit like high yield minerals, rocks at 3rd, rocks in dumb places, incredibly short rush distances, close map positions, cliffs above expansions, etc. What happened was that the so called "great" Starcraft community forced Blizzard's hand (both amateurs and professionals had a hand in this) into creating this terrible boring meta where both T and P are forced to all-in Z's because of various reasons (P no longer has any mobility in HT to counter Muta play, so hitting a Z before he hits critical mass Infestors or Mutas is in the P's favor; T got nerfed to kingdom come due to various dumb reasons).
You have no clue what you're talking about in terms of VRs. 3 gate void was nerfed because it was way too powerful for the longest time, as well as void rays were appropriately nerfed early on because you could easily kite infinitey marines with 1-2 void rays.
Stop making shit up lmao. Some of the things in beta were hilariously broken and were appropriately fixed. If you want an example of how broken VRS were before there was a time when protoss would even proxy 2-3 gateways in front of the Terran's base (very near it) with their stargate/voidray opening so they could charge up on their own building and essentially get a freewin -__- ;d
More on-topic...a raven speed buff does nothing really. The issue is not the speed. The issue is fungal locks the unit in place making it so you can't use HSM. The issue is it takes 3 minutes or so to get a raven/HSM ready for use vs broodlord/corruptor. Speed addresses neither of those, so basically the game remains the same if they go through with a raven speed buff.
The creep change is good in one way or another, though I think it'd be better to make the creep recede much more quickly than nerf how far it goes out. The biggest problem with creep is that if you do clear it you're suiciding raw material of units and a queen may just put out another tumor anyways.
It's quite frustrated to have "cleared" creep and then have to wait an entire minute or whatever it is for it to go away.
|
On August 13 2012 06:33 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 06:29 haffy wrote:On August 13 2012 06:24 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 06:21 Dalavita wrote:On August 13 2012 06:08 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 06:06 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 05:30 DemigodcelpH wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:
[quote]
So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying?
Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran?
My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically.
This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do. shouldn't have to respond to this, because it's brain-melting, but between injects and creep spread and economy management, there's always something you can be doing better. compared to chronoboosting an obvious building and dropping mules, yeah i'd say there's a higher ceiling there. There is, but micro is generally harder than macro. True on the micro part, but even so, it doesn't even have the highest macro skill ceiling among the three races either. I'd say Zerg's macro is easily the most APM-intensive. But it's still just muscle memory and requires basically no real thought to execute. That means anyone who plays the game a lot is invariably going to become really good at it, because it's something you just memorize and remember to do every 40 seconds. Micro is different because it's reactive and you need to be paying attention to your army and act instantly or die. You can say that about any fucking activity your brain carries out regularly. Micro is no different. It is different, though, because it's a reaction. Injecting requires no thought. Creep Spread requires no thought. You don't make a decision there. It's just something you do, like constantly making Probes, or whatever. There's no way for you to mess it up. Micro, though, is usually hard because you have to do other stuff at the same time, and because you don't know when you're going to have to do it. It's pretty hard to be throwing down tech structures, see a blob on the minimap, and instantly have to start landing EMPs/Storms, spreading units, and managing an engagement. It's why we see so many players, even at the highest level, lose because they FFed or split or EMPed a second too late. They weren't just slow. They were distracted. Further, there's way less wiggle room with micro. If you don't split in a timely manner, your entire army is going to die. If your 15th Inject is 5 seconds late, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference to the state of the game.
You know, I've got better things to do than to respond politely to this fucking made up shit you posted. People are so fucking biased when they post and they have absolutely no self awareness to relaise. Your whole post is made up of complete speculation about a subject you clearly know nothing about, then throw in some SC2 terms and situations with heavy racial bias just to finish things off.
By the way, I'm not going to post or read anymore, because reading this kind of stuff frustrates me to no end. I mean seriously, how can you post that dribble.
|
On August 13 2012 08:00 haffy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 06:33 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 06:29 haffy wrote:On August 13 2012 06:24 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 06:21 Dalavita wrote:On August 13 2012 06:08 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 06:06 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 05:30 DemigodcelpH wrote:On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:
[quote]
This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents. Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do. shouldn't have to respond to this, because it's brain-melting, but between injects and creep spread and economy management, there's always something you can be doing better. compared to chronoboosting an obvious building and dropping mules, yeah i'd say there's a higher ceiling there. There is, but micro is generally harder than macro. True on the micro part, but even so, it doesn't even have the highest macro skill ceiling among the three races either. I'd say Zerg's macro is easily the most APM-intensive. But it's still just muscle memory and requires basically no real thought to execute. That means anyone who plays the game a lot is invariably going to become really good at it, because it's something you just memorize and remember to do every 40 seconds. Micro is different because it's reactive and you need to be paying attention to your army and act instantly or die. You can say that about any fucking activity your brain carries out regularly. Micro is no different. It is different, though, because it's a reaction. Injecting requires no thought. Creep Spread requires no thought. You don't make a decision there. It's just something you do, like constantly making Probes, or whatever. There's no way for you to mess it up. Micro, though, is usually hard because you have to do other stuff at the same time, and because you don't know when you're going to have to do it. It's pretty hard to be throwing down tech structures, see a blob on the minimap, and instantly have to start landing EMPs/Storms, spreading units, and managing an engagement. It's why we see so many players, even at the highest level, lose because they FFed or split or EMPed a second too late. They weren't just slow. They were distracted. Further, there's way less wiggle room with micro. If you don't split in a timely manner, your entire army is going to die. If your 15th Inject is 5 seconds late, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference to the state of the game. You know, I've got better things to do than to respond politely to this fucking made up shit you posted. People are so fucking biased when they post and they have absolutely no self awareness to relaise. Your whole post is made up of complete speculation about a subject you clearly know nothing about, then throw in some SC2 terms and situations with heavy racial bias just to finish things off. By the way, I'm not going to post or read anymore, because reading this kind of stuff frustrates me to no end. I mean seriously, how can you post that dribble.
Did he touch a nerve? I mean really, he's pretty much right. I would definitely consider micro to be much more difficult; it's reactionary, and because of that, you can't just directly improve at it. You have to react to different situations (where and what you micro can never be determined as "better" before the situation happens/before your opponent dos something), wheras with macro, you just have to get better at a specific thing; your macro can be determined to be objectively better or worse without taking into consideration what is happening in the game. Did you hit those injects directly after one another? If yes, your macro is better. If not, it is worse. Did you split your army? No? Well, we need to determine if that's a good or bad thing. Were you facing a bunch of Zerglings, or were you facing Banelings/Fungals? Was it more cost-efficient to get the higher DPS from clumping or to survive longer by splitting your units? This is stuff that actually requires thought, whereas macro is just a repetitive process that needs to be mastered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
