EPTif you know, that marine/tanks will defenitly destroy a zerg army like david kim said and that marine/mines are more likely to fail, why would you switch to marine/mines instead of marine/tanks?
Situation Report: June 11, 2013 - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
polity
54 Posts
if you know, that marine/tanks will defenitly destroy a zerg army like david kim said and that marine/mines are more likely to fail, why would you switch to marine/mines instead of marine/tanks? | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
| ||
|
samurai80
Japan4225 Posts
| ||
|
Oboeman
Canada3980 Posts
Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!! what do you mean? each game had a distinctly different all-in. two of them worked. remember zvt before the queen/overlord patch? Z opened 4 queens every game then flipped a coin, it was either 2 base lair or roach baneling all in. Terran could easily outgreed the 2-base lair builds (extra CCs and e-bays before making units), and the only thing keeping them honest was the threat that z would roach bust him a little under half the time. the patch addressed that by letting zerg out of his base, but was generally considered to be overkill because no one really knew just how good creep was, because they never had the means to get it truly out of control. what about subtle changes to units secondary stats. acceleration. damage point. range slop. Change the way the units feel under your control, without drastically changing their stats. Not seeing enough oracles? better acceleration lets them dip and dive more easily without giving the capability of singlehandedly annihilating a worker line. Maybe they'd be better at casting revelation without dying. At worst, you still don't see enough of them, but when you do see them they are cool to watch. Hellbats killing worker line too quickly, but playing the proper role in midgame and lategame? Increase the delay on their attack, and adjust cooldown so its the same DPS but starts later. More time to pull workers away from it as the medivac flies overhead. More possible to reactively micro against them. Ironically might be a buff against lings/zealots (see thread on blinding cloud vs hellbats: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405902) while we're at it, look at the acceleration for BCs, carriers, banshees and broodlords. maybe void rays, mutalisks, and medivacs too. | ||
|
cerebralz
United States443 Posts
The cheapness of mines also lends itself to fast pressure on the zerg 3rd, which i find almost impossible to hold unless i build turbonoobie spines/spores, and with the closed off attack paths, the zerg has to already be in position to defend from multiple angles as the attack comes while simultaneously defending all bases from drops. I really don't know what you could do with the unit to make it more palatable, but i would say elimination of the fast burrow and slowing the movement speed would be a good start. If the terran is making that push, having it delayed by a few seconds would be the difference in possibly getting in good position, or not. I hesitate to talk about the continued abuse of skytoss. Totally retarded, cannon yourself in on 3 bases and get void/templar/colossus. Because again attack paths, even if the map is big, limits greatly the effectiveness of zerg anti-air, and due to the ridiculousness of corruptors vs. void rays, this is never a winning proposition for zerg. I've remaxed 2x and more not being able to defend this. The only success i've had is to plant a dozen or more spores and try to trick the protoss into fighting over the spores. Other than that, i've got no clue of how anyone is stopping this, especially after +3 air attack and/or mothership comes into play. | ||
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
Point is though, tanks were used in BW, with spider mines. In SC2, we see much fewer tanks nowadays... | ||
|
Pure Intention
Russian Federation18 Posts
On June 12 2013 09:02 Waxangel wrote:
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random He means that in case of zerg vs. marine/mines, Z player can micro and outcome will depend on it, he can send a few units to deactivate mines, and if he's succesful his attack will be stronger, on the other hand it also requires terran micro, to position his unit so that he will be able to kill such "kamikaze" zerg units and still be protected by mines (when actual attack comes), this was show in a tonn of games already, and I believe widow mines are one of the most succesfull addition to the game (I'm not terran). | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1613 Posts
Make Colossi slower! | ||
|
BobMcJohnson
France2916 Posts
I don't really like them as an offensive tool, and I find tanks to be way more fun to watch and play with. This point in particular seems completely wrong to me: When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle. The current design of Widow Mines rewards both players who are skilled at using them and opposing players who are skilled at defeating them. Marine/Tank vs Muta/Ling/Bling wars in 2011 TvZ was like the most skillbased and fun thing to watch and play of all WoL history. Mines are way more random than tanks, and require less careful planning and positionning :/ I'd really like them to get the tanks back to their rightful spot in TvZ. Mines should be a defensive tool used to seal off counter-attack path, not mini tanks  tldr: I like tanks better, mines should be defensive units. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On June 12 2013 17:17 Ragnarork wrote: How were the discussion about the spider mines and the reaver's scarab in BW ? I feel they're more (or at least equally) random than widow mines... Point is though, tanks were used in BW, with spider mines. In SC2, we see much fewer tanks nowadays... That's a very interesting point, can anyone kind of describe how spider mines and tanks worked in BW? For the rest of us SC2-only newbies. In pure Theorcraft, I've always thought it would be smart/cool to use both siege tanks and widow mines. Set up tanks somewhere, set up mines were flank should come, -> yay. Something like that | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
"The Warp Prism change we tested last week is a good example of a tweak that benefits players who are amazing at multitasking, while having little effect on the game below the pro level." Wat? | ||
|
Sindar
6 Posts
On June 12 2013 08:27 Qwyn wrote: I'm amused by how Blizzard says that widow mines reward skillful usage from Terran players. I also "like" how they say that when an army of tanks and marines goes against an opposing Zerg force, that observers can tell who will win the battle and who will lose... That indicates a problem to me. If it is so obvious that a Zerg will win or lose against a force of marine/tank, then it should also be equally obvious whether or not a Zerg will win against a force of marine/mine. It's not skill on the Terran's part to use mines - in fact, the usage of tanks promotes even more skill. Instead of setting and forgetting tanks, they can also be focus fired, spread out strategically across terrain, and can shell a target from a safe distance. Mine usage promotes a CHANCE aspect. The only skill involved in a Z v. burrowed mine engagement occurs on the side of the zerg, attempting to mitigate as much damage from the mine as possible. Blizzard is so desperate to remove the siege tank from TvZ that they call getting a few tanks to defend against a roach/bane allin "getting tanks." If the siege tank and the mine clash so much that Terran players predominantly choose one over the other and tank usage has largely disappeared, then one of the units is poorly designed and should be fixed so that their roles do not conflict, or it should be removed. I also think that Blizzard is focusing too much on removing defensive strategies such as swarmhost + static in order to avoid the infestor/broodlord effect, without actually considering why such strategies exist in the first place. The reason that strategy exists is that it is the only way that Zerg can consistently beat an endgame Protoss deathball. Instead of attempting to stamp that out Blizzard should consider why the comp exists in the first place and what is causing it...It's ironic because outside of two-base allins the sole goal of a Protoss is to turtle to death on 3 bases. In attempting to remove anything that is not aggressive from the game Blizzard is removing a lot of options and complexity. Just because something is defensive does not mean it is bad. Do not focus so much on the spectator that you limit potential gameplay. The death of the siege tank is a prime example of this. can't agree more | ||
|
megapants
United States1314 Posts
On June 12 2013 15:05 Aiobhill wrote: So while admitting corruptors work against colossi and phoenix, you also want them to work against void ray, basically forcing the protoss to go stalker, a unit that per cost is countered by every zerg unit able to hit it - including drones? Overall while pro balance would look okay-ish, if the protoss in Code S/WCS manage to not only show up in numbers but actually win something, the amount of hellbat drops in tvt and to a lesser extent tvp is a pain to watch. I like the "wait and see" approach currently used by Blizzard/Kim. After the terrible last months of WoL HotS made several matchups including all involving zerg interesting to watch again. the corruptor is a unit that zergs are building solely when scouting robotics and plan to go for a timing or after building 20 mutas and scouting phoenix production and playing an incredibly long game of attrition. the corruptor shouldn't also work against void ray, its a unit that should be designed to help zergs combat the void ray that might happen to also be useful vs colossus and phoenix in certain circumstances. why do you need the corruptor vs colossus anymore? blizzard added the viper to the zerg arsenal, which is obviously an excellent tool against colossus. and fungal growth, as unreliable as it may be at times, is already the unit that zergs are using the finish off phoenix fleets in those long, drawn out air to air stalemates. the corruptor is still just an expensive, low mobility, low utility air to air unit. edit: on a similar, but possibly somewhat derailing note, if blizzard had designed the corruptor better off in the beginning of WoL, then maybe void ray speed wouldn't have been removed. instead of redesigning zerg's options against mass air, they simply removed what they thought made protoss air too strong. but something can only be too strong if it's taking advantage of another's weaknesses, so why not increase the strength of zerg's anti-air options and leave in a potentially dynamic part of the game? because they took this approach, void rays were doomed to be used in 1 base allins against terran, never to see the late game again. i'd personally like to see the void ray have a bit more time to enjoy the spotlight this time around. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
Marine/Tank vs Muta/Ling/Bling wars in 2011 TvZ was like the most skillbased and fun thing to watch and play of all WoL history. Mines are way more random than tanks, and require less careful planning and positionning :/ I strongly disagree there, Mines require more careful positioning than tanks. Okay with upgrade you can reposition them faster, but their position is more important. (Although with vipers also siege tank positioning got more important, thats true). They simply have less range. On June 12 2013 17:24 Incognoto wrote: That's a very interesting point, can anyone kind of describe how spider mines and tanks worked in BW? For the rest of us SC2-only newbies. In pure Theorcraft, I've always thought it would be smart/cool to use both siege tanks and widow mines. Set up tanks somewhere, set up mines were flank should come, -> yay. Something like that Thats my default vs zerg strat, siege tanks, bio, with some widow mines added. Widow mines have several roles, depending on what enemy does. Vs mutas always a bunch around the siege tanks, they operate pretty much as mobile missile turrets, so I don't have to worry as much about mutas sniping tanks. With vipers they are placed a bit further from tanks, but idea to help kill vipers before they cast too many blinding clouds, since widow mines aren't affected by them. And besides that obviously just in the front rows to help thin out the enemy army, and with siege tanks behind it, good luck setting them off with single units. Edit: And why not pure bio-mine? My limitted micro skills, with siege tanks it quickly becomes a bit more slow paced. (Yes I said it, I use siege tanks over mines to have to micro less). | ||
|
mihajovics
179 Posts
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder. I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more. Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup. | ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder. I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more. Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup. Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people. | ||
|
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
On June 12 2013 17:47 Serpico wrote: Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people. "But terran players must innovate !" Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...) | ||
|
Douillos
France3195 Posts
On June 12 2013 17:17 Ragnarork wrote: How were the discussion about the spider mines and the reaver's scarab in BW ? I feel they're more (or at least equally) random than widow mines... Point is though, tanks were used in BW, with spider mines. In SC2, we see much fewer tanks nowadays... Only a mech-ing terran would make both. You can also make both when you mech in sc2. | ||
|
Douillos
France3195 Posts
On June 12 2013 18:09 Ragnarork wrote: "But terran players must innovate !" Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...) Hellbats rape zealots. | ||
|
ETisME
12702 Posts
On June 12 2013 17:23 BobMcJohnson wrote: Meh, I'm not sure I agree with them on widow mines. I don't really like them as an offensive tool, and I find tanks to be way more fun to watch and play with. This point in particular seems completely wrong to me: Marine/Tank vs Muta/Ling/Bling wars in 2011 TvZ was like the most skillbased and fun thing to watch and play of all WoL history. Mines are way more random than tanks, and require less careful planning and positionning :/ I'd really like them to get the tanks back to their rightful spot in TvZ. Mines should be a defensive tool used to seal off counter-attack path, not mini tanks tldr: I like tanks better, mines should be defensive units. agree on this one. Tank positioning and leapfrogging against muta ling baneling was amazing to watch. Not to mention there was constant trading and traded fairly evenly most of the time, Each drop was more dedicated and clever rather than now non-stop drop drop damage damage multi task action. There were much more careful movement of the terran army, how to control the enemy army position etc. bio mine is just an extremely fast, splash, high damage dealing combo, compared to slower siege tank careful positioning timing attacks. | ||
| ||
