EPTCall To Action: Balance Testing TvZ. - Page 61
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NKexquisite
United States911 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 13 2012 12:10 ncsix wrote: Roach is useless in the T matchup Which is probably why you see Zergs instantly switch to Roach when they scout mech? Even against Marines/Tanks, players like Stephano or Nerchio are known to use Roaches along with Speedlings and Infestors. Roaches are far from useless in ZvT... On August 13 2012 12:10 ncsix wrote: At equal army cost T and P mid game armies are extremely cost-efficient vs any thing Z throws at them. What a blatant lie... It all depends on the position and the situation. A Zerg army (whether it's Ling/Infestor or Ling/Banes/Mutas) catching a Terran army offsiege on creep is extremely cost-efficient. Even offcreep, with situations like flankings or surrounds, you can trade evenly. Roaches are cost-efficient against mech until the Terran player reaches a critical Tank count. Roaches do melt against huge Protoss armies, but before the Protoss player reaches this stage he may have big troubles defending efficiently multi-pronged Roach/lings attacks, or Roach drops, etc. Not to mention that the “equal army cost” is irrelevant since some Zerg armies will typically have more army value (e. g. Ling/Banes/Mutas has usually way more army value than equal supply of Marines/Tanks armies) than the opponent's army, or Zergs will simply have more at a given stage (e. g. the fast 200/200 Roach/Ling strategy in ZvP). | ||
|
101toss
3232 Posts
Kthxblizz | ||
|
ncsix
1370 Posts
On August 13 2012 12:51 TheDwf wrote: Which is probably why you see Zergs instantly switch to Roach when they scout mech? Even against Marines/Tanks, players like Stephano or Nerchio are known to use Roaches along with Speedlings and Infestors. Roaches are far from useless in ZvT... What a blatant lie... It all depends on the position and the situation. A Zerg army (whether it's Ling/Infestor or Ling/Banes/Mutas) catching a Terran army offsiege on creep is extremely cost-efficient. Even offcreep, with situations like flankings or surrounds, you can trade evenly. Roaches are cost-efficient against mech until the Terran player reaches a critical Tank count. Roaches do melt against huge Protoss armies, but before the Protoss player reaches this stage he may have big troubles defending efficiently multi-pronged Roach/lings attacks, or Roach drops, etc. Not to mention that the “equal army cost” is irrelevant since some Zerg armies will typically have more army value (e. g. Ling/Banes/Mutas has usually way more army value than equal supply of Marines/Tanks armies) than the opponent's army, or Zergs will simply have more at a given stage (e. g. the fast 200/200 Roach/Ling strategy in ZvP). ok. true. Roach isn't all that bad against Mech, but you're really nitpicking here. You know I meant Roach vs MMM. I take it you're a T player, so how many games have you personally played where a Z used a Roach centric army and beat you? It still stands Roach vs T is pretty useless, it buys you some time to transition into a more cost-efficient army, and can be a blind counter e.g. vs pure Hellions (small maps). I don't mean to blatantly lie, so please don't accuse me of it. The context I was referring to was a previous post regarding how T & P requires more MICRO, and what I said was its not that Z needs to micro less but more of the fact that there is less possibilities for Z to micro. Given that equal army values Z v T/P fight with the best micro on both sides, you can't deny T&P are more cost effective. Note EQUAL ARMY VALUE is a benchmark for balance and is relevant. In actual gameplay, of course we all throw in a higher army value to win but this is the standard A-move for all wars since time immemorial. | ||
|
oxxo
988 Posts
On August 13 2012 12:12 Zrana wrote: How is terran micro significantly harder than zerg micro? Marine splitting? Meet baneling splitting Target firing with tanks? Target firing with mutas EMP? Fungal (and infestors all have a death wish) Hellions versus zerglings? uhhh zerglings vs hellions Multiple drops? Defending multiple drops (you lose some marines if you fuck up, zerg loses a mineral line or tech building) Stutter stepping maybe? 1. Zerg has to do it too to keep up. 2. It's really not that hard 3. Zerg often surrounds/flanks and so there's no need anyway. Play T and you'll see (Masters Random). It's pretty silly to try to say those are equivalent when it's pretty generally accepted that those are all examples where the onus is on the T, not the Z. Baneling 'splitting' is just making sure you don't waste your banelings on thors etc. (click past). Marine splitting = scatter all over the map so that you don't instantly lose. There's a reason there are trainers JUST for marine splitting. Target firing with tanks is not hard on it's own. No one says it is. The difficulty is that you have to do that while splitting marines and doing everything else. EMP radius is tiny, has fast travel time, and requires multiple hits. Fungal is instant and once you hit once in the area you're done. Zerglings vs hellions is just make sure you don't run in a line and click past + a move. Hellions = stay away from unit with same (or more on creep) move speed while dealing with weird attack delay/animation. Drops. Maybe. It's far faster and easier to kill the drop than it is to lose entire mineral lines or tech buildings. Z does not stutter step like T. If you need anymore proof just look at HotS. Blizzard is adding a-move stuff to T and micro stuff to Z/P. | ||
|
Zrana
United Kingdom698 Posts
What? Everyone knows Zerg is the most 1-a race in the game. You can ask any Professional player. They will tell yoy straight up. Zerg macro is also very easy. Well that explains all the GSLs zerg's won then. | ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
On August 13 2012 12:51 TheDwf wrote: Which is probably why you see Zergs instantly switch to Roach when they scout mech? Even against Marines/Tanks, players like Stephano or Nerchio are known to use Roaches along with Speedlings and Infestors. Roaches are far from useless in ZvT... What a blatant lie... It all depends on the position and the situation. A Zerg army (whether it's Ling/Infestor or Ling/Banes/Mutas) catching a Terran army offsiege on creep is extremely cost-efficient. Even offcreep, with situations like flankings or surrounds, you can trade evenly. Roaches are cost-efficient against mech until the Terran player reaches a critical Tank count. Roaches do melt against huge Protoss armies, but before the Protoss player reaches this stage he may have big troubles defending efficiently multi-pronged Roach/lings attacks, or Roach drops, etc. Not to mention that the “equal army cost” is irrelevant since some Zerg armies will typically have more army value (e. g. Ling/Banes/Mutas has usually way more army value than equal supply of Marines/Tanks armies) than the opponent's army, or Zergs will simply have more at a given stage (e. g. the fast 200/200 Roach/Ling strategy in ZvP). Roaches only trade cost inefficiently to Protoss if they're forcefielded. But in an open area, on creep, or even being caught by surprise, Roaches can decimate 1-2 Colossi, snipe the Immortals, and sweep up all the Zealots and Stalkers. Roaches also have a very easy time of sniping all the Sentries, at least from how I see Stephano/DRG play, setting Toss back easily 400-800 gas, at that point, it doesn't even matter if the Roaches win or lose. Same base Zerg can compete with same base Protoss, to further dispel the myth that Zerg are so cost inefficient. | ||
|
Zrana
United Kingdom698 Posts
On August 13 2012 13:16 oxxo wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 13 2012 12:12 Zrana wrote: How is terran micro significantly harder than zerg micro? Marine splitting? Meet baneling splitting Target firing with tanks? Target firing with mutas EMP? Fungal (and infestors all have a death wish) Hellions versus zerglings? uhhh zerglings vs hellions Multiple drops? Defending multiple drops (you lose some marines if you fuck up, zerg loses a mineral line or tech building) Stutter stepping maybe? 1. Zerg has to do it too to keep up. 2. It's really not that hard 3. Zerg often surrounds/flanks and so there's no need anyway. Play T and you'll see (Masters Random). It's pretty silly to try to say those are equivalent when it's pretty generally accepted that those are all examples where the onus is on the T, not the Z. Baneling 'splitting' is just making sure you don't waste your banelings on thors etc. (click past). Marine splitting = scatter all over the map so that you don't instantly lose. There's a reason there are trainers JUST for marine splitting. Target firing with tanks is not hard on it's own. No one says it is. The difficulty is that you have to do that while splitting marines and doing everything else. EMP radius is tiny, has fast travel time, and requires multiple hits. Fungal is instant and once you hit once in the area you're done. Zerglings vs hellions is just make sure you don't run in a line and click past + a move. Hellions = stay away from unit with same (or more on creep) move speed while dealing with weird attack delay/animation. Drops. Maybe. It's far faster and easier to kill the drop than it is to lose entire mineral lines or tech buildings. Z does not stutter step like T. If you need anymore proof just look at HotS. Blizzard is adding a-move stuff to T and micro stuff to Z/P. I'm sure we could argue this back and forth all day. Baneling splitting is more than no hitting thors, it's a reaction to marine splitting. If the marines split into 3 groups, then so must the banelings. Often players don't bother with it but the potential is there. EMP vs Fungal: Ghosts are skinny and don't interfere with each other's pathing, infestors are clunky. EMP is fire and forget, fungal is fire, wait, fire, wait, fire. Also spamming infested terrans, while not difficult, is a hefty timesink unless you use that scrollwheel thingy. Zerglings vs hellions off creep is way more than move past and a-click. If you attack with a big clump of lings you run a very high risk of losing loads of them. You have to micro small groups around the hellions so you get a surround. Getting a surround is much harder than escaping a surround. Yes terran micro is harder, but you guys have so much less to worry about than zerg in other parts of the game. There are so many situations where a small mistake can steamroll into a loss very quickly for zerg - such as losing some mutas or misreading an all-in or a drop killing a spawning pool or just a few hellions in a mineral line. Terran as a whole is much more stable race. Scan means that cloak-based attacks are much weaker, planetaries mean that run-bys are almost pointless, supply call-down means supply blocks are less painful. Basically a small mistake for terran means a small setback, but for zerg it can mean a big problem if you are unlucky. Look, like i said we could argue this all day. Basically i posted because every terran i meet telling me i only won because my race is easy starts to get annoying. If you look at any top zerg playing it's not like they are idling or playing slower than the top terrans, and it's not like zerg wins more GSLs than Terran. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On August 13 2012 13:56 Zrana wrote: I'm sure we could argue this back and forth all day. Baneling splitting is more than no hitting thors, it's a reaction to marine splitting. If the marines split into 3 groups, then so must the banelings. Often players don't bother with it but the potential is there. EMP vs Fungal: Ghosts are skinny and don't interfere with each other's pathing, infestors are clunky. EMP is fire and forget, fungal is fire, wait, fire, wait, fire. Also spamming infested terrans, while not difficult, is a hefty timesink unless you use that scrollwheel thingy. Zerglings vs hellions off creep is way more than move past and a-click. If you attack with a big clump of lings you run a very high risk of losing loads of them. You have to micro small groups around the hellions so you get a surround. Getting a surround is much harder than escaping a surround. Yes terran micro is harder, but you guys have so much less to worry about than zerg in other parts of the game. There are so many situations where a small mistake can steamroll into a loss very quickly for zerg - such as losing some mutas or misreading an all-in or a drop killing a spawning pool or just a few hellions in a mineral line. Terran as a whole is much more stable race. Scan means that cloak-based attacks are much weaker, planetaries mean that run-bys are almost pointless, supply call-down means supply blocks are less painful. Basically a small mistake for terran means a small setback, but for zerg it can mean a big problem if you are unlucky. Look, like i said we could argue this all day. Basically i posted because every terran i meet telling me i only won because my race is easy starts to get annoying. If you look at any top zerg playing it's not like they are idling or playing slower than the top terrans, and it's not like zerg wins more GSLs than Terran. I'm sorry, but you're just clueless. In all of those situations, Zerg can recover far more easily than Terran or Protoss can. Why? Because you can stockpile Larvae and mass-produce units. We see this all the time in games nowadays. Zerg will have enemies at their front door and not have many units, but due to having 3+ bases and 4+ Hatcheries, they can just continually mass-produce units and overwhelm the opponent. Your point of Orbital abilities is off as well. Scans take away resources from MULE's, which is much-needed, due to the fact that Protoss and Zerg can create workers at a significantly faster rate. Planetaries do the same thing; they take away the option for both Scans and MULE's. This is the same for Supply calldowns (which, if you ever see anyone using it for anything except some weird timing, is the sign of a Terran player that needs to work on his macro). Terran is the most unforgiving race. Micro? All unit compositions rely on both positioning and in-battle micro far more than the other two races. Any composition with Tanks? Mess up for a half a second and get caught with Tanks unsieged and you're done. Bio? Constant splitting or else it gets demolished by any kind of AoE. Mech? Slowest composition in the game, and still has Tanks in it. In contrast, Banelings, Zerglings, Roaches, Mutalisks, and Infestors are all very fast units. Furthermore, Fungal is fire-and-forget because it is cheap, on a fast unit that can Burrow, and immobolizes its targets. Furthermore, Terran macro is by far the least forgiving. Sure, MULE's are the easiest macro mechanic out of the three (Injects being the hardest), but Protoss can instantly Warp in upwards of 20 units in the late game, Zerg can make nearly an unlimited amount due to stockpiling Larvae, but Terran have to be perfect with their macro cycles or they will lose. You simply cannot remax an army with Terran half as quickly as a Protoss or Zerg can. It doesn't matter if you have money if your army simply can't mass up quickly enough. The game is turning out remarkable similar to how BW was; Yes, Terran probably has the highest skill ceiling and benefits the most from pure mechanical improvement (making it the easiest to be successful with at high levels), but it is also by far the hardest to learn because of an incredibly high mechanical demand, even at low levels. | ||
|
PauseBreak
United States270 Posts
On August 13 2012 00:43 Coffee Zombie wrote: 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. And very safe thirds and naturals on super huge maps with free Ferrarilord parking spots are not bad in the other direction? This. --------------------------------- I'm not Taeja. I am so far from it. And Terran's are not doing well. ~55% is Korean. ~45% is Kor. and everyone else. That says a lot. The fact that Korean's are the only one's to put up some numbers, actually its really just Taeja we can thank, is just not fair to the rest of the Terran community. The fact that Blizzard almost instantly put of a public test event right after the July win rates came out so no mere coincidence. But also an insult that they didn't revert the Queen buff. D. Browder is always saying that if something is wrong they will admit to it. Well, they sure didn't. And probably never will. I can show you charts and graphs all day long. I can tell you who won the first couple of GSL's and MLG's; and they're not Terran's. There is a reason that on the sc2ranks.com website main race graph shows that Terran's are the least played race. That isn't magic, or computing errors...there is a clear reason to it. And frankly, Terran's are getting sick of doing at least twice the amount of work just to stay par with the other races. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 13 2012 13:08 ncsix wrote: ok. true. Roach isn't all that bad against Mech “Not all that bad”? It can literally kill mech on its own... On August 13 2012 13:08 ncsix wrote: You know I meant Roach vs MMM. Pure bio is not standard in ZvT. And obviously, you are less inclined to build Roaches if your opponent heads for a composition including lots of Marauders... On August 13 2012 13:08 ncsix wrote: I take it you're a T player, so how many games have you personally played where a Z used a Roach centric army and beat you? Roach-centered armies are standard against mech or even biomech (things like Marines/Hellions/Thors), so I do play against them. But it does not matter, and the point is not whether or not they're the core of the Zerg composition; you said they were useless in ZvT, which is just plain wrong. They can be played against mech, biomech and even against Marines/Tanks. Not to mention the various uses in early attacks/all-ins. On August 13 2012 13:08 ncsix wrote: It still stands Roach vs T is pretty useless, it buys you some time to transition into a more cost-efficient army Makes roughly as much sense as saying that “it still stands Zergling vs T is pretty useless, it buys you some time to transition into a more cost-efficient army”. We all know Roach is not the ultimate endgame unit, it does not make them “useless” for all that. On August 13 2012 13:08 ncsix wrote: I don't mean to blatantly lie, so please don't accuse me of it. True, it's more bias and ignorance. On August 13 2012 13:08 ncsix wrote: The context I was referring to was a previous post regarding how T & P requires more MICRO, and what I said was its not that Z needs to micro less but more of the fact that there is less possibilities for Z to micro. Given that equal army values Z v T/P fight with the best micro on both sides, you can't deny T&P are more cost effective. Note EQUAL ARMY VALUE is a benchmark for balance and is relevant. In actual gameplay, of course we all throw in a higher army value to win but this is the standard A-move for all wars since time immemorial. 1. Equal army value is not relevant since some compositions are simply more expensive than others. Marine = 50:1 resources per supply while Baneling is 150:1. Roach is 50:1 while Thor is 83:1, etc. Regardless of its superior cost, a Thor-centered mech army will still get rolled by proper Roach focus; a Ling/Bane/Mutalisk army, regardless of its superior cost, can trade evenly or very badly against a cheaper Marines/Tanks army, etc. So, no, neither equal army value nor superior army value are a relevant factor to know how said armies will or even should trade against each other. You have to factor position, terrain, micro, the faculty to recover from losses in the fight (in short, economy and production), etc. 2. What do you mean by “best micro on both sides”? Because best micro theoretically means Automaton 2000 micro with dozens and dozens of action per seconds, Banelings never connecting with Marines offcreep, etc., while in reality, you have to factor human limits, which results in very different outcomes. | ||
|
shockaslim
United States1104 Posts
On August 13 2012 13:56 Zrana wrote: I'm sure we could argue this back and forth all day. Baneling splitting is more than no hitting thors, it's a reaction to marine splitting. If the marines split into 3 groups, then so must the banelings. Often players don't bother with it but the potential is there. EMP vs Fungal: Ghosts are skinny and don't interfere with each other's pathing, infestors are clunky. EMP is fire and forget, fungal is fire, wait, fire, wait, fire. Also spamming infested terrans, while not difficult, is a hefty timesink unless you use that scrollwheel thingy. Zerglings vs hellions off creep is way more than move past and a-click. If you attack with a big clump of lings you run a very high risk of losing loads of them. You have to micro small groups around the hellions so you get a surround. Getting a surround is much harder than escaping a surround. Yes terran micro is harder, but you guys have so much less to worry about than zerg in other parts of the game. There are so many situations where a small mistake can steamroll into a loss very quickly for zerg - such as losing some mutas or misreading an all-in or a drop killing a spawning pool or just a few hellions in a mineral line. Terran as a whole is much more stable race. Scan means that cloak-based attacks are much weaker, planetaries mean that run-bys are almost pointless, supply call-down means supply blocks are less painful. Basically a small mistake for terran means a small setback, but for zerg it can mean a big problem if you are unlucky. Look, like i said we could argue this all day. Basically i posted because every terran i meet telling me i only won because my race is easy starts to get annoying. If you look at any top zerg playing it's not like they are idling or playing slower than the top terrans, and it's not like zerg wins more GSLs than Terran. I honestly can't tell if you are trolling or ignorant about a lot of the things your are saying. If a terran is splitting their bio properly there is NO way that you can cost efficiently trade with banelings. There just is no way. I don't see how splitting banes is even a factor in this case. Just don't 1A and avoid armored targets. I see more people wasting banes on thors and tanks because they aren't microing at all. Secondly, if you would do the proper thing and put the infestors on a separate hotkey and in the back of the army you wouldn't have to worry about suiciding them. It literally pains me to see infestors waddling next to tanks because zergs are once again 1Aing their entire army. I can't even respond to EMP vs fungal because .......one of them limits micro and the other doesn't. Thirdly, why would you be attacking hellions off of creep? Also, its kind of weird that hellions counter zerglings but you have to work them like toy cars so that the zerglings don't kill them. Finally, losing mutas because you weren't watching them isn't a small mistake. Losing to drops when you can make spore crawlers (something zerg players are never doing unless there are banshees) is a big mistake. I can't even think of an all-in that works against zerg. I'm not saying zerg is imba, but terran can be punished WAY harder for little stuff than vice-versa. | ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote: 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. A terran on 2 bases with 2 OC's is actually ahead (mule income). Protos has way more effective units, so a Zergs needs a better income to compensate. Regarding timing: it is just easier to take the third very early, as the only way to stop fast 3rds is all-inish early army. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On August 13 2012 14:40 PauseBreak wrote: Because the queen range buff was a good change to handle the strong hellion runby.This. --------------------------------- I'm not Taeja. I am so far from it. And Terran's are not doing well. ~55% is Korean. ~45% is Kor. and everyone else. That says a lot. The fact that Korean's are the only one's to put up some numbers, actually its really just Taeja we can thank, is just not fair to the rest of the Terran community. The fact that Blizzard almost instantly put of a public test event right after the July win rates came out so no mere coincidence. But also an insult that they didn't revert the Queen buff. D. Browder is always saying that if something is wrong they will admit to it. Well, they sure didn't. And probably never will. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 13 2012 16:55 [F_]aths wrote: Because the queen range buff was a good change to handle the strong hellion runby. 1. The increased range for Queens was not aimed at providing Zergs stronger defense against Hellion raids. 2. Before or after patch, Hellion raids are dealt with the same way, i. e. simply by having good building placement. | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
On August 13 2012 13:28 Zrana wrote: Well that explains all the GSLs zerg's won then. Zerg is a pretty average race when your opponent have 1 week to prepare to your style. It's one of the best at blind matches though. Most pro zergs often say they don't prepare for people in particular, but focus on general mechanics. ( DRG, Nestea and Stephano do it this way ) On August 13 2012 17:33 TheDwf wrote: 1. The increased range for Queens was not aimed at providing Zergs stronger defense against Hellion raids. 2. Before or after patch, Hellion raids are dealt with the same way, i. e. simply by having good building placement. 1 It was. Dustin Browder said it himself. He wanted to give more option for zerg to fend off early game Hellions. Including hellion contain AND hellions run by. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 13 2012 17:33 Noocta wrote: 1 It was. Dustin Browder said it himself. He wanted to give more option for zerg to fend off early game Hellions. Including hellion contain AND hellions run by. Really? OK, my bad. Still, the main benefit is being allowed to creep spread without any unit; some additional hits to Hellions are not going to save your drones if you don't even bother to block paths (e. g. HyuN vs Major @ TSL4). | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
On August 13 2012 17:37 TheDwf wrote: Really? OK, my bad. Still, the main benefit is being allowed to creep spread without any unit; some additional hits to Hellions are not going to save your drones if you don't even bother to block paths (e. g. HyuN vs Major @ TSL4). Yep. As far as I remember, he was like " Even with 5 range queen, zerg still lose to Hellions, we don't know what to do anymore ! " or something like that. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 13 2012 17:44 Noocta wrote: Yep. As far as I remember, he was like " Even with 5 range queen, zerg still lose to Hellions, we don't know what to do anymore ! " or something like that. Lol. This guy never fails to deliver. I guess they briefly considered adding fire immunity to drones after watching HyuN vs Major? At least we know what to do: we should start botching our own Marine splits, in the end we shall be rewarded with +2 range on Tanks or something like that. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On August 13 2012 16:11 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: A terran on 2 bases with 2 OC's is actually ahead (mule income). Protos has way more effective units, so a Zergs needs a better income to compensate. Regarding timing: it is just easier to take the third very early, as the only way to stop fast 3rds is all-inish early army. Terran is not necessarily ahead because both he and Zerg are on two bases. Pre-queen range buff, the standard metagame was 2 base vs. 2 base mid-game, and it was pretty balanced in terms of win rate (whether the hellion contain made for bad games is another question). Just saying "MULE income" doesn't mean anything, because it doesn't account for the relative efficiencies of the units in question, or the fact that the zerg 2nd base is faster and can saturate more quickly, or the fact that when third bases do come into play the zerg can expand much more aggressively because his units are more mobile. A zerg who stays on 2 base post-queen buff is considered all-in because the only reason not to take the third is if you're planning to all-in, since otherwise the third is not risky and gives you a big economy boost. And because your Terran opponent will probably be going triple OC to be able to keep up with a 6-queen 3-base play. | ||
| ||
