On September 04 2013 17:59 YyapSsap wrote: Mech won't be so turtley if there was incentives to get more bases and capture high ground or some sort of terrain feature that benefits the defender (so that a few defensive units can fend off enemies 2 to 3 times larger in terms of numbers).
SC2 doesn't do any of the above sadly.
How would that NOT promote turtling?
Because your always going to have to move out or your going to get far behind econ wise since 3 bases isn't the ceiling in terms of optimal econ. Theres no point turtling on 3 bases when the opponent is on +5 bases and has all the really important high grounds covered.
Just going back to the root cause.. why does turtling occur in SC2? 3 bases are optimal so you dont really move out or have to spread yourself out to defend 4 or more bases. Instead you end up amassing the mech ball. No need to split your army to cover large areas because SC2 lacks defenders advantage.
When you look at mech tvt in BW, both players are actively out in the field, trying to establish tank lines at favorable locations (not just outside your natural or 3rd) that a) gain access to more bases b) critical choke points c) high grounds etc. Terrain actually means something because having highground advantage can fend off huge attacks with a smaller force. Its like watching SC2 marine tank wars in slow motion with more twists and turns.
On September 04 2013 17:59 YyapSsap wrote: Mech won't be so turtley if there was incentives to get more bases and capture high ground or some sort of terrain feature that benefits the defender (so that a few defensive units can fend off enemies 2 to 3 times larger in terms of numbers).
SC2 doesn't do any of the above sadly.
How would that NOT promote turtling?
Because your always going to have to move out or your going to get far behind econ wise since 3 bases isn't the ceiling in terms of optimal econ. Theres no point turtling on 3 bases when the opponent is on +5 bases and has all the really important high grounds covered.
Just going back to the root cause.. why does turtling occur in SC2? 3 bases are optimal so you dont really move out or have to spread yourself out to defend 4 or more bases. Instead you end up amassing the mech ball. No need to split your army to cover large areas because SC2 lacks defenders advantage.
When you look at mech tvt in BW, both players are actively out in the field, trying to establish tank lines at favorable locations (not just outside your natural or 3rd) that a) gain access to more bases b) critical choke points c) high grounds etc. Terrain actually means something because having highground advantage can fend off huge attacks with a smaller force. Its like watching SC2 marine tank wars in slow motion with more twists and turns.
On September 04 2013 17:59 YyapSsap wrote: Mech won't be so turtley if there was incentives to get more bases and capture high ground or some sort of terrain feature that benefits the defender (so that a few defensive units can fend off enemies 2 to 3 times larger in terms of numbers).
SC2 doesn't do any of the above sadly.
How would that NOT promote turtling?
Because your always going to have to move out or your going to get far behind econ wise since 3 bases isn't the ceiling in terms of optimal econ. Theres no point turtling on 3 bases when the opponent is on +5 bases and has all the really important high grounds covered.
Just going back to the root cause.. why does turtling occur in SC2? 3 bases are optimal so you dont really move out or have to spread yourself out to defend 4 or more bases. Instead you end up amassing the mech ball. No need to split your army to cover large areas because SC2 lacks defenders advantage.
When you look at mech tvt in BW, both players are actively out in the field, trying to establish tank lines at favorable locations (not just outside your natural or 3rd) that a) gain access to more bases b) critical choke points c) high grounds etc. Terrain actually means something because having highground advantage can fend off huge attacks with a smaller force. Its like watching SC2 marine tank wars in slow motion with more twists and turns.
sounds like turtling on 5 instead of 3 bases.
3 bases is an easy, contained area. 5 is a huge portion of the map.
To actually control 5 bases, you need to take control of the map and chokepoints - and do something about the more aggressively expanding opponent, so timings are also important.
looks like BByong does not buy your "QQ only bio-mine, TvZ always the same QQ" BS. First game against sleep : fast BC at 8min Second game, banshee cloak into mech Lets see the third game
On September 04 2013 21:43 VieuxSinge wrote: looks like BByong does not buy your "QQ only bio-mine, TvZ always the same QQ" BS. First game against sleep : fast BC at 8min Second game, banshee cloak into mech Lets see the third game
A single exception to the rule doesn't mean shit, it actually adds to the argument.
Zerg is so busy preparing for 4M that he can't be bothered to defend against other builds.
I guarantee that if sleep weren't in the mindset that he needs to be ready for the 4M switch, he would crush both of those builds.
On September 04 2013 21:43 VieuxSinge wrote: looks like BByong does not buy your "QQ only bio-mine, TvZ always the same QQ" BS. First game against sleep : fast BC at 8min Second game, banshee cloak into mech Lets see the third game
And not surprinsingly, Bbyong is out while Sleep advances.
On September 04 2013 21:43 VieuxSinge wrote: looks like BByong does not buy your "QQ only bio-mine, TvZ always the same QQ" BS. First game against sleep : fast BC at 8min Second game, banshee cloak into mech Lets see the third game
A single exception to the rule doesn't mean shit, it actually adds to the argument.
Zerg is so busy preparing for 4M that he can't be bothered to defend against other builds.
I guarantee that if sleep weren't in the mindset that he needs to be ready for the 4M switch, he would crush both of those builds.
lost the Frost game because he decided to head for a delayed bane bust despite having scouted Hellions/Banshees, which is an awful decision since Hellions/Banshees is precisely designed to hold such attacks and inflict heavy damage or even win straightaway with a counter. Sleep was already lucky enough to vaguely have a game because Bbyong decided to sacrifice a second squad of Hellions instead of defending, and thus lost his whole mineral line at the natural because he was busy microing his Hellions in the other side of the map. 4M has absolutely no impact on such games because Zerg can always scout with an Overlord or an Overseer if Terran is playing 4M, bio/Tanks or mech...
Why the fuck do people see ONE best oif three between two players as evidence for anything? It was a sweet bo3 with nice plays, not indicative of anything at all, especially not anything regarding this topic
I still think 4M plays a role in the games, I'm just pointing out the audacity of dwf's counter point. That somehow trading econs is a better reason for zerg losing, it makes more sense.
Really?
The discussion for the last page has gone: "4M isn't an issue because Terran has other options, SEE!" "A single instance of 'other options' doesn't mean anything because the Zerg STILL has to prepare for 4M, because it's THAT prevalent" "That's not what lost sleep the game, he lost because he spent resources killing Terrans economy instead of defending his own, and we all know that is a bad move"
So here we sit, acknowledging that Zerg isn't allowed to attack the Terran economy, as even an equal trade is a huge loss. Meanwhile, Zerg has to have 4 bases by the 15 minute mark or he just dies to marine rally (and may still die anyway). The best tool Zerg has to deal with this is ling/bane/muta, which has not only proven to be mediocre at best, it ALSO leaves him vulnerable to other off-the-wall builds once in a hundred games. And all this is fine.
I wish Zerg pros were as good as the Terran pros. Please, explain to me the difference in quality.
Why is it that when Terran pros win with pure marine rally for the first 10 minutes of the game, we consider that 'skillful play' and when a Zerg player defends for 20+ minutes, working his way into 5 base BL/infestor/ling/bling/ultra/queen with the entire map covered in creep, that shit is imba?
On September 05 2013 02:51 Jermstuddog wrote: I still think 4M plays a role in the games, I'm just pointing out the audacity of dwf's counter point. That somehow trading econs is a better reason for zerg losing, it makes more sense.
Really?
The discussion for the last page has gone: "4M isn't an issue because Terran has other options, SEE!" "A single instance of 'other options' doesn't mean anything because the Zerg STILL has to prepare for 4M, because it's THAT prevalent" "That's not what lost sleep the game, he lost because he spent resources killing Terrans economy instead of defending his own, and we all know that is a bad move"
So here we sit, acknowledging that Zerg isn't allowed to attack the Terran economy, as even an equal trade is a huge loss.
What are you even talking about?... Sleep lost because he went for a delayed all-in against a safe build tailored to handle such all-ins despite having scouted this build (= an idiotic decision); and no, he didn't "trade ecos" as 2 OCs + a third on the way + 24 SCVs > 32 drones, not to mention Zerg won't be able to drone freely afterwards because of the threat of a Hellions/Banshees counter while Terran can produce SCVs, and let us not talk about the 10'25 lair i. e. a massive delay in tech. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with your "Zerg isn't allowed to attack Terran's economy" propaganda; stop distorting arguments to match your point of view.
On September 05 2013 02:51 Jermstuddog wrote: I still think 4M plays a role in the games, I'm just pointing out the audacity of dwf's counter point. That somehow trading econs is a better reason for zerg losing, it makes more sense.
Really?
The discussion for the last page has gone: "4M isn't an issue because Terran has other options, SEE!" "A single instance of 'other options' doesn't mean anything because the Zerg STILL has to prepare for 4M, because it's THAT prevalent" "That's not what lost sleep the game, he lost because he spent resources killing Terrans economy instead of defending his own, and we all know that is a bad move"
So here we sit, acknowledging that Zerg isn't allowed to attack the Terran economy, as even an equal trade is a huge loss.
What are you even talking about?... Sleep lost because he went for a delayed all-in against a safe build tailored to handle such all-ins despite having scouted this build (= an idiotic decision); and no, he didn't "trade ecos" as 2 OCs + a third on the way + 24 SCVs > 32 drones, not to mention Zerg won't be able to drone freely afterwards because of the threat of a Hellions/Banshees counter while Terran can produce SCVs, and let us not talk about the 10'25 lair i. e. a massive delay in tech. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with your "Zerg isn't allowed to attack Terran's economy" propaganda; stop distorting arguments to match your point of view.
Even here you're acknowledging my propaganda.
2 OCs + a third on the way + 24 SCVs > 32 drones
Zerg won't be able to drone freely afterwards because of the threat of a Hellions/Banshees counter while Terran can produce SCVs
So... Zerg trading econs is bad, but saying "zerg isn't allowed to attack" is propaganda.
Zerg can't drone up in the midgame, but he's free to attack in the early game?
How is my argument so flawed when I'm drawing it from your own statements?
On September 05 2013 02:51 Jermstuddog wrote: I still think 4M plays a role in the games, I'm just pointing out the audacity of dwf's counter point. That somehow trading econs is a better reason for zerg losing, it makes more sense.
Really?
The discussion for the last page has gone: "4M isn't an issue because Terran has other options, SEE!" "A single instance of 'other options' doesn't mean anything because the Zerg STILL has to prepare for 4M, because it's THAT prevalent" "That's not what lost sleep the game, he lost because he spent resources killing Terrans economy instead of defending his own, and we all know that is a bad move"
So here we sit, acknowledging that Zerg isn't allowed to attack the Terran economy, as even an equal trade is a huge loss.
What are you even talking about?... Sleep lost because he went for a delayed all-in against a safe build tailored to handle such all-ins despite having scouted this build (= an idiotic decision); and no, he didn't "trade ecos" as 2 OCs + a third on the way + 24 SCVs > 32 drones, not to mention Zerg won't be able to drone freely afterwards because of the threat of a Hellions/Banshees counter while Terran can produce SCVs, and let us not talk about the 10'25 lair i. e. a massive delay in tech. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with your "Zerg isn't allowed to attack Terran's economy" propaganda; stop distorting arguments to match your point of view.
On September 04 2013 15:41 SheaR619 wrote: honestly, blizzard are pretty clueless on how to make mech work.
Blizzard may know how to make mech work - DK understands that the high number of counters are the issue not tank damage. But why would they bother to fix it? They think that play-style is boring and they are partially right with all turtling mech currently involves. Add to that a number of necessary change which may unbalance the game and a host of players that would cry bloody murder and fight for nerfs instead of adapting. Unless you can get a huge amount of players whining about terran variety mech is not worth the work required.
They dont have to change tanks, and tanks doesnt have to be the core unit honestly but it the only unit now that need to be seriously looked at since it terrible in all match up except TvT where it is okay (since mine overlap them heavily). There really isnt any other core unit that can be changed atm that wont make the game worst. If they make thor or BC the core unit, it will be nothing but A-Move which is even worst.
Either way, they need to just make mech feel different and look different than bio. Their old solution by adding warhound was the worst solution to fixing mech cause it was just going to be an A-move ball that was fairly mobile. They need to make mech extremely mobile or extremely immobile from the current style to promote the other race to react different toward it to create more diverse play. IMO it should be the most immobile composition since every composition revolving around bio is already pretty mobile, and by being an immobile composition generally you will have to turtle anyways. Hell, protoss already doing that so what wrong with terran doing it? It will promote protoss to be the aggressive one rather than the terran. We will see carriers (although I am not a fan of them and think they are pretty boring), more warp prism harassment and hopefully a new mobile style for protoss to counteract this mech style terran. I believe blizzard is worried that protoss will continue to play the same style vs terran mech style therefore leading to extremely boring drawn out game where 2 death ball just mesh and kill each other and then GG. Similar to Zerg with broodlord/ultra death ball which is why they dont want to do it.
Terran is the only race that is capable of playing 2 style that is completely different since they have seperated upgraded and the factory has a mineral sink unit. Terran has so much potential to play 2 distinct style and hell they can probably even do 3 if they wana make all AIR the super mobile style but that has yet to seem feasible with a mineral sink air unit. You say it not worth the time but I have to refuse and say that making mech viable is more than worth the time.
On September 05 2013 02:51 Jermstuddog wrote: I still think 4M plays a role in the games, I'm just pointing out the audacity of dwf's counter point. That somehow trading econs is a better reason for zerg losing, it makes more sense.
Really?
The discussion for the last page has gone: "4M isn't an issue because Terran has other options, SEE!" "A single instance of 'other options' doesn't mean anything because the Zerg STILL has to prepare for 4M, because it's THAT prevalent" "That's not what lost sleep the game, he lost because he spent resources killing Terrans economy instead of defending his own, and we all know that is a bad move"
So here we sit, acknowledging that Zerg isn't allowed to attack the Terran economy, as even an equal trade is a huge loss.
What are you even talking about?... Sleep lost because he went for a delayed all-in against a safe build tailored to handle such all-ins despite having scouted this build (= an idiotic decision); and no, he didn't "trade ecos" as 2 OCs + a third on the way + 24 SCVs > 32 drones, not to mention Zerg won't be able to drone freely afterwards because of the threat of a Hellions/Banshees counter while Terran can produce SCVs, and let us not talk about the 10'25 lair i. e. a massive delay in tech. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with your "Zerg isn't allowed to attack Terran's economy" propaganda; stop distorting arguments to match your point of view.
Even here you're acknowledging my propaganda.
2 OCs + a third on the way + 24 SCVs > 32 drones
Zerg won't be able to drone freely afterwards because of the threat of a Hellions/Banshees counter while Terran can produce SCVs
So... Zerg trading econs is bad, but saying "zerg isn't allowed to attack" is propaganda.
Zerg can't drone up in the midgame, but he's free to attack in the early game?
How is my argument so flawed when I'm drawing it from your own statements?
I don't even understand what kind of reasoning can make you write such an answer. Keep complaining that an anti-allin build beats a scouted all-in.
I am fine with the fact that sleep lost, I just don't see how these games are relevant to the 4M discussion (how this got started), then your justification being that Bbyong had a superior build but played badly but won anyway just seemed stupid to me, so I decided to make a big deal out of it.
While I DO feel that Zerg aggressive options in the early stages are 1) limited and 2) generally not worth it, I don't particularly care until people start acting like it's completely OK for Terran to have every advantage when the Zerg aggression ACTUALLY WORKED.
On September 05 2013 04:17 Jermstuddog wrote: I am fine with the fact that sleep lost, I just don't see how these games are relevant to the 4M discussion (how this got started), then your justification being that Bbyong had a superior build but played badly but won anyway just seemed stupid to me, so I decided to make a big deal out of it.
I didn't say Bbyong "played badly," I said he made one bad decision by sending another squad of Hellions and focusing his attention on it while Sleep was busting his natural. No wonder things seem stupid to you if you systematically simplify or exaggerate every point I make.
While I DO feel that Zerg aggressive options in the early stages are 1) limited and 2) generally not worth it, I don't particularly care until people start acting like it's completely OK for Terran to have every advantage when the Zerg aggression ACTUALLY WORKED.
No, it precisely did not work. Sleep killed 19 SCVs but considering everything he sacrificed (eco and tech) for this and Bbyong's build allowing him immediate counter-play, it was still a failure; hence why he was massively behind afterwards.
Guys, if we try to avoid the ever so biased balance talk (and TheDwf, admit it, that at HIGHEST level, where players do not make dumb mistakes at all, Terran is favored, thankfully nobody, except perhaps Innovation, has come close to this without losing wrists). Point MC makes is pretty clear, TvZ (and let's be fair, so does TvP) lacks variety. Yet in TvT mech ,bio-mech and bio co-exist on razor edge as far as i know. Making mech a viable option in TvP (for example) will have a drawback of making mech the only strategy in TvT most likely, while not making mech a really viable option vZ since HotS added exactly anti-mech units. Anti-turtle and anti-immobile-army (as in forces movement around the map due to relative straight up fight strength) and anti-positioning ones ofc. Fixing the mech most of players want to see (deathball, but with positional play, essentially) has to involve kinda changing SH and Viper, while keeping their roles, since they are units, that may be terribly designed, but they kinda solve the problems they were supposed to solve (and i will not comment on if those 'problems' were problems). Next, fixing mech in TvP is impossible without even larger amount of drastic changes. So essentially as of now attempt to bring any kind of variety in TvX match-ups will result in drastic changes to all races. And blizzard does not like to do massive and in the same time not-so-obvious changes (because they are hard, since even such a change as queen patch with ovie one ****** up the game).
EPT
