|
On May 10 2013 19:42 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:24 Snowbear wrote:On May 10 2013 19:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:
[quote]
Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately. If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM... Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well. Are we playing a different game? Because in my game, zergs are actually winning games. You act like there is no counter to mines and the moment a terran makes a few mines, he wins. You need to micro now, the easy WOL times are OVER and you should really start practicing. I never said mines are autowin or anything like that. ZvT is not unwinnable, but I'd be shocked if the winrates weren't favoring terran in the area of platinum to mid masters. When something is that efficient and there's no way to counter or punish it, what else could happen? "Learn to play" is such a pointless thing to say. In the infestor/broodlord era did you tell terran and protoss players "yeah it's strong, deal with it. go practice and find a way to beat it, if MVP does it so can you"? Of course difficult challenges can be often overcome if you practice endlessly and put in a herculean effort. But the point is that there's an issue if one person is required to do that and the other is not.
You can split your units, just like the lower league terrans have to godsplit against banelings. We all knew this would happen: wol zerg was too strong > a lot of zergs were playing above their actual level > balanced hots comes out > the zergs lose against people they won against in wol > balance whine.
And one person (terran) is required to split against banelings (terran armies HAVE to be microed):
- in WOL the other person (zerg) wasn't required > ISSUE
- in HOTS also the other person (zerg) is required to mico > NO ISSUE, perfect game.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional.
God damn that bias.
Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily.
|
On May 10 2013 19:47 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:42 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:24 Snowbear wrote:On May 10 2013 19:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:
[quote]
The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately. If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM... Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well. Are we playing a different game? Because in my game, zergs are actually winning games. You act like there is no counter to mines and the moment a terran makes a few mines, he wins. You need to micro now, the easy WOL times are OVER and you should really start practicing. I never said mines are autowin or anything like that. ZvT is not unwinnable, but I'd be shocked if the winrates weren't favoring terran in the area of platinum to mid masters. When something is that efficient and there's no way to counter or punish it, what else could happen? "Learn to play" is such a pointless thing to say. In the infestor/broodlord era did you tell terran and protoss players "yeah it's strong, deal with it. go practice and find a way to beat it, if MVP does it so can you"? Of course difficult challenges can be often overcome if you practice endlessly and put in a herculean effort. But the point is that there's an issue if one person is required to do that and the other is not. You can split your units, just like the lower league terrans have to godsplit against banelings. We all knew this would happen: wol zerg was too strong > a lot of zergs were playing above their actual level > balanced hots comes out > the zergs lose against people they won against in wol > balance whine. And one person (terran) is required to split against banelings (terran armies HAVE to be microed): - in WOL the other person (zerg) wasn't required > ISSUE - in HOTS also the other person (zerg) is required to mico > NO ISSUE, perfect game.
None of these "Boom, I have a massive amount of Banelings / Infestors and you lost because you looked away for a second" designs is really awesome. It is rather terrible due to one core concept of Blizzards game design: critical number.
The problem isnt the units themselves, because 3 Infestors can run out of energy while 25 will always have enough energy for a Fungal and some Infested Marines. The same for Banelings, because 3 dont bust a wall. Critical number (which is a consequence of the tight unit movement coupled with the unlimited unit selection and the fact that there is no way to punish them for it) is really the reason behind the bad gameplay in SC2.
|
Cool. Personally, I'm glad they aren't rushing things. The meta game is still evolving.
|
On May 10 2013 19:21 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:
You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening.
I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. You know what happens when I a-click with marines? 90% of them get killed by banelings, the others die against the lings, and I am out of Marines! Yeah, Marines are terrible! You know what happens when I a-click with marines? 90% of them get killed by fungal, the others die against the lings, and I am out of Marines! Yeah, Marines are terrible! If you read your post you would think TvZ is 70-30 atm!
I think that you missed the obvious sarcasm in my post. My point was that you can't say how unit is bad because you don't use it correctly. He was saying how my post is biased because his Widow Mines are not cost-efficient because he doesn't use them correctly...
|
On May 10 2013 19:47 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 19:12 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 16:45 Prugelhugel wrote:On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:
[quote]
Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though. You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say. I don't know if there's any good way to change the mines without making them too weak at the pro level though. You don't want to nerf them into uselessness... but right now zerg doesn't have any good tools for dealing with them effectively. I have to admit, those zerg players are dedicated! They have no way to deal with mines, they must lose pretty much always against terran, and yet zerg is still played ALOT more than terran in the region where it is worst according to you. I didn't realize balance is determined by how many people play each race.
Well luckily I did mention it, otherwise you still wouldn't realize it!
But all kidding aside, while also other factors play a role, how good something is definately plays a role, in every single game I played whatever is strongest at a time attracts more people. Now in SC2 it is a bit more work to switch a race than for example in BF3 to switch a gun, but it isn't exactly impossible either. So while I would not want to balance solely depending on people playing a race, it is also a bit weird to boost the most played race while nerfing the least played race.
|
On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote:
God damn that bias.
Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily.
Where I am playing (Diamond - Master), dealing with Mines is not easy at all.
|
On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:
[quote]
Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. God damn that bias. Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily.
I mainly play zerg which is my best race by far, but I do also enjoy my share of random and I can safely say that mines are not hard to use effectively  . Neither is banelings. The main problem with widow mines isnt that you need to micro a lot against them. With excellent micro most units in the game can be countered by the very unit they're designed to kill themselves.
The problem is just the design of widow mines itself, while you can aim their fire, mines arent really a unit you micro due to their reload time. Burrow, one click (although usually people just burrow) and then you wait. Because of this they also do massive single target damage along with good aoe. This simply means that there's no good unit against it, the weakness of the widow mine only comes from how the enemy engage it, and very little from the unit composition you build to counter it.
Now I'm sure many have seen banelines being countered by marines alone and widow mines can be countered with zerglings. All of this requires micro and thats just fine. Banelings can however also be countered by tanks or thors or marauders. Units that in themselves are designed to be a good counter, regardless of micro (even though micro ofc still make things easier). A natural counter to another unit is the very basics of game design and all other units follow that rule. Widow mines do not, they are a counter to poor micro and punished by good micro alone.
This doesnt mean that widow mines are overpowered, just that their design is pretty bad.
|
really happy that oracle change didnt make it
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 10 2013 20:32 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote:On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:
[quote]
The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. God damn that bias. Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily. I mainly play zerg which is my best race by far, but I do also enjoy my share of random and I can safely say that mines are not hard to use effectively . Neither is banelings. The main problem with widow mines isnt that you need to micro a lot against them. With excellent micro most units in the game can be countered by the very unit they're designed to kill themselves. The problem is just the design of widow mines itself, while you can aim their fire, mines arent really a unit you micro due to their reload time. Burrow, one click (although usually people just burrow) and then you wait. Because of this they also do massive single target damage along with good aoe. This simply means that there's no good unit against it, the weakness of the widow mine only comes from how the enemy engage it, and very little from the unit composition you build to counter it. Now I'm sure many have seen banelines being countered by marines alone and widow mines can be countered with zerglings. All of this requires micro and thats just fine. Banelings can however also be countered by tanks or thors or marauders. Units that in themselves are designed to be a good counter, regardless of micro (even though micro ofc still make things easier). A natural counter to another unit is the very basics of game design and all other units follow that rule. Widow mines do not, they are a counter to poor micro and punished by good micro alone. This doesnt mean that widow mines are overpowered, just that their design is pretty bad.
I would actually argue that widow mines take more micro then you give them credit for, they need to be burrowed in the right places at the right time or they will either splash your own units or not hit at all.
Just like mines take a lot of micro to work against at your level banelings take a a lot of micro to work against at the lower levels, the game is balanced at the top and at different skill levels different units seem to be more powerful.
On May 10 2013 20:17 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote:
God damn that bias.
Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily. Where I am playing (Diamond - Master), dealing with Mines is not easy at all.
I said that stationary mines are dealt with easily, you're referring to mine + bio which is a different thing, I'm not saying that mines aren't good, but they can be beaten, just like banelings appear very good at the bronze to gold skill level.
|
On May 10 2013 20:40 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 20:32 Stol wrote:On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote:On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:
[quote]
Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out.
Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. God damn that bias. Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily. I mainly play zerg which is my best race by far, but I do also enjoy my share of random and I can safely say that mines are not hard to use effectively . Neither is banelings. The main problem with widow mines isnt that you need to micro a lot against them. With excellent micro most units in the game can be countered by the very unit they're designed to kill themselves. The problem is just the design of widow mines itself, while you can aim their fire, mines arent really a unit you micro due to their reload time. Burrow, one click (although usually people just burrow) and then you wait. Because of this they also do massive single target damage along with good aoe. This simply means that there's no good unit against it, the weakness of the widow mine only comes from how the enemy engage it, and very little from the unit composition you build to counter it. Now I'm sure many have seen banelines being countered by marines alone and widow mines can be countered with zerglings. All of this requires micro and thats just fine. Banelings can however also be countered by tanks or thors or marauders. Units that in themselves are designed to be a good counter, regardless of micro (even though micro ofc still make things easier). A natural counter to another unit is the very basics of game design and all other units follow that rule. Widow mines do not, they are a counter to poor micro and punished by good micro alone. This doesnt mean that widow mines are overpowered, just that their design is pretty bad. I would actually argue that widow mines take more micro then you give them credit for, they need to be burrowed in the right places at the right time or they will either splash your own units or not hit at all. Just like mines take a lot of micro to work against at your level banelings take a a lot of micro to work against at the lower levels, the game is balanced at the top and at different skill levels different units seem to be more powerful. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 20:17 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote:
God damn that bias.
Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily. Where I am playing (Diamond - Master), dealing with Mines is not easy at all. I said that stationary mines are dealt with easily, you're referring to mine + bio which is a different thing, I'm not saying that mines aren't good, but they can be beaten, just like banelings appear very good at the bronze to gold skill level.
You missed my point, I wasnt talking about balance, or even micro for that matter, just the design of widow mines. I will stick by my point though, widow mines are not hard to use effectively. Even at master levels you can just burrow them way ahead of time and simply spread out and run back and forth, either establishing a contain or slowly push forward on creep.
At master levels its still tricky to remember all the spots they're burrowed when left laying during the course of a fight.
They're not hard to use as their effectiveness mainly comes from how good your opponent plays against them, rather than how good you are at positioning them (even though you can ofc still place them in worse or better spots).
|
On May 10 2013 19:47 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:42 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:24 Snowbear wrote:On May 10 2013 19:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:
[quote]
The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately. If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM... Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well. Are we playing a different game? Because in my game, zergs are actually winning games. You act like there is no counter to mines and the moment a terran makes a few mines, he wins. You need to micro now, the easy WOL times are OVER and you should really start practicing. I never said mines are autowin or anything like that. ZvT is not unwinnable, but I'd be shocked if the winrates weren't favoring terran in the area of platinum to mid masters. When something is that efficient and there's no way to counter or punish it, what else could happen? "Learn to play" is such a pointless thing to say. In the infestor/broodlord era did you tell terran and protoss players "yeah it's strong, deal with it. go practice and find a way to beat it, if MVP does it so can you"? Of course difficult challenges can be often overcome if you practice endlessly and put in a herculean effort. But the point is that there's an issue if one person is required to do that and the other is not. You can split your units, just like the lower league terrans have to godsplit against banelings. We all knew this would happen: wol zerg was too strong > a lot of zergs were playing above their actual level > balanced hots comes out > the zergs lose against people they won against in wol > balance whine. And one person (terran) is required to split against banelings (terran armies HAVE to be microed): - in WOL the other person (zerg) wasn't required > ISSUE - in HOTS also the other person (zerg) is required to mico > NO ISSUE, perfect game.
LOL about people talking about roach hydra being viable. Yeah, sure, stephano uses it because he's really fucking good, but the reason like 95 percent of zergs right now are going Muta ling bane is because the minute your scouted going roach hydra, your opponent puts a tech lab on his factory and pumps out siege tanks. And without mutas, your fucked vs drops. and about the baneling vs mine risk vs reward thing, most terrans have learned how to split vs banelings reasonably well. unless you know where the mines are buried, its super hard to do the same micro tricks. yeah, you say that you can run a ling in to blow them up, but any decent terran at this point with unburrow the mine so it won't go off, or keep a good amount of units in front of the mine so the units kill the lings or whatever before the mines are set off. the cost of making overseers alone is almost worth going mine. you usually have to make a lot, as mines can target overseers and kill them, plus stimmed marines>overseers.
|
|
|
On May 10 2013 19:47 Snowbear wrote:
You can split your units, just like the lower league terrans have to godsplit against banelings. We all knew this would happen: wol zerg was too strong > a lot of zergs were playing above their actual level > balanced hots comes out > the zergs lose against people they won against in wol > balance whine.
And one person (terran) is required to split against banelings (terran armies HAVE to be microed):
- in WOL the other person (zerg) wasn't required > ISSUE
- in HOTS also the other person (zerg) is required to mico > NO ISSUE, perfect game.
Hai friend, I just thought I'd point out that your exaggerations aren't helping you prove your point,
both zerg and terran have always been forced to micro and you know that just aswell as I do.
|
No Oracle change? thank god
|
Sounds good. Good work D.Kim!
|
it's good that they're listening to the community and not going through with the oracle and burrow changes
|
|
|
On May 10 2013 16:45 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 13:00 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. The Mine vs Banelings argument has been done so many times it shouldn't be brought up anymore. It's not a very good comparison to begin with and how often do you see Banelings come out as cost efficient as Mines? People see Banelings melt Marines and they go "OMG IMBA". Newsflash: that's minerals vs minerals+gas, more often than not it's not actually very efficient for Zerg lol. Not only do Mines pwn Zerglings but they pwn Banelings, Mutas and almost every Zerg unit. At best Banelings serve as a "stall" form of AoE where you are just trying to keep the Terran army small to avoid dying while going for Hive tech and more efficient forms of AoE (Infestors/Ultras). On the other hand Mines are very efficient and can be used almost all game long. Show nested quote +The Mine vs Banelings argument has been done so many times it shouldn't be brought up anymore. It's not a very good comparison to begin with and how often do you see Banelings come out as cost efficient as Mines? Quite often when they are used as baneling mines. Which cannot be detected by simply running a single ling ahead of the rest. Really that isn't that much work. Not to mention speedlings can run pretty much directly over mines without activating them. Another newsflash: Not only do mines pwn lings and mutas, they pwn marines too. I tested it before, do equal supply/cost of speedlings vs marine/mine, unmicro'd on both sides, even with stimming the marines, and the end result is generally a draw. Mines kill everything, including friendly units. So that balances it out for lower levels. And then talking about being used all-game long? Mines are pretty much useless when BLs come out, and tbh also infestors and ultras don't make them more impressive, although with BLs out they actually only kill your own army. Meanwhile banelings stay very useful throughout all the game. And of course it is hard to compare two units which are quite different, but I agree that mines are probably more cost efficient generally. At the same time banelings are generally more supply efficient.
Really now...
1. Your unit needs to walk over the Baneling.
2. You need 2 to kill a marine and even then it does less damage than a mine.
3. No range.
4. You lose the Banelings.
Burrowed Banelings aren't even that good and it's too risky to be effective (if burrow was cheaper this might change but currently pros rarely get burrow to use burrowed Banelings). Like I said, these arguments have been done again and again and there's a reason Terrans use tons of Mines while Zergs try to avoid using Banelings if they can.
As for the friendly splash damage, there is a reason the mines are in front of your army. And all you are saying is that at best the Zerg can trade equal to the Terran, Zerglings vs Marines and that's assuming the Terran just has crap micro. At worst the Zerg is trading Lings, Banelings, and Mutas for Marines.
Notice I said mines are efficient "almost" all game long. Obviously BLs are good against mines but in current ZvT it's actually quite hard not only to get to BL but to even have decent upgrades for them. Right now pros are trying to do melee and ground carapace + air attack simultaneously and it's insanely gas intensive. It's extremely difficult to afford that while simultaneously reloading your Banes and Mutas when they die, teching to Hive and Greater Spire, and finding the resources to build the Corrupters and finally BL. We don't typically even see BL until very, very late game ZvT. This is delayed even further if the Zerg decides to get Ultras and, while Ultras can take mine hits fairly well, the mines still do a flat 125 damage per hit to Ultras which ignores all armor upgrades so it's not like mines are terrible vs Ultras. Infestors don't work very well to counter mines at all. If you are trying to use ITs to bait mine shots that's energy that is not going into fungal and if the Terran is smart he will just unburrow and back up unless he thinks he can win even without the mines. Also remember you will need at least 1 IT per mine. But let's be honest here, the majority of time in ZvT games is spent where Zerg is on Ling, Bling, Muta vs MMMM. It takes a long time for Zerg to get more efficient AoE than Banelings.
Being supply efficient is pointless if the unit is cost inefficient not to mention Banelings aren't actually that supply efficient. You need 2 to kill a Marine (1 supply) and you are guaranteed to lose some before the connections are made. But again, it's irrelevant because, if the unit is not very cost efficient you don't want to build a lot of them to begin with so being able to build a lot of them is pointless (and this is exactly what Zergs are doing: building as few Banelings as possible trying to hold out until they can get more efficient AoE ie. Ultras).
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
I'd just like to point out that people complaining about cost efficieny with banelings is that no zerg unit outside of or lair are really super cost efficient. If zerglings, banelings and roaches for example were guarenteed to be cost efficient every game zerg would be horribly broken as they'd have not only the best way of remaxxing super fast, but they'd also have the best army cost efficiency wise.
There was a massive reason zerg having infestors like they were and broodlords were broken. They basically countered every single unit in the game cost efficiently and that was the issue with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
