Some issues with turtle playstyles in Starcraft 2 - Page 5

On February 11 2014 01:08 Vindicare605 wrote:


really?

First off. Auto-Turrets can't move. Second, Auto-turrets cost energy. Third Auto-turrets don't benefit from fucking upgrades.

You're seriously trying to call them equal?

On February 11 2014 01:00 ZeromuS wrote:
Hosts have yet to be figured out. I'm not sure if it will be in time or not though.

On February 11 2014 01:00 ZeromuS wrote:
The biggest issue for me is the fact that three to 4 base transitions are so late in the game that you already have a very powerful army when you take that 4th for the additional gas to solidify that super late army transition. I think if we saw earlier 4/5 bases being taken with a tangible impact on army size we would see less turtle play since the 4th or 5th would need to be defended by a smaller army. Not sure if this will figure itself out or not. I remember when nats were hard to secure and timings on the third from 2 base were more effective. I think ATM players are taking late 4ths with big armies making trading that army mean the end of game so they turtle.

It might be just a lack of understanding on how to take the 4th without dying or to punish a 4th without going all in that is hurt I g us ATM as well. Though turtley cost effective armies don't help its possible the same understanding concerns that impacted early sc2 is happening again.

On February 11 2014 01:06 BronzeKnee wrote:


Even though it is unlikely, this is probably the most realistic solution.

Assuming Blizzard will solve this issue is ignorant. They tried to solve it with HOTS, eliminating turtling that was a stated objective of theirs, but of course they manage to make the problem worse because the game designers don't understand the game. Remember how David Kim said they designed the Swarmhost to allow for Zerg to be aggressive in the mid-game? Look how that turned out.

Time and again Blizzard has shown an inability to fix problems with SC2.

On February 11 2014 01:15 ETisME wrote:

it does benefit from building armor upgrade (and the duration upgrade)

Sadly, that will never change. The design team is far too stubborn. Instead we'll see odd nerfs or buffs come through.

On February 11 2014 01:18 Ravomat wrote:

According to DKs AMA recently they aren't unable they are unwilling. They like how it is.

On February 11 2014 01:18 Ravomat wrote:

According to DKs AMA recently they aren't unable they are unwilling. They like how it is.

On February 06 2014 07:20 Pandain wrote:

Do you believe that the swarm host is proving to be used in the way that you wanted it to when you designed the unit for HotS? Do you like the way the swarm host is currently being used by pros?

On February 10 2014 22:07 bo1b wrote:

How can you be so unbelievably biased as to believe that building pfs turrets ravens and vikings then sitting in your base for 1.5 hours before moving out, losing half your army and then still having an army zerg can't beat is a strat worthy of winning? That strat is fucking stupid, sh are the only way zerg has a chance, and that map is awful.

The combined apm in that game must have been like 150.

On February 11 2014 01:21 spiralyguy wrote:


This part really confuses me. If you look at the WC3 expansion it had such huge sweeping changes. Different armor and damage types, racial item shops, a massive % decrease in gold cost to all units. It was a completely different game. I don't understand why HotS tried to play it so safe rather then truly improving the game.

On February 11 2014 01:31 dcemuser wrote:
What I don't understand is why people want mech and then complain when it works.

Isn't mech by definition a very passive/turtle-based style? I think that making mech viable may actually be against the interests of SC2 players everywhere.

On February 11 2014 01:24 BronzeKnee wrote:


He made a critical logical error in his argument and I pointed it out.





He set out to fix a problem that he identified (Zerg not having aggressive options in the mid game).

As we know, he failed.

And now he says the problem doesn't matter? What happened to the problem of Zerg having issues being aggressive in the mid game? And why did he try to fix it in the first place!? By ignoring Pandain's question, he basically said the initial problem never existed. And what does that say about him? If the problem did not exist, why did he create the Swarm Host? Because he did think the problem existed, but he was wrong, and is unwilling to admit it.

It proves he is unable to correctly identify problems in the game. It isn't that they are unwilling to fix them. They try to "fix" an issue, fail, and then forget about fixing said problem, because they realize the issue actually wasn't a problem in the first place. And we are left the the "results" (ie Swarmhost) which they then try to somehow fit into the game. And often the "results" overlap with existing units, ie Tempests. Remember Tempests solving the non-existent Muta problem in WOL? Yeah, me too. Now Tempests are just a replacement for the Carrier, performing nearly the same role (long range capital ship).

Frankly, I'm not sure what is worse: Blizzard's inability to identify real problems with the game, or their inability to implement in the game what they had planned to implement.

The Swarm Host is evidence of failure on both fronts. And it is why we are left with a unit that makes the game worse. Let's not even get started with other units like the Warhound.

On February 11 2014 01:24 BronzeKnee wrote:


He made a critical logical error in his argument and I pointed it out.





He set out to fix a problem that he identified (Zerg not having aggressive options in the mid game).

As we know, he failed.

And now he says the problem doesn't matter? What happened to the problem of Zerg having issues being aggressive in the mid game? And why did he try to fix it in the first place!? By ignoring Pandain's question, he basically said the initial problem never existed. And what does that say about him? If the problem did not exist, why did he create the Swarm Host? Because he did think the problem existed, but he was wrong, and is unwilling to admit it.

It proves he is unable to correctly identify problems in the game. It isn't that they are unwilling to fix them. They try to "fix" an issue, fail, and then forget about fixing said problem, because they realize the issue actually wasn't a problem in the first place. And we are left the the "results" (ie Swarmhost) which they then try to somehow fit into the game. And often the "results" overlap with existing units, ie Tempests. Remember Tempests solving the non-existent Muta problem in WOL? Yeah, me too. Now Tempests are just a replacement for the Carrier, performing nearly the same role (long range capital ship).

Frankly, I'm not sure what is worse: Blizzard's inability to identify real problems with the game, or their inability to implement in the game what they had planned to implement.

The Swarm Host is evidence of failure on both fronts. And it is why we are left with a unit that makes the game worse. Let's not even get started with other units like the Warhound.

On February 11 2014 01:31 dcemuser wrote:
What I don't understand is why people want mech and then complain when it works.

Isn't mech by definition a very passive/turtle-based style? I think that making mech viable may actually be against the interests of SC2 players everywhere.