EPTSome issues with turtle playstyles in Starcraft 2 - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RifleCow
Canada637 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
On February 11 2014 06:17 manniefresh wrote: And Stephano just played a 3 hour ZvZ SH vs. SH ... Although it was kind of epic with mass changeling blocks and a super late muta switch ftw! Please tell me 3 hours is an exaggeration | ||
|
Phaenoman
568 Posts
On February 11 2014 07:15 Wombat_NI wrote: Please tell me 3 hours is an exaggeration I just watched like 5 minutes. The timer was showing more than an hour. Stephano had over 10k mins and i think equal amount of gas. They were dropping SH in each others base and microing Locusts... Whole Yeonsu split into 2 halfs. I dont think manniefresh is exaggerating  | ||
|
iamho
United States3347 Posts
| ||
|
geokilla
Canada8245 Posts
On February 11 2014 07:15 Wombat_NI wrote: Please tell me 3 hours is an exaggeration http://imgur.com/uRWccsa.jpg http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1xjlzb/you_think_tvz_mech_is_boring_meanwhile_in_zvz_land/ Comments said 2.5h or so. | ||
|
Nirel
Israel1526 Posts
On February 11 2014 02:43 Liquid`Snute wrote: What is the problem exactly? You get a late-game, players expand towards each other, split the map and then they trade. Whoever trades better (this takes skill) wins. There's not more to it and there is nothing wrong about it from a game perspective except for most humans finding it boring. ... Blizzard have all the options in the world to promote expanding and aggressive plays in SC2 by making gas units more worthwhile (buff), introducing gas units to T3/T4(!) tech, shifting the mineral:gas ratio of powerful units more towards gas ... 6 workers mining gas get 228 gas per minute. 6 workers mining minerals get 270 minerals per minute. However: Gas income is limited to 6 workers per base. Mineral income is limited to 16-22 workers per base. If massing gas units was more valuable than mineral units, there would be more incentive to expand without raising the supply cap. A player running on 14gas could very easily break a 8gas (4base turtle) player after accumulating a small bank. But there are very few units that are heavier on gas than minerals. This is an opportunity that is currently not utilized by SC2. Claiming the macro design in itself to be terrible is not entirely true because it's the unit costs and resulting compositions that are causing issues, not the mineral/gas game in itself. Very few seem mindful of this. I find this much more convincing. | ||
|
Cheren
United States2911 Posts
| ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
Yeah, Snute very wisely touched upon one of the key problems with SC2, economy, the others are DPS density+ critical mass with no diminishing returns and reliability, consistency and responsiveness of certain units. I think all need to be addressed in one way or another to push this game into a more dynamic and fun direction. | ||
Falling
Canada11472 Posts
On February 11 2014 04:35 Plansix wrote: A lot of people look at aspects of BW with rose color glasses or just don't know and simply assume everything was better win BW. Or you know, the current turtle play in SC2 is not the same thing as the mech play that exists in BW. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
On February 11 2014 08:08 Falling wrote: Or you know, the current turtle play in SC2 is not the same thing as the mech play that exists in BW. Really? I would never have noticed, it's a shame nobody has written a really long and well-written article on the subject of BW mech and what made it great - especially useful for those who didn't really follow high level BW. Ah well, here's hoping somebody comes along and does one. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On February 11 2014 08:24 Wombat_NI wrote: Really? I would never have noticed, it's a shame nobody has written a really long and well-written article on the subject of BW mech and what made it great - especially useful for those who didn't really follow high level BW. Ah well, here's hoping somebody comes along and does one. You can simply watch a few games involving Flash or Fantasy to see the differences b/w SC2 turtle play and BW turtle play. In BW, if you turtle, you are going to get outexpanded and shat upon w/ plethora of unit streaming down upon your metal. A good mech player find the sweet spot that before the opponent can set up economically their production facilities, they hit a perfect timing to shut down multiple expansion at once. That window of opportunity is very miniscule. Any earlier, you will be meeting against a similar strength army (if you expand, you won't product much units), any latter you won't be able to outproduce them. In SC2, its mostly that if you turtle, the other player have no incentive of mass expanding due to the game's economical structure and thus it will end up as a 200/200 vs 200/200 short battle. | ||
|
trifecta
United States6795 Posts
Game 1 (< 20min) + Show Spoiler + Game 2 (~40 min) + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
| ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
Bring back decent defenders advantage, weaken the economy, spread out bases, Balance from there. | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:37 Vanadiel wrote: So... One way to fix it, far from perfect but still something that might address this issue, wouldn't it be to change the cost in gaz of the late game units? Because since the root of this problem seems to come from the way the economy is in SC2 and that you don't mean more than 4 bases to max out, the reason the mech player could want to expand more aggressively is to get more gaz income to get the late game unit. I mean, as you said I would be okay to have a big buff to Battlecruiser such as it makes an unbeatable army if it was way harder to get. So imagine you make the BC stronger but you need 5+ bases, while giving more option to stop the terran to get to that point (like drop/nydus, tweaks on the viper) you could go to a dynamic of the match up similar to the one of BW right? Doing that just slows the game down; you're still never willing to make over 70-80 workers because that cuts into your army too much. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:36 Xiphos wrote: You can simply watch a few games involving Flash or Fantasy to see the differences b/w SC2 turtle play and BW turtle play. In BW, if you turtle, you are going to get outexpanded and shat upon w/ plethora of unit streaming down upon your metal. A good mech player find the sweet spot that before the opponent can set up economically their production facilities, they hit a perfect timing to shut down multiple expansion at once. That window of opportunity is very miniscule. Any earlier, you will be meeting against a similar strength army (if you expand, you won't product much units), any latter you won't be able to outproduce them. In SC2, its mostly that if you turtle, the other player have no incentive of mass expanding due to the game's economical structure and thus it will end up as a 200/200 vs 200/200 short battle. Sorry, that was just a REALLY sarcastic post, quoting as it was Falling who wrote the 'In Defense of Mech' if memory serves. 100% agreed mind | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
On February 11 2014 09:38 SC2Toastie wrote: Everything comes down to how Warpgate is not as much as a race-defining mechanic that is cool and fun as David Kim makes it out to be. Bring back decent defenders advantage, weaken the economy, spread out bases, Balance from there. Why was PvP in WoL such a frustration to many? Warpgate reinforcements equalising armies and making it super risky to expo. Rather than look at dealing with that, they just gave the MSC with its defensive utility which 'fixed' the matchup in that way. | ||
|
cristo1122
Australia505 Posts
| ||
|
AxiomBlurr
786 Posts
The only fixes possible though are going to be bandaids...that said...if one looks at general trends; the games that extend into 2hrs + tower defense turtle necked fests mostly involve SH. How can the SH be modified to disadvantage turtle play? I am not sure it can be... | ||
| ||
