On September 05 2013 04:28 TheDwf wrote: 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.
And that is why I feel Zerg agro options in TvZ generally suck.
Killing 19 SCVs is a catastrophic failure while throwing away 6 hellions to kill 4-5 drones is 1) a big win 2) basically free, and 3) has the chance to kill a LOT more than 4-5 drones if you get lucky.
On September 05 2013 04:36 lolfail9001 wrote: 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).
Why would I admit something solely because it is your opinion?
On September 05 2013 04:28 TheDwf wrote: 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.
And that is why I feel Zerg agro options in TvZ generally suck.
Killing 19 SCVs is a catastrophic failure while throwing away 6 hellions to kill 4-5 drones is 1) a big win 2) basically free, and 3) has the chance to kill a LOT more than 4-5 drones if you get lucky.
Yeah, sure. Bomber vs Scarlett, Whirlwind, WCS Finals: Bomber kills 15 drones with a 4 Hellions raid? Doesn't matter, still 71 drones at 10' and can defend the following push (and, by the way, proceeds to win with lings/banes/mutas vs 4M despite being 2/2 vs 3/3 for quite a long time, showing how much worth the "blabla, Terran just wins as soon as he hits 3/3, blabla" complaints are).
Why are you complaining about things if you don't even understand that some attacks cut so much to hit that they can still be massive failures despite dealing a certain amount of damage?
On September 05 2013 04:17 Jermstuddog wrote: 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, what works is what actually wins you games and gives you advantages. If Jaedong loses game after game after trading banelings for SCVs (e.g. Polt, Bomber games) Soulkey loses game after game after trading banelings for SCVs (e.g. Innovation games on Whirlwind or Bel'Shire Vestige) Sleep loses a game after trading banelings for SCVs ... (list could go on and on and on)
then maybe we simply shouldn't consider that the aggression worked unless the Terran is really dead (like when a baneling bust just wins or gives you a massive advantage in workers and army).
Sleep demonstrated very well how to play macro vs 4M today in all of his games (apart from that Akilon game, when he screwed up his macro). You defend, you don't counterattack with banelings, only with units that can go back home to defend or at least cost no gas. And then you defend more and more, until you can do a remax attack. Even if you are naturally pushing the Terran all the way home you don't commit and only try to starve the Terran.
On September 05 2013 04:28 TheDwf wrote: 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.
And that is why I feel Zerg agro options in TvZ generally suck.
Killing 19 SCVs is a catastrophic failure while throwing away 6 hellions to kill 4-5 drones is 1) a big win 2) basically free, and 3) has the chance to kill a LOT more than 4-5 drones if you get lucky.
On September 05 2013 04:28 TheDwf wrote: 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.
And that is why I feel Zerg agro options in TvZ generally suck.
Killing 19 SCVs is a catastrophic failure while throwing away 6 hellions to kill 4-5 drones is 1) a big win 2) basically free, and 3) has the chance to kill a LOT more than 4-5 drones if you get lucky.
no.
Why are you complaining about things if you don't even understand that some attacks cut so much to hit that they can still be massive failures despite dealing a certain amount of damage?
On September 05 2013 04:42 TheDwf wrote: Yeah, sure. Bomber vs Scarlett, Whirlwind, WCS Finals: Bomber kills 15 drones with a 4 Hellions raid? Doesn't matter, still 71 drones at 10' and can defend the following push (and, by the way, proceeds to win with lings/banes/mutas vs 4M despite being 2/2 vs 3/3 for quite a long time, showing how much worth the "blabla, Terran just wins as soon as he hits 3/3, blabla" complaints are).
Why are you complaining about things if you don't even understand that some attacks cut so much to hit that they can still be massive failures despite dealing a certain amount of damage?
If you don't see the difference between 2/2 4M (very typically a stalemate where both armies end up dead and nothing important, like hatcheries, gets lost on either side) and 3/3 4M where top-level games very often turn to an overwhelming terran advantage in THE VERY NEXT FIGHT, I don't even know what to say. The effects of the free 3rd upgrade tier vs the 200/150/100 prereq to even START 3/3 SHOULD be obvious.
But back to the point of the cost of attacking. I agree with you. It costs way too much to attack as Zerg because every unit costs a drone, every building costs a drone, and every unit needs a minimum of 100/100/60 spent in research to even be mildly effective. It is my opinion that Zerg (in the current game of SC2) should almost never attack into a Terran base with anything beyond a pack of lings hoping for a handful of SCV kills until the 25+ minute mark.
It is also my opinion that this absolutely lop-sided situation makes for a shitty, boring MU.
Now lets bring the argument back to the point of this thread: MCs opinion on the state of the game.
I agree 100% that Blizzard needs to do something about the way TvZ is played right now. Throwing out balance concerns, watching one side do all the attacking for the first 20 minutes of the game while holding off all counter-aggression with very minimal investments (many terrans are even skipping turrets now since the Mutas have to play drop defense all game) feels inherently unfair and boring.
If we want things to stay relatively similar to how they currently play out, Zerg needs better harassment options.
If we want Zerg to be able to defend similar to how Terran does, Zerg needs better zone-control and drop-defense options.
Either way, right now, the MU is lop-sided and stale.
On September 05 2013 04:17 Jermstuddog wrote: 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, what works is what actually wins you games and gives you advantages. If Jaedong loses game after game after trading banelings for SCVs (e.g. Polt, Bomber games) Soulkey loses game after game after trading banelings for SCVs (e.g. Innovation games on Whirlwind or Bel'Shire Vestige) Sleep loses a game after trading banelings for SCVs ... (list could go on and on and on)
then maybe we simply shouldn't consider that the aggression worked unless the Terran is really dead (like when a baneling bust just wins or gives you a massive advantage in workers and army).
Sleep demonstrated very well how to play macro vs 4M today in all of his games (apart from that Akilon game, when he screwed up his macro). You defend, you don't counterattack with banelings, only with units that can go back home to defend or at least cost no gas. And then you defend more and more, until you can do a remax attack. Even if you are naturally pushing the Terran all the way home you don't commit and only try to starve the Terran.
Now if only someone will be able to pull it off against Innovation... Damn, this guy.
I love that MC decided to put a target on his back to express his views on this. His comments have brought about a very useful discussion about what constitutes a healthy game. Whether you agree with them or not is almost besides the point - and Maj0r, I'd love it if you elaborated on his remarks, because he's a stupendously good player, and his remarks shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand - but also I'm very curious about how the discussion goes on the Korean board they were originally written on.
On September 05 2013 04:28 TheDwf wrote: 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.
And that is why I feel Zerg agro options in TvZ generally suck.
Killing 19 SCVs is a catastrophic failure while throwing away 6 hellions to kill 4-5 drones is 1) a big win 2) basically free, and 3) has the chance to kill a LOT more than 4-5 drones if you get lucky.
This was the first post I basically read, so I'm hoping I missed something because this post is extremely cringe worthy.
On September 05 2013 05:17 Jermstuddog wrote: If you don't see the difference between 2/2 4M (very typically a stalemate where both armies end up dead and nothing important, like hatcheries, gets lost on either side) and 3/3 4M where top-level games very often turn to an overwhelming terran advantage in THE VERY NEXT FIGHT, I don't even know what to say. The effects of the free 3rd upgrade tier vs the 200/150/100 prereq to even START 3/3 SHOULD be obvious.
The 3/3 vs 2/2 talk is completely overrated because it neglects other critical factors such as oncreep/offcreep, Baneling connections, the amount of Mines and the efficiency of their hits, the size of the Mutalisk cloud, the Medivac count, the positioning of the armies, and of course micro from both sides. Saying that 3/3 instantly swings the game towards Terran is preposterous since it completely depends on the course of the game. 3/3 vs 2/2 is an advantage, of course, but it's not at all the end of the world or a guaranteed Terran win. There is a plethora of games in which 2/2 lings/banes/mutas is competing fine against 3/3 4M for quite a long period of time, and I don't want to shock you but I heard Zerg even won some of them (e. g. 2 cases today in the GSL).
On September 05 2013 06:16 Jermstuddog wrote: You want to get sarcastic and spiteful, we don't need to have this discussion about a fucking video game, sudo-anonymously on the internet.
You know what, SC2 is fine, what was I thinking? We all know MC is just a whiney bitch anyway.
Jesus, man, calm down. As far as I can tell MC didn't even call the match-up imbalanced, he just thought it lacks variety and that is hurting SC2. I get that the SC2 scene just got some bad news, and everybody's scared and angry right now, but getting this worked up isn't going to fix anything.
But if people want to start throwing insults, make terrible assumptions about my game knowledge, and say things that don't progress the discussion, I don't need to waste my time writing out useless posts about a video game on some internet forum.
I love the arguing and TheDwf and Big J are usually good for some intense discourse, but if this isn't the place/time, I will save it for another thread.
If you only show two or three 5-10 second clips, how on Earth can we judge whether that game was fair or not? From the little we saw, it looks like he did a good job with the baneling land mines, but couldn't hold off drops so he died, but it's impossible to tell from that brief little window
I bet MC made this post to divert attention away from the matchup that is even more imbalanced than TvZ --> PvT (and with the overseer buff I imagine that the win rates will inch a bit closer to 50/50, perhaps 53-54/47-6, which is in the range of appropriate balance anyway). But excellent tactics by MC, it appears the diversion was successful!
i think the balance problem how the low tier units is to cost effiecient for the macro behind it. when you have 3 bases with mules your income is so high for 50mineral marines and 75m 25gwidows that it doesn't matter if you throw away units as long as you trade equal enough. i would have games where the terran don't pay attention to about 30 supply worth of marines and mines and i'll just catch them with banelings. however you would think you had an advantage and try to counter, but thats not possible cause he's still pumping units that are just idle. the only true way to win against T is to trade good for your end, then build more units and trade again. when you hit max and he's constantly trading you should finally be ahead in army and go for it. HOWEVER it still doesnt mean your going to win. you have to micro against mines cause they can end your game even though you slowley built the lead. what I am trying to say is, its not unbeatable, you just can't see your lead or the lead you make is just not there. If toss sack armys like T then you can clearly see the toss behind like any normal game and Z would have a much easier time. However this doesn't work for T. I think a fix like increasing gas/ minor mineral for widow mine would help. The T has large influx of gass that means T can't ignore gas anymore. Also will actually TRY to defend their mines instead of carelessly put them everywhere. Sometimes I can engage in my favor and kill 10 mines and his army still don't feel ahead. Maybe the cost difference on the mine will make him slowly pump out the mines and actually try to save them.
for example, the mines are 75m 25g. roaches cost the same but obviously you know which unit is better. You can't increase the cost very large cause early agression is going to hurt T, but then again T has a lot of safe openings and killing 6 scv is like a slap on the wrist for 3cc builds. I think the cost of like 100m 50g, can change a lot. It will slow down the production of the mine slightly and actually make terran focus on gas even though they float a lot of gas later on in the game. End game when they have to go against ultras they would have a decision to go for marauders or mines and not both (or they can try), that will also even out the scale for end game because tier 1 units should not be able to roll over tier 3 units. if you choose for mass maruaders then mass ling will kinda counter. but this is where the gas and mineral change on widow will help, it will make T to actually try and save them in all engagements. 75m 25g is like doing the roach max for Z in ZvP, you just keep throwing roaches till they die, but the minute they cost like hydras, you can't throw them and you will try and save every hydra.
But yea you can't do anything extreme, it will change the whole game, but the fact that the mines cost so cheap and you can place them randomly in the map is not good. I mean you would never do that with tanks now would you?
EPT
