|
On April 26 2013 22:52 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won.
Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf.
Are you trolling me?
I think you don't understand very well what is an "all-in". I guess you're the kind of player who thinks every attack before the 15' mark is an "all-in".
|
On April 26 2013 22:52 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 21:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 26 2013 21:47 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:46 mechengineer123 wrote:On April 26 2013 21:35 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:30 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2013 21:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:03 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote:
oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game... As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary. Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing. If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no. I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game. not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on. I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so. Im still waiting for your examples, mate. You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate. Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games. Do you even watch GSL? Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to... Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy. Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won. Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf.
I don't think I have ever read anything as ridiculous as this.
Seriously dude, are you for real?
You think macro game is basically people getting 3 bases and then attacking with one big clash or something?
|
On April 26 2013 22:52 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 21:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 26 2013 21:47 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:46 mechengineer123 wrote:On April 26 2013 21:35 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:30 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2013 21:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:03 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote:
oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game... As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary. Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing. If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no. I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game. not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on. I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so. Im still waiting for your examples, mate. You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate. Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games. Do you even watch GSL? Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to... Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy. Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won. Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2013_DreamHack_Open/Stockholm
What's your excuse this time?
|
On April 26 2013 22:52 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 21:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 26 2013 21:47 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:46 mechengineer123 wrote:On April 26 2013 21:35 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:30 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2013 21:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:03 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote:
oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game... As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary. Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing. If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no. I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game. not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on. I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so. Im still waiting for your examples, mate. You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate. Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games. Do you even watch GSL? Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to... Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy. Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won. Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf.
Needlessly antagonistic, check! Do enlighten me as to what I missed in the previous post.
Second, those do not sound like games I watched all. Do elaborate on those ''all-in's'' that you claim happened.
Third, you are using weasel words. Previously we were talking about macro games, now you changed it to standard games. So which is it? And what do you consider standard games? Is it really the WoL tech to BL infestor because I hope you do not.
|
On April 27 2013 07:32 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 22:52 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 26 2013 21:47 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:46 mechengineer123 wrote:On April 26 2013 21:35 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:30 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2013 21:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:03 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote:
oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game... As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary. Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing. If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no. I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game. not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on. I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so. Im still waiting for your examples, mate. You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate. Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games. Do you even watch GSL? Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to... Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy. Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won. Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf. Needlessly antagonistic, check! Do enlighten me as to what I missed in the previous post. Second, those do not sound like games I watched all. Do elaborate on those ''all-in's'' that you claim happened. Third, you are using weasel words. Previously we were talking about macro games, now you changed it to standard games. So which is it? And what do you consider standard games? Is it really the WoL tech to BL infestor because I hope you do not.
In the second game, bomber never built a third OC. He kept a non-stop stream of units to roro's base until his main dried up and he couldn't secure the third with his main OC. He was definitely all-in.
|
On April 27 2013 07:45 convention wrote:
In the second game, bomber never built a third OC. He kept a non-stop stream of units to roro's base until his main dried up and he couldn't secure the third with his main OC. He was definitely all-in.
? Second game was Star Station and Bomber did have a third OC. I assume you meant he had no fourth?
|
On April 26 2013 21:48 Scorch wrote:
I think the main problem with widow mines is that it's much easier for terran to make mines than for zerg to deal with them.
You need an overseer neither too far away nor too much in the front. Losing overseers gets expensive quickly and is likely to supply block you. The only zerg ground unit that can just kill mines with superior range is the hydralisk, and you don't really want to build those against terran. That means you will almost always take damage from a mine. Sending single zerglings can be a good trade, but it doesn't work if there's support to kill them before they can set off the mines. If you run your army into a mine unsuspectingly, the result is devastating. The psychological factor is hard to evaluate, but the presence of mines makes the zerg frustrated and paranoid. Widow mines don't take damage from their own splash damage and you can't safely engage them with air either, which just leaves no really good way of cleaning up mines efficiently.
They just give a lot of utility and potentially high reward, annoy the zerg to no end and force mistakes, all for a low investment in both resources and apm.
i agree with many things you said here, but then again, sc2 is a not a game where lazyness gets rewarded.
it might be frustrating facing an oh so annoying terran who uses bio mine the right way - but its doable, be it with roach/hydra or even muta ling/bane
most wol-terrans did not complain that playing against fungal/banelings/broodlords was too hard to control - it was almost undoable even with perfect micro
things have turned and zerg is forced to engage more carefully, nowadays zerg has to control his army well to stay costeffective
i disagree on the apm and resource investment point, playing bio mine needs an insane amount of apm and multitasking, while failing at micro often results in heavy losses aswell
overall i think that tvz is in a good spot right now, its more fragile than ever, the only difference is that zerg can lose his stuff to a few mines as fast as a terran to a bad marine split, a baneling bomb or a chain fungal
|
Vatican City State733 Posts
Zerg here- ZvT is in a pretty good spot. Widow mines are a great addition to this matchup, it makes it so much more interesting. Yes. they are a pain to deal with but good micro can deal with them in general. Only thing that seems a tad OP to me is those early bio-mine pushes where you basically can't engage
|
On April 27 2013 07:32 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 22:52 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 26 2013 21:47 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:46 mechengineer123 wrote:On April 26 2013 21:35 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:30 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2013 21:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On April 26 2013 21:03 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote:
oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game... As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary. Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing. If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no. I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game. not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on. I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so. Im still waiting for your examples, mate. You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate. Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games. Do you even watch GSL? Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to... Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy. Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won. Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf. Needlessly antagonistic, check! Do enlighten me as to what I missed in the previous post. Second, those do not sound like games I watched all. Do elaborate on those ''all-in's'' that you claim happened. Third, you are using weasel words. Previously we were talking about macro games, now you changed it to standard games. So which is it? And what do you consider standard games? Is it really the WoL tech to BL infestor because I hope you do not.
Was there an open expansion somewhere on the map? Then it obviously was an all-in 
|
So this thread has turned into a "what's considered an all in" discussion. Don't we already have that...buried within the forum somewhere?
Mines are, imo, a backwards move and a "easy way out" solution for tvz. I think it's a retarded unit design and doesn't make the matchup any better. Terran can base their whole play style based on reliance of one unit, and a couple misclicks could result in the end of the game for either player. We've seen it happen. Zerg's swarmish style play just becomes worthless as now it's more about obtaining key quality units as quickly as possible. Overrunning the terran with aggressive swarm style play isn't possible anymore. Mines are good balance wise, but they eliminate a lot of "fun" in the game. I think they can still be worked on in the matchup, and maybe the statistics do say something at the moment, but give it time and things could change.
|
On June 16 2013 15:49 scph wrote:
Mines are, imo, a backwards move and a "easy way out" solution for tvz. I think it's a retarded unit design and doesn't make the matchup any better. Terran can base their whole play style based on reliance of one unit, and a couple misclicks could result in the end of the game for either player. We've seen it happen. Zerg's swarmish style play just becomes worthless as now it's more about obtaining key quality units as quickly as possible. Overrunning the terran with aggressive swarm style play isn't possible anymore. Mines are good balance wise, but they eliminate a lot of "fun" in the game. I think they can still be worked on in the matchup, and maybe the statistics do say something at the moment, but give it time and things could change.
This is sooo true, but since the majority of people are too fixated upon "numerical balancing of winrates" instead of "looking if the game and unit is fun" it is pretty much a lost cause. It is harder to argue around a missing synergy of a unit than it is to whine about 60% winrate ... too many people equate "fun" with "winning" ... just to feel better than someone else (which doesnt matter). "Now look at ME!"
|
On June 16 2013 18:48 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 15:49 scph wrote:
Mines are, imo, a backwards move and a "easy way out" solution for tvz. I think it's a retarded unit design and doesn't make the matchup any better. Terran can base their whole play style based on reliance of one unit, and a couple misclicks could result in the end of the game for either player. We've seen it happen. Zerg's swarmish style play just becomes worthless as now it's more about obtaining key quality units as quickly as possible. Overrunning the terran with aggressive swarm style play isn't possible anymore. Mines are good balance wise, but they eliminate a lot of "fun" in the game. I think they can still be worked on in the matchup, and maybe the statistics do say something at the moment, but give it time and things could change. This is sooo true, but since the majority of people are too fixated upon "numerical balancing of winrates" instead of "looking if the game and unit is fun" it is pretty much a lost cause. It is harder to argue around a missing synergy of a unit than it is to whine about 60% winrate ... too many people equate "fun" with "winning" ... just to feel better than someone else (which doesnt matter). "Now look at ME!"
Mines are fun for terrans and also spectators, just not fun if you're Zerg and you A move you whole army into mines. Is it fun for Terran to lose their whole army to a few banelings, or fungals? High tier tvz involves constant aggression and trading of units, mines are fine in the matchup - if u want to QQ about something just cos you keep losing, then just QQ about hellbats like everyone else.
|
all i can say as a dia and plat player in EU and NA that when the T goes mass widow i find it very hard to win if they drop as well. You simply cant build the economy up and get the ranged units out like hydras and broods to clear them. With reasonable control for my league the problems start top exist when i have to split armies to defend bases against really really efficient trades for the T, mass widow mine play when this is happening is absurd.
I do have my methods and have beat it only a couple of times but if they drop you and keep up the harass, people of my leagues do not have the control/ap[m/decision making to beat it.looking through my reps of over 300 the T's ive played this and last season ive lost 80% of all games where i deemed it to be widow mine play. i played one a few minutes ago which i won but he didnt expand to his 3rd properly and when i was up it wasnt up for long but i did like seeing over 16 mules . . it practically got him back into the game! when he did this however i had about 24 mutas anyway 1/1 and his opening was a bit odd with banshees. But those mines had me from 200 to 100 a couple of times before i could over power him. But god damn those drops and those terran units are really really good. 2 HB, 2 vacs, marines in each base(4) cleared my bases in seconds i was surprise he could keep it up off essentailly 2 base(he could of had more for mules but even still). . with a couple of WM sneakily burried, its so easy to shift click the drop and then the burrow while they can ctrl click the marines and get them into little chokes . . .hard stuff . . i hate WM
edit: to comment on the win rate thing . . . you made me check my history!
of all the T games i played this season ive won 70% where ive flat out gone bane roach all in . . of the macro games ive lost this season (THIS SEASON) again 80% of all games marked WmPlay ive lost, the 5 i won were against the silly being matched with a lower league. WIN RATES do not take into account the method in which you win of course. If Z looks like its winning against terran there needs to be a side not for ALL games, do the roachbane you win DARE to go macro against this and its just way too ineffient. It was kinda like toss was in WOl; all games won were through all ins mostly with very few going to late game
|
On June 16 2013 19:13 Lock0n wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 18:48 Rabiator wrote:On June 16 2013 15:49 scph wrote:
Mines are, imo, a backwards move and a "easy way out" solution for tvz. I think it's a retarded unit design and doesn't make the matchup any better. Terran can base their whole play style based on reliance of one unit, and a couple misclicks could result in the end of the game for either player. We've seen it happen. Zerg's swarmish style play just becomes worthless as now it's more about obtaining key quality units as quickly as possible. Overrunning the terran with aggressive swarm style play isn't possible anymore. Mines are good balance wise, but they eliminate a lot of "fun" in the game. I think they can still be worked on in the matchup, and maybe the statistics do say something at the moment, but give it time and things could change. This is sooo true, but since the majority of people are too fixated upon "numerical balancing of winrates" instead of "looking if the game and unit is fun" it is pretty much a lost cause. It is harder to argue around a missing synergy of a unit than it is to whine about 60% winrate ... too many people equate "fun" with "winning" ... just to feel better than someone else (which doesnt matter). "Now look at ME!" Mines are fun for terrans and also spectators, just not fun if you're Zerg and you A move you whole army into mines. Is it fun for Terran to lose their whole army to a few banelings, or fungals? High tier tvz involves constant aggression and trading of units, mines are fine in the matchup - if u want to QQ about something just cos you keep losing, then just QQ about hellbats like everyone else.
They arent fun to watch ... especially if you compare them to the Spider Mines from BW, which had their "comical movement" as well.
Your "counter questions" do not change anything about the Widow Mines being stupid, because countering "stupid stuff" with "equally stupid stuff" is not a good way to balance the game. As scph said ... it is retarded unit design ... if you dont know why here is a hint: the mines do not synergize with any army unit and they still cost supply. Spider Mines didnt synergize, BUT they were one-shot and did not require supply.
Try to stop thinking with winrates and "this is successful" when you judge a unit to be "good or bad design" and more about "does this make sense" or "does this feel right" ...
|
what happens if they make spine crawlers?
|
Every time I read a post in those thread I actually read "dude I can't win with a moving and pressing F anymore, what the f?" or "hey he has a unit that kills my stuff". Widow mines ARE fun to play with and watch, they ARE fun to play against (I love splitting lings to avoid big shots), TvZ is the best matchup to watch if Z doesn't go roach bane durp.
If you can't micro and die to giant mines shots, then you are bad. Maybe you were part of those people saying "don't nerf infestors, give time to terran to adapt to BL/infestors, it's fine" 1 year after the queen buff? Mines are far from being as powerful as old fungal.
It's not because Innovation stomps zerg and YOU lose on the ladder that the unit is op. Especially given that at lower progaming tiers (low KR/EU), the matchup barely ever seems one sided for T.
To the diamond guy above, pretty sure your problem isn't mines. I leveled my account on NA to offrace as Z, and in diamond people are terrible at dropping and macroing. If you die to drops, your macro is also terrible so you should work on that. You don't need ranged units to counter mines. You need overlord speed and actual micro, as terran needs micro to play against banes. You also need decent creep spread, which you should have in diamond.
Also, saying "lol when I roach all in I win and when I macro I loose" is an awful argument, as roach all in are easy to do/hard to defend, especially for diamond people. I understand it was more like to explain the winrates being okay because of mass all ins, but when you watch like EU pro games widow mines doesn't seem to be a problem at all (WCS EU I.E.).
About drops, it actually takes action and attention to do what you say, and it takes about equal if not less to defend it. It's not that hard to keep 10 lings and 2/3 banes at each base to defend drops when you won't absolutely need them to attack in diamond, as well as having good ovie spread to see them coming and catch them with mutas and/or go back with lings to defend.
To mr balance above also, so what is good unit design? Units that, matched for equal cost and supply, would come out with equal amounts of damage dealt to each other? A world where starcraft would be marines vs zergling fights all the time, yay? no comebacks ever, best macro wins!
What do you mean by not synergize with other army units? Do colossi synergize? Roaches? Corruptors?
Mines provide AOE to bio and allow bio play to have space control. How is that not synergy? Or rather how is that less than most units in the game? Pro forum game designers ftl
TL;DR : Tired to see WoL BL/infestor heroes bitching about mines when it's in my opinion a very good addition to the game, forcing micro and agressive play from both side when paired with bio, and when their usefulness ranges from great to meh depending on micro.
|
Maybe someone should take a look at zerg winrates with more or less than ten ultralisks produced. Should be as interesting as these stats.
|
On June 16 2013 19:36 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 19:13 Lock0n wrote:On June 16 2013 18:48 Rabiator wrote:On June 16 2013 15:49 scph wrote:
Mines are, imo, a backwards move and a "easy way out" solution for tvz. I think it's a retarded unit design and doesn't make the matchup any better. Terran can base their whole play style based on reliance of one unit, and a couple misclicks could result in the end of the game for either player. We've seen it happen. Zerg's swarmish style play just becomes worthless as now it's more about obtaining key quality units as quickly as possible. Overrunning the terran with aggressive swarm style play isn't possible anymore. Mines are good balance wise, but they eliminate a lot of "fun" in the game. I think they can still be worked on in the matchup, and maybe the statistics do say something at the moment, but give it time and things could change. This is sooo true, but since the majority of people are too fixated upon "numerical balancing of winrates" instead of "looking if the game and unit is fun" it is pretty much a lost cause. It is harder to argue around a missing synergy of a unit than it is to whine about 60% winrate ... too many people equate "fun" with "winning" ... just to feel better than someone else (which doesnt matter). "Now look at ME!" Mines are fun for terrans and also spectators, just not fun if you're Zerg and you A move you whole army into mines. Is it fun for Terran to lose their whole army to a few banelings, or fungals? High tier tvz involves constant aggression and trading of units, mines are fine in the matchup - if u want to QQ about something just cos you keep losing, then just QQ about hellbats like everyone else. They arent fun to watch ... especially if you compare them to the Spider Mines from BW, which had their "comical movement" as well. Your "counter questions" do not change anything about the Widow Mines being stupid, because countering "stupid stuff" with "equally stupid stuff" is not a good way to balance the game. As scph said ... it is retarded unit design ... if you dont know why here is a hint: the mines do not synergize with any army unit and they still cost supply. Spider Mines didnt synergize, BUT they were one-shot and did not require supply. Try to stop thinking with winrates and "this is successful" when you judge a unit to be "good or bad design" and more about "does this make sense" or "does this feel right" ...
They are quite fun to watch for me, they can by neutralize by good micro, the can be turned againts their, they pretty interesting for me , at least more interesting that majority of a-move units in this game
So dont state your opinions as they are facts.
|
ah stop this whining. Zergs where beating much better terrans in WoL all the time, its now evened out.get some skill instead.
|
Can't believe some zergs are still whining about wm.... Time to get some skill guys....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
