EPTBut after the zvz that i assumed all found ligtning fast we watched other 3 turtle games. Frankly, i even stopped watching as soon as i saw swarmhosts and i just >> to the end to find out about the winner.
Some issues with turtle playstyles in Starcraft 2 - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FatCat_13
Russian Federation117 Posts
But after the zvz that i assumed all found ligtning fast we watched other 3 turtle games. Frankly, i even stopped watching as soon as i saw swarmhosts and i just >> to the end to find out about the winner. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 11 2014 04:14 MCXD wrote: Really? I constantly see vets fondly recalling how most of the BW matchups had one buildorder/strategy/playstyle that played out almost every time (per matchup) and anything else was basically a cheese build. Maybe they're crazy and wrong. 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. | ||
|
Yakikorosu
1203 Posts
On February 11 2014 04:29 FatCat_13 wrote: Frankly, i even stopped watching as soon as i saw swarmhosts and i just >> to the end to find out about the winner. I do this exact same thing now. The Hour Long Swarmhost Game simply has no interest to me anymore. The fleeting satisfaction I get from watching swarm hosts die if the Zerg happens to lose is not worth the hour leading up to it. | ||
|
S1eth
Austria221 Posts
On February 11 2014 03:49 Insoleet wrote: How to fix swarmhosts
This way, SH are a units that needs to move were your opponent is not to do damage. And you can also charge into the SH between two waves. But locusts are still dangerous and you have to be very cautious when moving around a SH army. That's so obvious. We are many to suggest this since the beta... And I agree with Snute. The core of SC2 expanding is the need of gas. So if you want to give players and advantage by expanding, make good units cost more gas. It's not obvious at all. I'd suggest the opposite, REDUCE the timer between waves, together with making the SH more mobile and shorter lifetime of locusts. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Edit: I'm not sure "turtle" is the appropriate word at that level. | ||
|
Armada Vega
Canada120 Posts
Even more so early game. Early game defenders advantage is mostly high ground based, go ahead and go tank first in TvP, I dare you. and when a MsC and 2 stalkers show up you'll realize no such thing as defenders advantage exists. Any opener as terran against MsC rush grants protoss high ground vision and takes away high ground advantage. Consider all the moments when you should have defenders advantage, and then imagine your opponent has anti-micro spells or is rushing you with Fungals, Force Fields, Time Warp, PDD, etc and watch as your defenders advantage disappears. People look at Turtle mech as an example of defenders advantage, but most anti-micro spells will negate this. In most matchups, trying to harass a player on 2 base is a scenario that's easier for said player to defend, where as when terran needs to defend 3 bases at once it becomes much harder to defend, and easier for the opponent to break. But I suppose it all depends on the player, since everybody's skill level or quality of player will change from game to game. However some fundamentals that are built into SC2 will always be there and always be a problem unless changed. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On February 11 2014 05:06 ZenithM wrote: Haha there is the most ridiculous ZvZ going on on Stephano's stream right now. Stephano vs Firecake: 70 swarmhosts vs 70 swarmhosts. Edit: I'm not sure "turtle" is the appropriate word at that level. It's like Broodlord vs Broodlord. Watch or do something else, because nobody wins. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On February 11 2014 05:14 Armada Vega wrote: I agree with everything Morrow said, except about defenders advantage in sc2. Perhaps late game Defenders advantage is a thing, but early to mid game there is no such thing as defenders advantage, especially when anti-micro spells exist. Even more so early game. Early game defenders advantage is mostly high ground based, go ahead and go tank first in TvP, I dare you. and when a MsC and 2 stalkers show up you'll realize no such thing as defenders advantage exists. Any opener as terran against MsC rush grants protoss high ground vision and takes away high ground advantage. Consider all the moments when you should have defenders advantage, and then imagine your opponent has anti-micro spells or is rushing you with Fungals, Force Fields, Time Warp, PDD, etc and watch as your defenders advantage disappears. People look at Turtle mech as an example of defenders advantage, but most anti-micro spells will negate this. In most matchups, trying to harass a player on 2 base is a scenario that's easier for said player to defend, where as when terran needs to defend 3 bases at once it becomes much harder to defend, and easier for the opponent to break. But I suppose it all depends on the player, since everybody's skill level or quality of player will change from game to game. However some fundamentals that are built into SC2 will always be there and always be a problem unless changed. Anti-micro spells are defenders' advantage. You may think zerg has no defenders advantage, but queens are pretty good. Protoss has PO and TW + FF. Terran has repair. Take into account map length and early-midgame the defender should always have more stuff unless they're playing ridiculously greedy vs a ridiculously cheesey build, in which case it should be a B/O loss but is still survivable, oddly enough. The defenders' advantage in HotS is undeniably much stronger than it was in WoL. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On February 10 2014 21:59 AmuseD wrote: I assume you watched Reality vs Soulkey game 1 and game 2? I agree, nothing more to say I thought game 2 was an entertaining game, due to the moves Soulkey used with relatively small attacks with locusts/ultras/hydras/lings and blinding cloud. I think if turtle becomes the norm players will also quickly change their play to avoid that situation, which we already saw after the 2nd game. I think there are going to be growing pains as the game is figured out and people just jump to conclusions. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
On February 11 2014 05:14 Armada Vega wrote: I agree with everything Morrow said, except about defenders advantage in sc2. Perhaps late game Defenders advantage is a thing, but early to mid game there is no such thing as defenders advantage, especially when anti-micro spells exist. Even more so early game. Early game defenders advantage is mostly high ground based, go ahead and go tank first in TvP, I dare you. and when a MsC and 2 stalkers show up you'll realize no such thing as defenders advantage exists. Any opener as terran against MsC rush grants protoss high ground vision and takes away high ground advantage. Consider all the moments when you should have defenders advantage, and then imagine your opponent has anti-micro spells or is rushing you with Fungals, Force Fields, Time Warp, PDD, etc and watch as your defenders advantage disappears. People look at Turtle mech as an example of defenders advantage, but most anti-micro spells will negate this. In most matchups, trying to harass a player on 2 base is a scenario that's easier for said player to defend, where as when terran needs to defend 3 bases at once it becomes much harder to defend, and easier for the opponent to break. But I suppose it all depends on the player, since everybody's skill level or quality of player will change from game to game. However some fundamentals that are built into SC2 will always be there and always be a problem unless changed. yes im sorry i should have elaborated more on what i meant by that. the defender advantage part is directed about late game how a mech army arguably loses or goes terribly inefficient up against a zerg on creep where as off creep zerg has no chance of attacking either. explained abit to another guy earlier on in this thread. this is off-topic but i totally agree that natural defenders advantage in starcraft 2 in general outside of split map is kind of lacking in some ways http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=443145¤tpage=2#26 | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
PREACH IT! | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
But in a game with more symmetrical elements (economy + 200 cap being reached with great frequency): defender's advantage can be directly detrimental to the entertainment value of that game. A strong defender's advantage in a game where the incentives for attacking are already weak will only lead to deadlocked stalemates. Whether you remove swarm hosts or not, this will still remain the case with SC2. Removing swarm hosts maybe makes the stalemate game half an hour to an hour shorter. But why would a zerg ever want to leave the comfort of their spines and spores versus mech (whether they have swarm hosts or not)? New units or changed unit designs won't do much to affect the general game flow of SC2 in LotV. SC2's biggest problem is its lategame and it's always been its biggest problem ever since every progamer learned to macro on an equal level (~12ish months after release). These problems will always exist as long as players are reliably able to reach ~65-70 workers and max out. The only way you prevent the great stagnation that is the SC2 lategame is if players never reach optimal worker counts and never max out. For that you need less defender's advantage and not more. Or... you could just redesign the game and not have these problems. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On February 11 2014 05:38 LaLuSh wrote: Defender's advantage is beneficial for games that have asymmetrical elements. If one race can outproduce another, then strong defender's advantage is needed. But in a game with more symmetrical elements (economy + 200 cap being reached with great frequency): defender's advantage can be directly detrimental to the entertainment value of that game. A strong defender's advantage in a game where the incentives for attacking are already weak will only lead to deadlocked stalemates. Only when coupled with bases that provide sufficient resources to justify the turte strat. If you can safely max out on 3 base, why grab 4? If affording things wasn't so easy, you'd see less abuse of defenders' advantage, and things wouldn't stalemate as much because the action is spread out across more bases. The way it is, you have a triangular formation of bases, that you camp in the middle of with your huge army allowing you to defend any location easily. Coupled with a strong defenders' advantage, this can be virtually unbreakable. Less income per base makes more and more sense all the time. | ||
|
manniefresh
United States74 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 11 2014 04:28 Ctone23 wrote: Blizzard has already allocated a lot of money into WCS, and a self-inflicting financial hit in making the arcade F2P. Granted, making the arcade F2P is an obvious ploy to generate future purchases of the game, but this is a longer process. With the money already being allocated into WCS, etc., how is it economically feasible to re-design the game at this point? I would think re-design as an option for LoTV, but not right now. Balance patches seem the only viable option at this time, but I certainly agree the turtle play is boring for many to watch. I would also counter that argument by looking to recent Proleague games that show more aggressive strategies for stereotyped "Turtle" units. Sometimes, things just need to play out more. This is particularly interesting for professional players with money on the line. I know if it were me, I would turtle, or do whatever I needed to do to win. After all, it is a job to these players. I disagree with your estimation of the cost of re-designing the game. Also, a large amount of useful data on possible redesigns can be gained at a very low cost when the community plays test maps. Balance patches can easily contain elements that significantly effect how a game plays at a more fundamental level, without being expensive at all. I believe the limitation has more to do with blizzard's design skills and willingness to try alternatives than with the inherent challenges of the situation. | ||
|
S1eth
Austria221 Posts
On February 11 2014 06:19 zlefin wrote: I disagree with your estimation of the cost of re-designing the game. Also, a large amount of useful data on possible redesigns can be gained at a very low cost when the community plays test maps. Balance patches can easily contain elements that significantly effect how a game plays at a more fundamental level, without being expensive at all. I believe the limitation has more to do with blizzard's design skills and willingness to try alternatives than with the inherent challenges of the situation. "The community" doesn't play test maps, at least no significant percentage of high level players do. And they rarely give useful unbiased feedback. And with every balance patch, you have the chance of doing more harm than good, especially when you try a design change instead of tweaking numbers. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
 | ||
|
Frex
Finland888 Posts
On February 10 2014 22:04 mnck wrote: Ravens have free units as well, PDDs together with tanks achieve the same thing. Both are silly and should be changed imo. Honestly, it is the Swarm Host that forces terran player to stay in his base. It is almost impossible to engage zerg army after they get good amount of SH and couple vipers. Terrans are forced to create siege line with PDDs just like protosses are forced to get high count of colossus and eventually go for skytoss as long as Swarm Host stays the same. | ||
|
Ingsoc
59 Posts
| ||
|
cocosoft
Sweden1068 Posts
On February 11 2014 03:49 Insoleet wrote: Buff damages for locusts.How to fix swarmhosts
Are you insane?! | ||
| ||
