|
On May 11 2014 03:36 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2014 00:01 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
I dont like how much a turtle style in sc2 is frowned upon. Turtle SH play is in no way the standard way to go, the metagame is constantly shifting and as long as its not like in WoL where every ZvX was about reaching BL infestor, I see no reason to change Swarm hosts.
I enjoy watching all kinds of sc2, including Turtle styles. if you aren't able to prevent protoss from building a heavy tech composition and you go into a long macro game, playing defensively with swarm hosts and vipers (and static D if that's your thing) is overwhelmingly the strongest and most stable style. i'm not comfortable in zvp lategame because throwing locusts at a bunch of colossus/VR/templar/tempests/etc. is horrendously boring and obnoxious. i find stable macro games in zvt and zvz not only comfortable but fun and thrilling, the matchups make sense and have a lot of action and potential for counterattacks and micro. yes there are ways to be aggressive against protoss. you can win games and do damage with roach/ling, ling/hydra, roach/hydra/viper, roach/hydra/corruptor, etc. but if the game doesn't end and protoss techs up without being insanely behind, swarm hosts are still the destination. melee into ultra/brood lord is a lot of fun but it gets hardcountered fast and you have to win or switch out of that too. what i want is for long, stable macro zvp games to be fun and playable without zerg relying entirely on free units and risky spellcasting (vipers and infestors take an extremely high level of control to be used well). it's a deep design issue, i realize that, and i don't have the answer since i'm not being paid to design games. but the ticking timebomb leading to lategame zvp makes the matchup very frustrating and upsetting to play. there's no other matchup with this problem other than arguably tvz mech, but mech isn't as strong as protoss deathballing and most subpro players don't use it very well anyway, so it's not as big of an issue
I see your point and in my opinion thats an issue with the protoss design ( the race is completely broken in my opinion and things like WG-tech and Forcefields doesnt IMO belong in an RTS) not the design of swarm hosts.
|
On May 13 2014 19:55 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 17:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Is there a way to use mass blinding clouds to effectively neuter locus play? If Blinding Cloud was dark swarm which it should've been in the first place, yes. Another thing you could change for them is only have them spawn locusts when they have something targeted, which would require you to have vision of an area before you could start randomly spamming free units everywhere.
Then you could just target your own unit with the swarm hosts then immediately select and attack-move all the spawned locusts, which would achieve the same effect aka spamming free units everywhere.
|
Buffing Blinding Clouds would be the death of TvZ's Mech. Spore and Hydra buff is interesting though.
|
On May 13 2014 20:08 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2014 03:36 Waise wrote:On May 11 2014 00:01 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
I dont like how much a turtle style in sc2 is frowned upon. Turtle SH play is in no way the standard way to go, the metagame is constantly shifting and as long as its not like in WoL where every ZvX was about reaching BL infestor, I see no reason to change Swarm hosts.
I enjoy watching all kinds of sc2, including Turtle styles. if you aren't able to prevent protoss from building a heavy tech composition and you go into a long macro game, playing defensively with swarm hosts and vipers (and static D if that's your thing) is overwhelmingly the strongest and most stable style. i'm not comfortable in zvp lategame because throwing locusts at a bunch of colossus/VR/templar/tempests/etc. is horrendously boring and obnoxious. i find stable macro games in zvt and zvz not only comfortable but fun and thrilling, the matchups make sense and have a lot of action and potential for counterattacks and micro. yes there are ways to be aggressive against protoss. you can win games and do damage with roach/ling, ling/hydra, roach/hydra/viper, roach/hydra/corruptor, etc. but if the game doesn't end and protoss techs up without being insanely behind, swarm hosts are still the destination. melee into ultra/brood lord is a lot of fun but it gets hardcountered fast and you have to win or switch out of that too. what i want is for long, stable macro zvp games to be fun and playable without zerg relying entirely on free units and risky spellcasting (vipers and infestors take an extremely high level of control to be used well). it's a deep design issue, i realize that, and i don't have the answer since i'm not being paid to design games. but the ticking timebomb leading to lategame zvp makes the matchup very frustrating and upsetting to play. there's no other matchup with this problem other than arguably tvz mech, but mech isn't as strong as protoss deathballing and most subpro players don't use it very well anyway, so it's not as big of an issue I see your point and in my opinion thats an issue with the protoss design ( the race is completely broken in my opinion and things like WG-tech and Forcefields doesnt IMO belong in an RTS) not the design of swarm hosts.
That's true i kinda miss BW ZvP (my favorite match up), it was much less restricted than TvP and generally had possibility to utilize every unit (late air game, dark archons). The hardcounter ability or units coupled with rapid economy made this match a bottleneck in SC2 right from the start (started with 4gate on obscure maps transitioned into unbeatable collo army and in latest stage of WoL zerg discovered the power of sit back behind static D and go to hive).
Win ratio statistics in SC2 were ok but metagame was always on extreme either way. I hardly remember very memorable ZvP games while i can recall about 10 games from BW that are unique and unrepeatable (Stork vs GGplay, Stork vs Gorush, Stork vs Jaedong, Bisu vs Effort, Bisu vs Jaedong for example). Even run of the mill ZvP that made into mid to late game in BW was more interesting because of ability to throw away armies at each other and force engagements, thing that is unthinkable in SC2 ZvP, i mean it could be but only when Z has massive defensive power (which we all hate).
ZvP in SC2 has characteristic of fear of commitment, thats why it is such defensive/all in matchup.
There was small hope around 2011 when because of certain changes Zerg's started to utilize banelings bombs etc but it dryed out quickly.
Btw i kinda hate that drops is dead tech for zerg, it was so fun to see drop harass in BW. 
|
On May 13 2014 20:08 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2014 03:36 Waise wrote:On May 11 2014 00:01 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
I dont like how much a turtle style in sc2 is frowned upon. Turtle SH play is in no way the standard way to go, the metagame is constantly shifting and as long as its not like in WoL where every ZvX was about reaching BL infestor, I see no reason to change Swarm hosts.
I enjoy watching all kinds of sc2, including Turtle styles. if you aren't able to prevent protoss from building a heavy tech composition and you go into a long macro game, playing defensively with swarm hosts and vipers (and static D if that's your thing) is overwhelmingly the strongest and most stable style. i'm not comfortable in zvp lategame because throwing locusts at a bunch of colossus/VR/templar/tempests/etc. is horrendously boring and obnoxious. i find stable macro games in zvt and zvz not only comfortable but fun and thrilling, the matchups make sense and have a lot of action and potential for counterattacks and micro. yes there are ways to be aggressive against protoss. you can win games and do damage with roach/ling, ling/hydra, roach/hydra/viper, roach/hydra/corruptor, etc. but if the game doesn't end and protoss techs up without being insanely behind, swarm hosts are still the destination. melee into ultra/brood lord is a lot of fun but it gets hardcountered fast and you have to win or switch out of that too. what i want is for long, stable macro zvp games to be fun and playable without zerg relying entirely on free units and risky spellcasting (vipers and infestors take an extremely high level of control to be used well). it's a deep design issue, i realize that, and i don't have the answer since i'm not being paid to design games. but the ticking timebomb leading to lategame zvp makes the matchup very frustrating and upsetting to play. there's no other matchup with this problem other than arguably tvz mech, but mech isn't as strong as protoss deathballing and most subpro players don't use it very well anyway, so it's not as big of an issue I see your point and in my opinion thats an issue with the protoss design ( the race is completely broken in my opinion and things like WG-tech and Forcefields doesnt IMO belong in an RTS) not the design of swarm hosts.
And we're back to page 1. 40 pages of people suggesting stupid and thinly veiled nerfs, and all the time we're not seeing the forest for the trees. The host is what it is. We ranted and raved about toss for two years, nothing changed. Too much work for a product that cannot be monetized past the last expansion pack. Hosts are in a similar position, awful yet absolutely necessary for zerg to function. Can't change them in a meaningful way without causing a chain reaction that highlights the more fundamental issues with the game. One bad design decision leads to another, patching up a flawed foundation is never going to turn out well.
I dunno Kev, we've been down this road before, it leads to a lot of frustration and precious little else. The kind of changes we are looking for have been dismissed over and over.
|
On May 13 2014 20:55 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 20:08 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On May 11 2014 03:36 Waise wrote:On May 11 2014 00:01 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
I dont like how much a turtle style in sc2 is frowned upon. Turtle SH play is in no way the standard way to go, the metagame is constantly shifting and as long as its not like in WoL where every ZvX was about reaching BL infestor, I see no reason to change Swarm hosts.
I enjoy watching all kinds of sc2, including Turtle styles. if you aren't able to prevent protoss from building a heavy tech composition and you go into a long macro game, playing defensively with swarm hosts and vipers (and static D if that's your thing) is overwhelmingly the strongest and most stable style. i'm not comfortable in zvp lategame because throwing locusts at a bunch of colossus/VR/templar/tempests/etc. is horrendously boring and obnoxious. i find stable macro games in zvt and zvz not only comfortable but fun and thrilling, the matchups make sense and have a lot of action and potential for counterattacks and micro. yes there are ways to be aggressive against protoss. you can win games and do damage with roach/ling, ling/hydra, roach/hydra/viper, roach/hydra/corruptor, etc. but if the game doesn't end and protoss techs up without being insanely behind, swarm hosts are still the destination. melee into ultra/brood lord is a lot of fun but it gets hardcountered fast and you have to win or switch out of that too. what i want is for long, stable macro zvp games to be fun and playable without zerg relying entirely on free units and risky spellcasting (vipers and infestors take an extremely high level of control to be used well). it's a deep design issue, i realize that, and i don't have the answer since i'm not being paid to design games. but the ticking timebomb leading to lategame zvp makes the matchup very frustrating and upsetting to play. there's no other matchup with this problem other than arguably tvz mech, but mech isn't as strong as protoss deathballing and most subpro players don't use it very well anyway, so it's not as big of an issue I see your point and in my opinion thats an issue with the protoss design ( the race is completely broken in my opinion and things like WG-tech and Forcefields doesnt IMO belong in an RTS) not the design of swarm hosts. And we're back to page 1. 40 pages of people suggesting stupid and thinly veiled nerfs, and all the time we're not seeing the forest for the trees. The host is what it is. We ranted and raved about toss for two years, nothing changed. Too much work for a product that cannot be monetized past the last expansion pack. Hosts are in a similar position, awful yet absolutely necessary for zerg to function. Can't change them in a meaningful way without causing a chain reaction that highlights the more fundamental issues with the game. One bad design decision leads to another, patching up a flawed foundation is never going to turn out well. I dunno Kev, we've been down this road before, it leads to a lot of frustration and precious little else. The kind of changes we are looking for have been dismissed over and over.
Hosts are not the same as when people talk about Protoss redesign. Swarm Hosts are unnecessary for any early-midgame scenario. They are basically a nonfactor at that time, not even strategically really influental at that time. It's not like you'd not go Colossi if the opponent didn't have the option to go SHs at some point later, right?
It's rather simple with Hosts, since Zerg can play without them for 15-20mins in ZvP and against Mech. But then there just needs to be some strategy that gives Zerg a somewhat fair chance. And all that needs to be done for that is replace the SH with another unit that can achieve that by design and then do the necessary balance tweaks so that neither side is overpowered in the long run.
Like e.g. a longrange singlefire artillery vs ground and air. No "locusts" that dont do damage for as long as the opponent has units. No halfmap, "I'm sitting behind spores and spines" crap that makes it impossible to take out the Zerg army. Just a regular unit with a regular attack that once it shots, it does regular damage and is in regular combat range, so it can be killed regularily, instead of turning every game into a "who can mine out this map faster" resource war.
It would not be that hard, because the issues are not rooted deep. They are just on the surface, that if there is nothing of the late-/endgame power of the SH turtleplay, P and Mech could max out on 4bases with an army and infrastructure that can kill multiple ultralisk and mutalisk and whatever remaxes. As long as there is something threatening with a 50% winchance in those scenarios for Zerg, Ps and Ts are not even going to go for those strategies to begin with and when they do... well, their chances are still only 50:50. Just that now this strategy is SHs and - even their mere existence - often prevent Ts and Ps from doing something else. Just like Zergs have to account for those Ts/Ps that play that turtlegame, regardless of whether they go SHs or not.
|
So what on earth would allow zerg to actually trade at a somewhat even ratio with a maxed deathball, mech or toss? I mean, no unit currently in the zerg arsenal is even close to good enough. It would have to be an almost stupidly strong unit that could take on an end game P or mech army and get a roughly 50/50 trade. Remember, outmacroing your opponent in Sc2 is usually not very viable because of the stunted economic system.
It would have to be some kind of deathball unit itself, similar to the old infestor, something that would be insanely strong against everything, because the rest of the zerg late game is so flimsy. I really don't think it's as easy as just trading the SH for something else. The problems do run deeper, the inability to take unfavourable trades compensated for by a better eco means that the original concept of zerg just falls flat on its face. Every race needs to be able to trade well in the late game with maxed out, optimal compositions, because it's so easy to get there safely. The host is symptom of this problem, not the problem itself.
|
On May 07 2014 02:44 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +
David Kim wrote:
- Revert spore buff and buff hydralisk anti-air vs. biological units only.
o With this, even if Broodlords are Abducted by Vipers, they would still be great against base Defenses.
o The Mutalisk strength in ZvZ could possibly be countered a bit better by Hydralisks.
o The effect on ZvZ would be acceptable, and the potential effects on ZvP and ZvT are minor.
- Change the Viper’s Abduct ability to make massive units immune to it.
o By making Brood Lords immune to Abduct, we’d solve the stalemate. Late game ZvZ would be mostly about who wins in the air.
o There are downsides -- Abduct is a really cool ability, and it is something Zerg needs vs. Colossi in PvZ.
o To address that, we’d consider a potential buff to Blinding Cloud so that Vipers would still be a valuable utility unit in the ZvP matchup.
Alright. As for the first one, I actually like it! I would even like to see an overall buff to Hydralisk anti-air! Just give it like 2 more damage verse Aerial units! The Spore buff was overboard, but shouldn't be completely reverted. The incredible mobility of Mutalisk compared to Hydralisk means the defending player can never move out against a Mutalisk player willing to basetrade, which was one of the premier problems with mutalisk from the beginning. As for the second change, I don't like this. All of a sudden, Collosi/Tempest would become nigh impossible to beat. Furthermore, a couple of really exciting Viper Mutalisk strategies verse Mech are popping up, and I don't want those gone either. I'd prefer allowing Abduct to effect Spore Crawlers and Spine Crawlers and uproot them when they land - all of a sudden, Broodlords or Mutalisk Strategies stand a chance against Spore Crawlers. For the Blinding Cloud, there's no way possible to buff it verse Protoss without once again hitting Terran Mech in the face. I'd even like to see it nerfed to decrease range by 6. This would only leave Collosi, Sieged Tanks, Bunkered Marauders/Ghost, Anti-Air Thors and Static Defense not fully affected. Unsieged Tanks, Ground Thors, Bunkered Marauders/Ghost would be reduced to 1 range, only a tiny bit better than melee range. Same goes for the Static Defense. 1 Range is only a tiny bit bigger than 0 range. Any comments on that?
I read your post and I agree with all the proposed changes. Good post.
|
On May 13 2014 22:39 Squat wrote:
So what on earth would allow zerg to actually trade at a somewhat even ratio with a maxed deathball, mech or toss? I mean, no unit currently in the zerg arsenal is even close to good enough. It would have to be an almost stupidly strong unit that could take on an end game P or mech army and get a roughly 50/50 trade. Remember, outmacroing your opponent in Sc2 is usually not very viable because of the stunted economic system.
It would have to be some kind of deathball unit itself, similar to the old infestor, something that would be insanely strong against everything, because the rest of the zerg late game is so flimsy. I really don't think it's as easy as just trading the SH for something else. The problems do run deeper, the inability to take unfavourable trades compensated for by a better eco means that the original concept of zerg just falls flat on its face. Every race needs to be able to trade well in the late game with maxed out, optimal compositions, because it's so easy to get there safely. The host is symptom of this problem, not the problem itself.
Zerg trades very well in the open, even in the maxed scenarios it takes pretty silly GtG armies - not "just maxed", but maxed with a high gasunit count and strong antiultralisk - for Protoss or Mech to cross an open field against Ultralisk/Infestor based play. Mutalisk play can be pretty strong, especially in the form of techswitches after any engagement that you didn't fall flat on your face. Even roaches and hydras with the right caster support have reasonable combat power against an opponent that has to account for mutaliskswitches as well in the lategame.
The thing that Zerg has a problem with is when the opponent sits behind sieged tanks and vikings and colossi/templar/Tempest all with their 9+ range. That's where all the above stops working, yet BLs aren't really good either there, because they are too easy to counter.
Which units still work best in those scenarios? SHs - because they "have 500million range".
Vipers - because abduct has 9range and can pull out anything not properly positioned. You still need units to kill it though.
Infestors - because Fungal has 10range, and you can kill units that aren't right on top of the tanks. Though very slowly/unreliably and with an energy mechanic.
So, imo, give Zerg just one, groundbased (so your openfield ground power actually comes into play when the opponent tries to take them out) artillery that doesn't rely on energy, free units or other units to actually kill stuff (not only units, but also buildings, so that my low range units can actually attack) and players will use it. Imo it should be mostly about tweaking its stats and finding suitable relations, in which you can't just fungal+attack everything like with BL/Infestor, but you also don't have to run deep into tankrange before you start shooting yourself.
|
I don't know if this has been posted yet, but what if instead of time on the locust they give it a maximum range instead ex would be 15 range that's how far the locust can travel with enduring locust 20 range
|
I would be in favour of re-buffing neural parasite to combat mech/skytoss if the Swarm host is actually changed (nerfed) in any sort of meaningful way that would affect the non-mirror MU's
|
On May 13 2014 23:21 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 22:39 Squat wrote:
So what on earth would allow zerg to actually trade at a somewhat even ratio with a maxed deathball, mech or toss? I mean, no unit currently in the zerg arsenal is even close to good enough. It would have to be an almost stupidly strong unit that could take on an end game P or mech army and get a roughly 50/50 trade. Remember, outmacroing your opponent in Sc2 is usually not very viable because of the stunted economic system.
It would have to be some kind of deathball unit itself, similar to the old infestor, something that would be insanely strong against everything, because the rest of the zerg late game is so flimsy. I really don't think it's as easy as just trading the SH for something else. The problems do run deeper, the inability to take unfavourable trades compensated for by a better eco means that the original concept of zerg just falls flat on its face. Every race needs to be able to trade well in the late game with maxed out, optimal compositions, because it's so easy to get there safely. The host is symptom of this problem, not the problem itself. Zerg trades very well in the open, even in the maxed scenarios it takes pretty silly GtG armies - not "just maxed", but maxed with a high gasunit count and strong antiultralisk - for Protoss or Mech to cross an open field against Ultralisk/Infestor based play. Mutalisk play can be pretty strong, especially in the form of techswitches after any engagement that you didn't fall flat on your face. Even roaches and hydras with the right caster support have reasonable combat power against an opponent that has to account for mutaliskswitches as well in the lategame. The thing that Zerg has a problem with is when the opponent sits behind sieged tanks and vikings and colossi/templar/Tempest all with their 9+ range. That's where all the above stops working, yet BLs aren't really good either there, because they are too easy to counter. Which units still work best in those scenarios? SHs - because they "have 500million range". Vipers - because abduct has 9range and can pull out anything not properly positioned. You still need units to kill it though. Infestors - because Fungal has 10range, and you can kill units that aren't right on top of the tanks. Though very slowly/unreliably and with an energy mechanic. So, imo, give Zerg just one, groundbased (so your openfield ground power actually comes into play when the opponent tries to take them out) artillery that doesn't rely on energy, free units or other units to actually kill stuff (not only units, but also buildings, so that my low range units can actually attack) and players will use it. Imo it should be mostly about tweaking its stats and finding suitable relations, in which you can't just fungal+attack everything like with BL/Infestor, but you also don't have to run deep into tankrange before you start shooting yourself.
Yeah I should have specified I meant turtle toss and mech, this is where everything zerg that is not a swarm host just becomes worthless.
So basically a land based zerg artillery, like the big blob spewer things in startship troopers? I dunno, it seems like it would either be incredibly strong if it could outrange tanks and colossi and the like, or really bad if it couldn't. I really don't like the tempest for the same reason, it just makes for moronic gameplay.
Maybe it could work. Could be something that had to burrow to fire, like sieging up. Would possibly offset the range and power it would need to replace the host.
|
How does Terran bio break Terran mech and Protoss? How did Zerg break Protoss and Terran mech in WOL pre BL/Inf? How does Protoss break Terran mech?
You don't need silly siege units with 394837 range. Multi pronged attacks, huge eco advantage to overwhelm, smart transitions and a bunch of other things i don't know about because i'm not a game designer.
Besides, the very point of turtling is to be very difficult to break(especially for mech that sacrifices all mobility for this). You give up the map in return and thus any economical advantage.
What is it with this attitude of easy fixes and counters, i don't get it. The game is or at least it should be more complicated and intelligent then that.
|
I completely agree with Lux. My biggest problem with the game is that Protoss is built on Easy Fixes and counters and everything is handed to you on a silver platter.... answers are analogous You have Marines I have Colo/Storm/archons you have marauders I have zlots/immortals/archons you want to micro to kill me I have Force fields and Time warp.
|
On May 14 2014 00:11 Sapphire.lux wrote:
How does Terran bio break Terran mech and Protoss? How did Zerg break Protoss and Terran mech in WOL pre BL/Inf? How does Protoss break Terran mech?
You don't need silly siege units with 394837 range. Multi pronged attacks, huge eco advantage to overwhelm, smart transitions and a bunch of other things i don't know about because i'm not a game designer.
Besides, the very point of turtling is to be very difficult to break(especially for mech that sacrifices all mobility for this). You give up the map in return and thus any economical advantage.
What is it with this attitude of easy fixes and counters, i don't get it. The game is or at least it should be more complicated and intelligent then that.
And we are back to the problem that map advantage != economic advantage, since every base beyond 3 is basically meaningless for your income...
Though you can get more gas income if you sacrifice your mineral income. Maybe that can give you a significant advantage (significant enough to offset the bad trades you are taking by engaging a turtling army).
|
On May 14 2014 00:30 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 00:11 Sapphire.lux wrote:
How does Terran bio break Terran mech and Protoss? How did Zerg break Protoss and Terran mech in WOL pre BL/Inf? How does Protoss break Terran mech?
You don't need silly siege units with 394837 range. Multi pronged attacks, huge eco advantage to overwhelm, smart transitions and a bunch of other things i don't know about because i'm not a game designer.
Besides, the very point of turtling is to be very difficult to break(especially for mech that sacrifices all mobility for this). You give up the map in return and thus any economical advantage.
What is it with this attitude of easy fixes and counters, i don't get it. The game is or at least it should be more complicated and intelligent then that.
And we are back to the problem that map advantage != economic advantage, since every base beyond 3 is basically meaningless for your income...
Albeit, preventing a 4rth while continually expanding eventually creates a 2base vs 3base income--but that's the old WoL marine/tank TvZ plan. (Actually in WoL TvZ pre-queen buff it was "deny 5th/6th" because games always went long with midtech units)
|
On May 14 2014 00:11 Sapphire.lux wrote:
How does Terran bio break Terran mech and Protoss? How did Zerg break Protoss and Terran mech in WOL pre BL/Inf? How does Protoss break Terran mech?
You don't need silly siege units with 394837 range. Multi pronged attacks, huge eco advantage to overwhelm, smart transitions and a bunch of other things i don't know about because i'm not a game designer.
Besides, the very point of turtling is to be very difficult to break(especially for mech that sacrifices all mobility for this). You give up the map in return and thus any economical advantage.
What is it with this attitude of easy fixes and counters, i don't get it. The game is or at least it should be more complicated and intelligent then that.
Yes that is an excellent description of how BW works. For a myriad of reasons, which have all been explain in painstaking detail a dozen times over, Sc2 does not. Zerg cannot beat mech or toss in the super late game without hosts as the game is. That is just how it is.
|
On May 14 2014 00:30 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 00:11 Sapphire.lux wrote:
How does Terran bio break Terran mech and Protoss? How did Zerg break Protoss and Terran mech in WOL pre BL/Inf? How does Protoss break Terran mech?
You don't need silly siege units with 394837 range. Multi pronged attacks, huge eco advantage to overwhelm, smart transitions and a bunch of other things i don't know about because i'm not a game designer.
Besides, the very point of turtling is to be very difficult to break(especially for mech that sacrifices all mobility for this). You give up the map in return and thus any economical advantage.
What is it with this attitude of easy fixes and counters, i don't get it. The game is or at least it should be more complicated and intelligent then that.
And we are back to the problem that map advantage != economic advantage, since every base beyond 3 is basically meaningless for your income... Though you can get more gas income if you sacrifice your mineral income. Maybe that can give you a significant advantage (significant enough to offset the bad trades you are taking by engaging a turtling army). I really don't get this. The only race/playstyle this is kind of true for is Terran bio, every other race and every other Terran composition desperately needs their 7th and 8th+ geysers to not be all-in with their army. The closest I come to a 3-base cap is TvT where I use my third base to fund Battlecruiser production, but I use the Battlecruiser push to take a 4th, because it's really hard to sustain high-tech aggression off of 6 geysers.
There are also some semi-cheesy mass zergling/baneling styles that take advantage of the low supply cost and low gas needs of lings to fully saturate 4 mineral lines off of ~80 drones total, where that 4th base worth of income is huge.
The 3rd is the base that lets you get up a good army in a reasonable timeframe, yeah, but you are all-in if you can't take another base past it.
|
On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 00:30 JustPassingBy wrote:On May 14 2014 00:11 Sapphire.lux wrote:
How does Terran bio break Terran mech and Protoss? How did Zerg break Protoss and Terran mech in WOL pre BL/Inf? How does Protoss break Terran mech?
You don't need silly siege units with 394837 range. Multi pronged attacks, huge eco advantage to overwhelm, smart transitions and a bunch of other things i don't know about because i'm not a game designer.
Besides, the very point of turtling is to be very difficult to break(especially for mech that sacrifices all mobility for this). You give up the map in return and thus any economical advantage.
What is it with this attitude of easy fixes and counters, i don't get it. The game is or at least it should be more complicated and intelligent then that.
And we are back to the problem that map advantage != economic advantage, since every base beyond 3 is basically meaningless for your income... Though you can get more gas income if you sacrifice your mineral income. Maybe that can give you a significant advantage (significant enough to offset the bad trades you are taking by engaging a turtling army). I really don't get this. The only race/playstyle this is kind of true for is Terran bio, every other race and every other Terran composition desperately needs their 7th and 8th+ geysers to not be all-in with their army. The closest I come to a 3-base cap is TvT where I use my third base to fund Battlecruiser production, but I use the Battlecruiser push to take a 4th, because it's really hard to sustain high-tech aggression off of 6 geysers. There are also some semi-cheesy mass zergling/baneling styles that take advantage of the low supply cost and low gas needs of lings to fully saturate 4 mineral lines off of ~80 drones total, where that 4th base worth of income is huge. The 3rd is the base that lets you get up a good army in a reasonable timeframe, yeah, but you are all-in if you can't take another base past it.
The problem is that you are not properly rewarded for mining off of more than 3 bases simultaneously. It means the slow power creep of the deathball is almost impossible to stop. Take 3 bases, mine, build invincible army, take fourth, mine out fourth, take fifth, mine out fifth etc. Because zerg cannot effectively pressure you at any point with units that actually cost money, even with a humungous bank, this playstyle becomes incredibly strong in a world without hosts.
The fact that gas heavy units are so crushingly superior to mineral units and the trivial nature of getting to 200/200 compounds this issue. Engaging with anything except an optimal army composition is often suicide. It's all about army comp, not army size, because making a large army behind the safety of almost impenetrable defenses is so safe and easy.
Either zerg needs a new toy, or the game has to change if you want to nerf or remove hosts.
|
On May 14 2014 00:30 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 00:11 Sapphire.lux wrote:
How does Terran bio break Terran mech and Protoss? How did Zerg break Protoss and Terran mech in WOL pre BL/Inf? How does Protoss break Terran mech?
You don't need silly siege units with 394837 range. Multi pronged attacks, huge eco advantage to overwhelm, smart transitions and a bunch of other things i don't know about because i'm not a game designer.
Besides, the very point of turtling is to be very difficult to break(especially for mech that sacrifices all mobility for this). You give up the map in return and thus any economical advantage.
What is it with this attitude of easy fixes and counters, i don't get it. The game is or at least it should be more complicated and intelligent then that.
And we are back to the problem that map advantage != economic advantage, since every base beyond 3 is basically meaningless for your income... Though you can get more gas income if you sacrifice your mineral income. Maybe that can give you a significant advantage (significant enough to offset the bad trades you are taking by engaging a turtling army).
Yeah, a lot has been said about the economy in SC2. We are not likely to see changes in how it works though.
I do think that there is a way around that, and that's through smart map design and expansion layout. In this sense, i think we are seeing massive improvements. No more maps where you get 4 bases by controlling 1.5 chokes and one watch tower; have the option to expand towards your opponent so it encourages more aggressive mech, etc.
On May 14 2014 00:39 Squat wrote:
Yes that is an excellent description of how BW works. For a myriad of reasons, which have all been explain in painstaking detail a dozen times over, Sc2 does not. Zerg cannot beat mech or toss in the super late game without hosts as the game is. That is just how it is.
Those are some elements that were in BW and are, to a degree, in SC2 as well. Watch bio vs mech games or TvP.
Even if it is like you say, that Zerg can't beat mech or Protoss without SH (i don't think it's correct, super late game or otherwise), that is not the point of my post. I was objecting to the idea that there needs to be a Zerg siege unit with 835784 range to combat turtling. There are much more elegant and spectator friendly solutions then that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
