EPTSituation Report: June 11, 2013 - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
1raxexpand
United States165 Posts
| ||
|
padfoota
Taiwan1571 Posts
I remember watching streams where pros would do it in TvP for early defensive options vs the variety of allins towards the end of WoL and to punish fast thirds | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On June 12 2013 12:10 xAdra wrote: Because we want to diversify play? Is that wrong? Would you like to be back in the days when protoss had to go robo every game or die instantly? Saying that marauders take that role is stupid: would you go marauder/tank? Units that have different upgrades? I'm no terran player, but it's obvious that bio and mech are completely different playstyles. While bio players want constant harass and aggression, relying on micro and mechanics to stay on even footing, mech players utilize decision making and positioning to a greater extent. By allowing mech against protoss, you make the game more interesting. Let's ask a different question: why are you so violently adverse to the idea of making mech more viable? Apart from the panting longing for ladder points against terran? Diversity for the sake of diversity is not a good reason (especially if it causes other problems). Mech, at least in some form, is already viable in TvT and TvZ. Although it may not be the real slow intellectual strange of BW mech (this is partly because SC2 is a different, faster and more mobile game). There is no reason for it to be also viable in TvP just because it is Mech and just because of diversity. Let's take your suggestion of shield damage. You put shield damage on a unit that does a lot of default damage, does a lot of damage versus armoured, does splash damage, and now comes out with default siege range. You don't see the problem with that? That would cause a lot more problems than it 'solves' or gains in 'diversity'. If there is one thing we can say from a complex and deep game like SC2 is that the game is full of unintended consequences and players develop strategies in new and unexpected ways. This is why nerfs, especially large ones, should be resisted as it removes tools from players and diminishes the creativity of the playing population. However, this is also a reason why strong buffs need to be carefully implemented. Simply because no-one knows what direction these buffs will take the game. In opting for a strongger tank, people tend to look at Mech styles as played in BW without realising that SC2 is a different game, with different units, and different styles (such as Bio/Mech). For instance, from one point of view, such a buff intended to strengthen pure Mech could radically overpower Bio/Mech styles against P. Do you see what I mean? This is why ideas like this, even if nice on the surface, are rather silly, IMO, when you look at them a little deeper. | ||
|
S:klogW
Austria657 Posts
| ||
|
Slipspace
United States381 Posts
| ||
|
tshi
United States2495 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 LOL yeah I thought the same thing. I mean, I guess that's a subtle way to say, "Go Tanks!" ? | ||
|
GoodSirTets
Canada200 Posts
| ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
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. Is this implying that with tank/marine the numbers of the zerg matter and you can tell who will win based on numbers while mine/marine the numbers of the zerg are irrelevant because of "player skill" (that "skill" being how well the zerg can evade/detonate mines and minimizing losses while terran just stutter steps and macros)? | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
| ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
On June 12 2013 10:55 RPR_Tempest wrote: Without swarm host/mass static defence, there is literally no way for Zerg to take on Protoss in the late game once they have their death army of colossus/ht/voidray. God damn it. Hmm that sounds familiar. Were you also complaining about this when BL/Infestor was dominating? | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On June 12 2013 12:48 TheRabidDeer wrote: Is this implying that with tank/marine the numbers of the zerg matter and you can tell who will win based on numbers while mine/marine the numbers of the zerg are irrelevant because of "player skill" (that "skill" being how well the zerg can evade/detonate mines and minimizing losses while terran just stutter steps and macros)? Yes, they pretty much want zergs to work harder. Btw you don't "just stutter step" against ling/bane, you split. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 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 In WoL zerg 1-a their entire army into terran's marine tank. There is no dances and its what every zerg does when he decided its go time. In Hots, you will lose your army if you 1-a your army into widow mines. You need good controls and decisions to slowly poke away the fire before going in for the kills. | ||
|
snakeeyez
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
Much like the muta complaints of old, it's not that the VR itself is OP, it's the fact that Zerg lacks a solid counter-unit. When Void Rays are on the field en masse, it is signifcantly harder for the Zerg to win than the Protoss, while you can argue "Zerg shouldn't let it get that way" there is nothing on the other side remotely close to that strength in the modern game. Sure, it's winnable, but it sure does feel like showing up to a gun fight with a knife. | ||
|
DavoS
United States4605 Posts
| ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On June 12 2013 12:58 Bagi wrote: Yes, they pretty much want zergs to work harder. Btw you don't "just stutter step" against ling/bane, you split. With mine/marine you stutter step until the mines are detonated THEN you split as you retreat (if the zerg does not retreat). At least, this is what innovation does as far as I can remember. You dont split (or much) before that because you waste damage. This is at the pro level though, below that it is probably beneficial to retreat and split rather than stutter then split. On June 12 2013 13:01 iky43210 wrote: In WoL zerg 1-a their entire army into terran's marine tank. There is no dances and its what every zerg does when he decided its go time. In Hots, you will lose your army if you 1-a your army into widow mines. You need good controls and decisions to slowly poke away the fire before going in for the kills. In WoL if a zerg 1-a their entire army into marine/tank that is targeting, you lose. Banelings need to be controlled and if T is on creep it helps to use lings to surround marines so they cant run and you use mutas to target tanks or medivacs. 1-a is entirely too simplified. | ||
|
ColtCommando
United States51 Posts
| ||
|
Warpath
Canada1242 Posts
| ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On June 12 2013 13:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: With mine/marine you stutter step until the mines are detonated THEN you split as you retreat (if the zerg does not retreat). At least, this is what innovation does as far as I can remember. You dont split (or much) before that because you waste damage. This is at the pro level though, below that it is probably beneficial to retreat and split rather than stutter then split. Yeah there can be a bit of weaving back and forth, especially if you have a line of marauders as the safety buffer. I don't think most pros do that with all of their army though, just smaller squads. Either way obviously there's a lot of microing both sides can do, saying that a terran player "just stutter steps and macros" is a bit misleading. | ||
|
Nightsz
Canada398 Posts
| ||
| ||
