|
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Comparing bw and sc2 is silly in this context. Spending that much on your base defense is silly because your army is too small and would get crushed. In BW, you could defend with a smaller army for you to get turrets out. It is also much faster to rebuild mutas in sc2.
|
On October 15 2013 23:34 FFW_Rude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Yes. Players needs to figure out those things. I would hope that blizzard does not patch the game so often.
Yes. Terrans need to figure out those things. Zergs get their problems solved by balance changes, Terrans have to figure out. Since it has allways been this way, why change it, huh?
edit: it was more or less the same with the queen range buff. Terrans were told after the patch, that they need to figure out how to play, since their old stuff was thrown out of the window. And after 3-4 months they figured out....
that they can´t really win TvZ anymore. 
|
On October 16 2013 00:18 TeeTS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 23:34 FFW_Rude wrote:On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Yes. Players needs to figure out those things. I would hope that blizzard does not patch the game so often. Yes. Terrans need to figure out those things. Zergs get their problems solved by balance changes, Terrans have to figure out. Since it has allways been this way, why change it, huh?
Plus it's not like Terrans ignore they have to play Tower defence in lategame TvZ with the armor/range building upgrade; but spamming 10-15 Turrets per base is simply too expensive, and 30+ mutas barely care anyway as there are always weak spots Zerg can exploit.
|
They should increase the splash damage of the siege tank in my opinion. But I'm happy they are reducing the widow mine nerfs. If the other nerf had gone through I think ZvT would've been extremely zerg favored (I think it's already starting to swing into the favor of the zerg.)
Hoping Blizzard doesnt repeat what happened in WOL, where they kept buffing zerg too fast without giving their prior buffs a chance to affect the game. In the end Zerg just ended up becoming way too strong and it could've been prevented if they had given each balance change more time to set in. I already think making changes very specific to ZvT is way too soon, the effect of the overseer change is still not quite figured out I feel (Example: Heavy muta builds starting to become very dominant now)
They should be careful in how they approach the balance, as terrans are not the dominant race at the moment, so nerfs to key units in a certain matchup can be very difficult for Blizzard to succesfully implement!
|
On October 16 2013 00:18 TeeTS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 23:34 FFW_Rude wrote:On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Yes. Players needs to figure out those things. I would hope that blizzard does not patch the game so often. Yes. Terrans need to figure out those things. Zergs get their problems solved by balance changes, Terrans have to figure out. Since it has allways been this way, why change it, huh? edit: it was more or less the same with the queen range buff. Terrans were told after the patch, that they need to figure out how to play, since their old stuff was thrown out of the window. And after 3-4 months they figured out.... that they can´t really win TvZ anymore.
God the aggressivity... I never said that zerg patches were good... I play zerg and terran so your attack is unjustified.
I said that i would like Blizzard to patch the game less often because ALL RACE could figure out stuff. And when it's clear that no one can achieve something different. Maybe patch.
|
Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines. But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later.
Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW
Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters.
But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
|
On October 16 2013 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines. But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later. Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters. But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
Please don't talk about Flash turrets in BW... it brings back angry memory :p
|
I doubt DK will ever realise colossi and MMM are core of all problems.
|
On October 15 2013 02:44 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 02:41 Snusmumriken wrote:On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote:
All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore. Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly... Suggest one without screwing up the game completely. Also, i still liek the direction they are going.
60 damage and friendly splash ---> interesting unit.
|
On October 16 2013 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines. But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later. Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters. But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp.
I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways.
|
I'm all for peppering in an oracle to keep track of mid-late game armies, but the range buff was good for that. it's difficult to scout around the map to find the army and then reveal it without getting sniped. This new 'buff' feels more like a bug fix than anything else
|
On October 16 2013 01:10 Lorch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines. But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later. Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters. But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob. Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways.
Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets.
Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much?
I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight.
Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it.
|
On October 16 2013 01:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 01:10 Lorch wrote:On October 16 2013 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines. But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later. Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters. But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob. Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways. Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets. Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much? I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight. Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it.
Well I think thats connected to a) due to them going t1 all game long they feel like every mineral counts and b) terran either feels the game is balanced (aka the matchup is 55/45 for t) or super imba for their race (50/50 or worse) and they can't win.
|
On October 16 2013 00:41 saddaromma wrote:
I doubt DK will ever realise colossi and MMM are core of all problems.
No, that´s not true. Colossi and MMM are a result of a problem, that lies deeper in the core design of the game. The root of everything that is considered problematic in SC2 (colossi boring high reward a move unit f.e., marine too cost efficiant for a basic unit, widow mines too cost efficiant, force fields op, etc. etc. we all know these complains and there is a bit of truth in all of them) is a design reaction of the way too cheap production of zerg:
a hatchery spawns a larva every 15seconds. a larva inject generates 4 larva after 40 seconds. to make the math easier and to include the fact, that noone is able to perfectly execute larva injects, we assume one larva inject every 45 seconds.
With that a hatchery with a queen generates 7 larves every 45 seconds at the cost of 500 minerals.
A Terran orbital command alone already costs 550 minerals.
A baracks with an add on. costs 200mins and 50/25 gas.
To get the production of a hatchery you need 2 reactor baracks or 3 techlab baracks.
So a 2base terran spents additional 1k mins and 100-200 gas to match the production a 2base zerg gets just with his expansions. Yes there are still the tech buildings, but they are not very expensive. And if Terran wants to produce a larger number of high tech units, the costs increase even more.
The comparison between protoss and zerg goes the same way, but to a lesser extend - but hits them equally hard due to the lack of the mule.
So to make up for this huge discrepancy in infrastructure cost (which wasn´t the case at all in BW btw. because larva inject didn´t exist and zerg had to build several macro hatches), the armies of terran and protoss have to be cost efficiant. But they are not allowed to be too cost efficiant or zergs are facing armies they can´t beat no matter what they are throwing at them. So the consequence of the larva inject is, that you have to hit a thin line of cost efficiancy for both Terran and Protoss in their vZ matchups to make them fair. Of course we only had very few periods of SC2 history, where those matchups were in this thin corridor.
You´d had to adress larva inject and with it probably every unit in the game, to solve this issue. And I´m sure DKim is not aware of this.
|
I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units.
|
4713 Posts
On October 16 2013 01:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 01:10 Lorch wrote:On October 16 2013 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines. But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later. Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters. But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob. Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways. Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets. Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much? I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight. Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it.
I'm not sure what kind of WoL you where, watching, perhaps the one from an alternate dimension, because it was never ever standard practice to build turret walls anywhere in WoL.
The standard and best response to mutas in WoL was the same as it is in HoTS, you multi-task across multiple fronts in such a way as to force the zerg to keep his mutas on the defensive, losing tempo at any time and allowing mutas to come in and harass usually resulted in death of the terran.
And if you dedicated resources to building turrets then you where making less units which resulted in resulting tempo anyway which still lead to your death.
Also BW=/= SC2. No the dynamics in SC2 disallow making turret walls. In BW the zerg was heavily limited in production by larva, meaning they could never really build workers or army as explosively as they could in SC2. Mutas where made as a space control and harass tool to divert some of the terran's resources away from army and delay him long enough for the zerg to get out lurkers in strategic locations and to drone behind this enough to reach hive and defilers.
In SC2, with zerg's explosive production, if you sit back too long and build turrets not only will your max out be slower but the zerg will have also expanded a couple of more times ahead of you and will likely have accumulated a bank of larva and resources large enough to either obliterate your army outright if you do a big push, or tech switch into something that will kill your army.
And no, the dynamics of bio in BW are also not similar to those of bio in SC2.
In Sc2 more or less bio with medivacs is a self contained, mineral heavy composition that, with enough micro could be cost efficient on its own. As examples we have MKP vs DRG's great clashes last year at MLG Arena and MLG Winter Championships.
That same level of cost efficiency you just don't have in BW, in BW if you didn't have siege tanks your army would flat out die because of lurkers and defilers.
In SC2, if you split and stutter step well enough and are on top of your macro you can make bio work vs even banes, infestors or mutas. At least you could in WoL, it might not be as possible now because of muta regen.
Another huge issues is gas. The dynamics of BW and HoTS are already vastly different because in BW and WoL you had to invest a lot of gas into making tanks, which came with their sets of advantages and disadvantages and created their own interesting dynamics. You couldn't just reinforce constantly, every time you lost tanks you had to wait out a bit and build another sufficiently large force, during this time you risked losing tempo and losing the game, so you had to do drops to keep the zerg on his toes.
In HoTS you because of the constant rally and innate cost efficiency of bio you can just reinforce and push constantly, which requires a very different approach and methodological response form the zerg.
Also the old dynamics of WoL can no longer work in HoTS because muta speed and muta regen means losing tempo in the MU can be outright devastating for the terran.
To sum it up. BW=/=SC2. The bio, tank vessel dynamics of BW are totally different from the bio+ mine dynamics of HoTS, because of the problem of tempo, inertia and resource allocation and because of the incredible cost efficiency of bio + medivacs in SC2.
|
On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote:
I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units.
Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines.
|
On October 16 2013 00:41 saddaromma wrote:
I doubt DK will ever realise colossi and MMM are core of all problems.
The core of many problems primarily lies in the economy/production system. Terrible units like the Colossus add further damage, but are not responsible for this.
It was funny to watch Jaedong vs MC game, on Whirlwind, in the last WCS Season finals; after typical SC2 nonsense like this, the game ended up in a low-economy situation. And suddenly, things started to matter again. Both players were microing units like Archons and Ultralisks, which are usually a-moved without any further attention, (a) because they had time to do so without 50 other units nearby destroying everything in a matter of seconds, (b) because they were anew precious, since resources were again rare, instead of being only something vaguely valuable in a 900 gas/minut economy. But it was only a brief hiatus in the usual raging storm of SC2 mass production.
|
On October 16 2013 02:32 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 00:41 saddaromma wrote:
I doubt DK will ever realise colossi and MMM are core of all problems. The core of many problems primarily lies in the economy/production system. Terrible units like the Colossus add further damage, but are not responsible for this. It was funny to watch Jaedong vs MC game, on Whirlwind, in the last WCS Season finals; after typical SC2 nonsense like this, the game ended up in a low-economy situation. And suddenly, things started to matter again. Both players were microing units like Archons and Ultralisks, which are usually a-moved without any further attention, (a) because they had time to do so without 50 other units nearby destroying everything in a matter of seconds, (b) because they were anew precious, since resources were again rare, instead of being only something vaguely valuable in a 900 gas/minut economy. But it was only a brief hiatus in the usual raging storm of SC2 mass production.
Yeah... I really miss the low econ slugfests of the smaller maps of 2010. Is there a way to mimic that with larger maps?
|
On October 16 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:32 TheDwf wrote:On October 16 2013 00:41 saddaromma wrote:
I doubt DK will ever realise colossi and MMM are core of all problems. The core of many problems primarily lies in the economy/production system. Terrible units like the Colossus add further damage, but are not responsible for this. It was funny to watch Jaedong vs MC game, on Whirlwind, in the last WCS Season finals; after typical SC2 nonsense like this, the game ended up in a low-economy situation. And suddenly, things started to matter again. Both players were microing units like Archons and Ultralisks, which are usually a-moved without any further attention, (a) because they had time to do so without 50 other units nearby destroying everything in a matter of seconds, (b) because they were anew precious, since resources were again rare, instead of being only something vaguely valuable in a 900 gas/minut economy. But it was only a brief hiatus in the usual raging storm of SC2 mass production. Yeah... I really miss the low econ slugfests of the smaller maps of 2010. Is there a way to mimic that with larger maps?
Nope, especially with things like MSC, Tanks coming with Siege Mode research, Queens range 5, etc. Blizzard purposefully nuked a lot of agressive options, manifestly to push the game towards 3-bases play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
