|
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.
Its a timing issue.
The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out.
|
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.
Then by all means, suggest one. We've already brainstormed about some kind of burrowing artillery unit that forces engagements. Feel free to add in.
Also, if you have a replay of a zerg beating a super late game protoss or mech army with no swarm hosts at a professional level, I'd be excited to see it.
|
On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote: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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame
|
On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote: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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame
Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways.
|
On May 14 2014 01:37 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote: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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. Minerals, yeah, but outside of bio Terran you're not going to be mineral limited at that point. It's the geysers.
And Zergs absolutely get benefit from mining 5+ bases at once and most will do it if they get the chance.
|
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.
There're plenty of games (even blizzard ones, like D3) receiving huge patches constantly with the good ol buytheexpansion business model. Sure, you like others, like to think there're economic issues before you can have your "omgthisiswhativerwanted" starcraft2 game, the devs are busy, they have no money for now, but someday... face the truth, this game is what the designers ever wanted, they like it A LOT, they like a lot hosts, they like a lot cheesy oracles, and almost everything. Isn't only a PR point of view when they tell you this game is pure gold for them.
|
Any long range artillery (presumably to out range Tanks) is out of the question for me. Such a unit with support needs to be countered. What is that counter? Raven PDD/ air. So you turn turtling in to more and more turtling.
Something like abduct, blinding cloud, a better nidus and smart map design are just a few things that can or could be used to combat mech and do it in an exciting fashion, unlike SHs.
I will look for games a bit later, but i remember that before the mass sit back and do nothing SH strat was discovered, bliding cloud was used against mech and it was so effective mech was considered dead. Granted, vikings were buffed since then through the upgrade merger, but there is a lot to be experimented with there. I think it's unfair to say that you know for sure mass SHs are the only way.
I think the SHs rob us of much more exciting games.
|
On May 14 2014 01:41 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 01:37 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote: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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. Minerals, yeah, but outside of bio Terran you're not going to be mineral limited at that point. It's the geysers. And Zergs absolutely get benefit from mining 5+ bases at once and most will do it if they get the chance.
at the cost of mineral income--its a math efficiency thing.
There is a relative max number of workers you can have before your army is too small. You can mine minerals efficiently at 3 bases with that number. You can take more than 3 bases and grab geysers if you wish, but you won't have the workers available to mine the minerals any more efficiently than if you simply had grabbed 3 bases.
Now, at around the 15 minute mark, you will start "losing" a base every 4-6 minutes because first your main dries up, then your nat, by then its your third that's dried up, etc...
In BW, due to the inefficiency of mining, if you had 7 bases vs your opponent's 5 bases, even at an even worker count (neither of you has more workers than the other) the guy with 7 bases would have a higher income. This is not the case with SC2. It is not a problem, but it is a fact.
|
On May 14 2014 01:44 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Any long range artillery (presumably to out range Tanks) is out of the question for me. Such a unit with support needs to be countered. What is that counter? Raven PDD/ air. So you turn turtling in to more and more turtling.
Something like abduct, blinding cloud, a better nidus and smart map design are just a few things that can or could be used to combat mech and do it in an exciting fashion, unlike SHs.
I will look for games a bit later, but i remember that before the mass sit back and do nothing SH strat was discovered, bliding cloud was used against mech and it was so effective mech was considered dead. Granted, vikings were buffed since then through the upgrade merger, but there is a lot to be experimented with there. I think it's unfair to say that you know for sure mass SHs are the only way.
I think the SHs rob us of much more exciting games.
Broodwar spent YEARS without patches. Each year the game was dead as a new broken unbeatable strat would be discovered, only to solved 1-2 years later over and over and over again. I have complete faith that without Blizzard's interruption SH ZvZ play will be solved. But I don't want it to take years and years to solve it when it can be fixed right now.
|
On May 14 2014 01:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 01:41 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:37 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote: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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. Minerals, yeah, but outside of bio Terran you're not going to be mineral limited at that point. It's the geysers. And Zergs absolutely get benefit from mining 5+ bases at once and most will do it if they get the chance. at the cost of mineral income--its a math efficiency thing. There is a relative max number of workers you can have before your army is too small. You can mine minerals efficiently at 3 bases with that number. You can take more than 3 bases and grab geysers if you wish, but you won't have the workers available to mine the minerals any more efficiently than if you simply had grabbed 3 bases. Now, at around the 15 minute mark, you will start "losing" a base every 4-6 minutes because first your main dries up, then your nat, by then its your third that's dried up, etc... In BW, due to the inefficiency of mining, if you had 7 bases vs your opponent's 5 bases, even at an even worker count (neither of you has more workers than the other) the guy with 7 bases would have a higher income. This is not the case with SC2. It is not a problem, but it is a fact. Yeah, but at the point of the game where it matters, gas income is far more important than perfectly-efficient mineral income.
Saying "BUT BUT BUT 3 BASES IS ALL YOU NEED FOR PERFECT MINERAL MINING" makes no sense to me, because who gives a shit about mineral mining at that point? Tech units are gas-heavy.
|
On May 14 2014 01:41 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 01:37 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote: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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. Minerals, yeah, but outside of bio Terran you're not going to be mineral limited at that point. It's the geysers. And Zergs absolutely get benefit from mining 5+ bases at once and most will do it if they get the chance.
Benefit, yes. Enough to allow trades against a turtling mech or toss? Nowhere near. Every attack results in a one sided massacre. Look at how many locusts are expended to kill a single unit in these games. Imagine that being roach/ing/hydra.
If having more bases ensured the kind if advantage you think exists, surrendering map control and playing it Goody or Reality style would not be viable. Yet it is. Zerg needs some way to either nullify or directly break a late game army. Right now this is the swarm host. I'm open to other ideas. But just saying "zerg can fight with abducts/blinding cloud and nydus and stuff!" is ignoring the fact that it's simply not true.
Yeah, but at the point of the game where it matters, gas income is far more important than perfectly-efficient mineral income.
Saying "BUT BUT BUT 3 BASES IS ALL YOU NEED FOR PERFECT MINERAL MINING" makes no sense to me, because who gives a shit about mineral mining at that point? Tech units are gas-heavy.
This is a part of the problem, mineral units are complete shit past a certain point as anything except harassment. Everything is about a huge blob of big, scary gas units. That's why terran bio is so much fun to watch, it can be active with almost every unit over the whole game, and doesn't have to be petrified of losing an engagement because the army doesn't cost over 9000 gas.
|
On May 14 2014 01:42 InVerno wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 20:55 Squat wrote: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. There're plenty of games (even blizzard ones, like D3) receiving huge patches constantly with the good ol buytheexpansion business model. Sure, you like others, like to think there're economic issues before you can have your "omgthisiswhativerwanted" starcraft2 game, the devs are busy, they have no money for now, but someday... face the truth, this game is what the designers ever wanted, they like it A LOT, they like a lot hosts, they like a lot cheesy oracles, and almost everything. Isn't only a PR point of view when they tell you this game is pure gold for them.
I mostly agree with this. Lots of aspects have not been "fixed" in HOTS because Blizz, i mean Dustin Browder, does not think they are broken. 3 base eco, deathball, simplistic and one dimensional unit design, lack of micro potential in many units, etc is what he wanted and no amount of feedback, blogs, criticism and whatnot are going to change his mind. That is why i've hoped for him to be "moved" to another project and have some new blood in the top spot.
|
On May 14 2014 01:49 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 01:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 01:41 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:37 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote: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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. Minerals, yeah, but outside of bio Terran you're not going to be mineral limited at that point. It's the geysers. And Zergs absolutely get benefit from mining 5+ bases at once and most will do it if they get the chance. at the cost of mineral income--its a math efficiency thing. There is a relative max number of workers you can have before your army is too small. You can mine minerals efficiently at 3 bases with that number. You can take more than 3 bases and grab geysers if you wish, but you won't have the workers available to mine the minerals any more efficiently than if you simply had grabbed 3 bases. Now, at around the 15 minute mark, you will start "losing" a base every 4-6 minutes because first your main dries up, then your nat, by then its your third that's dried up, etc... In BW, due to the inefficiency of mining, if you had 7 bases vs your opponent's 5 bases, even at an even worker count (neither of you has more workers than the other) the guy with 7 bases would have a higher income. This is not the case with SC2. It is not a problem, but it is a fact. Yeah, but at the point of the game where it matters, gas income is far more important than perfectly-efficient mineral income. Saying "BUT BUT BUT 3 BASES IS ALL YOU NEED FOR PERFECT MINERAL MINING" makes no sense to me, because who gives a shit about mineral mining at that point? Tech units are gas-heavy.
As I said in what you quoted, "It is not a problem, but it is a fact"
He was telling you that unless your production needs you to be mining from 8 gas geysers at once, 3 bases is all you need. 16 workers per mineral line + 6 workers for gas = 66 active workers on 3 bases. Go to 24 miners per mineral line and you have 80 workers at high efficiency on 3 bases. To maximize a 4rth base you'd need to go up to 110 workers.
You could also mine 4 bases inefficiently with those same 66-80 workers (66 Terran, 70+ Protoss, 80~ zerg) or you could mine 3 bases efficiently. The math will result in the same income.
Unless you need 8 gas geysers mining at the same time to maintain production, you never need to go to 4 active bases at once.
|
On May 14 2014 01:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 01:49 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 01:41 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:37 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote: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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. Minerals, yeah, but outside of bio Terran you're not going to be mineral limited at that point. It's the geysers. And Zergs absolutely get benefit from mining 5+ bases at once and most will do it if they get the chance. at the cost of mineral income--its a math efficiency thing. There is a relative max number of workers you can have before your army is too small. You can mine minerals efficiently at 3 bases with that number. You can take more than 3 bases and grab geysers if you wish, but you won't have the workers available to mine the minerals any more efficiently than if you simply had grabbed 3 bases. Now, at around the 15 minute mark, you will start "losing" a base every 4-6 minutes because first your main dries up, then your nat, by then its your third that's dried up, etc... In BW, due to the inefficiency of mining, if you had 7 bases vs your opponent's 5 bases, even at an even worker count (neither of you has more workers than the other) the guy with 7 bases would have a higher income. This is not the case with SC2. It is not a problem, but it is a fact. Yeah, but at the point of the game where it matters, gas income is far more important than perfectly-efficient mineral income. Saying "BUT BUT BUT 3 BASES IS ALL YOU NEED FOR PERFECT MINERAL MINING" makes no sense to me, because who gives a shit about mineral mining at that point? Tech units are gas-heavy. As I said in what you quoted, "It is not a problem, but it is a fact" He was telling you that unless your production needs you to be mining from 8 gas geysers at once, 3 bases is all you need. 16 workers per mineral line + 6 workers for gas = 66 active workers on 3 bases. Go to 24 miners per mineral line and you have 80 workers at high efficiency on 3 bases. To maximize a 4rth base you'd need to go up to 110 workers. You could also mine 4 bases inefficiently with those same 66-80 workers (66 Terran, 70+ Protoss, 80~ zerg) or you could mine 3 bases efficiently. The math will result in the same income. Unless you need 8 gas geysers mining at the same time to maintain production, you never need to go to 4 active bases at once. This is stupid. Everybody's production benefits from 8+geysers, even if you technically don't "need" it.
8 factory + 3 starport production or 5 factory + 3 starport production? Gee, I wonder which is better?
Unless I have a major error in control, I don't lose when I'm up a base. 3 (or 4) base production simply can't keep up with 4 (or 5) base production. Zerg is the same, except add .5-1 to the "base ahead" count. You'll see this over and over in pro games as well. The only situation where this DOESN'T hold true is when the player down bases successfully goes all-in with their army.
|
On May 14 2014 02:09 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 01:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 01:49 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 01:41 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:37 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 00:30 JustPassingBy wrote:[quote] 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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. Minerals, yeah, but outside of bio Terran you're not going to be mineral limited at that point. It's the geysers. And Zergs absolutely get benefit from mining 5+ bases at once and most will do it if they get the chance. at the cost of mineral income--its a math efficiency thing. There is a relative max number of workers you can have before your army is too small. You can mine minerals efficiently at 3 bases with that number. You can take more than 3 bases and grab geysers if you wish, but you won't have the workers available to mine the minerals any more efficiently than if you simply had grabbed 3 bases. Now, at around the 15 minute mark, you will start "losing" a base every 4-6 minutes because first your main dries up, then your nat, by then its your third that's dried up, etc... In BW, due to the inefficiency of mining, if you had 7 bases vs your opponent's 5 bases, even at an even worker count (neither of you has more workers than the other) the guy with 7 bases would have a higher income. This is not the case with SC2. It is not a problem, but it is a fact. Yeah, but at the point of the game where it matters, gas income is far more important than perfectly-efficient mineral income. Saying "BUT BUT BUT 3 BASES IS ALL YOU NEED FOR PERFECT MINERAL MINING" makes no sense to me, because who gives a shit about mineral mining at that point? Tech units are gas-heavy. As I said in what you quoted, "It is not a problem, but it is a fact" He was telling you that unless your production needs you to be mining from 8 gas geysers at once, 3 bases is all you need. 16 workers per mineral line + 6 workers for gas = 66 active workers on 3 bases. Go to 24 miners per mineral line and you have 80 workers at high efficiency on 3 bases. To maximize a 4rth base you'd need to go up to 110 workers. You could also mine 4 bases inefficiently with those same 66-80 workers (66 Terran, 70+ Protoss, 80~ zerg) or you could mine 3 bases efficiently. The math will result in the same income. Unless you need 8 gas geysers mining at the same time to maintain production, you never need to go to 4 active bases at once. This is stupid. Everybody's production benefits from 8+geysers, even if you technically don't "need" it.
No it doesn't. You need so many workers that your army size will suffer if you saturate 10-12 geysers. If every base had 1 gas with double the mining rate that would be more true. I actually think that would be a very good idea.
The point here was that for zerg, non swarm host units are so bad at attacking turtling mech and protoss that EVEN with a huge eco advantage you will get smashed, and taking more bases does not help with this enough.
|
On May 14 2014 01:50 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 01:41 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:37 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote: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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. Minerals, yeah, but outside of bio Terran you're not going to be mineral limited at that point. It's the geysers. And Zergs absolutely get benefit from mining 5+ bases at once and most will do it if they get the chance. Benefit, yes. Enough to allow trades against a turtling mech or toss? Nowhere near. Every attack results in a one sided massacre. Look at how many locusts are expended to kill a single unit in these games. Imagine that being roach/ing/hydra. If having more bases ensured the kind if advantage you think exists, surrendering map control and playing it Goody or Reality style would not be viable. Yet it is. Zerg needs some way to either nullify or directly break a late game army. Right now this is the swarm host. I'm open to other ideas. But just saying "zerg can fight with abducts/blinding cloud and nydus and stuff!" is ignoring the fact that it's simply not true. Show nested quote +Yeah, but at the point of the game where it matters, gas income is far more important than perfectly-efficient mineral income.
Saying "BUT BUT BUT 3 BASES IS ALL YOU NEED FOR PERFECT MINERAL MINING" makes no sense to me, because who gives a shit about mineral mining at that point? Tech units are gas-heavy. This is a part of the problem, mineral units are complete shit past a certain point as anything except harassment. Everything is about a huge blob of big, scary gas units. That's why terran bio is so much fun to watch, it can be active with almost every unit over the whole game, and doesn't have to be petrified of losing an engagement because the army doesn't cost over 9000 gas. This is rubbish. Playing Goody or Reality style was perfectly viable in BW as well. Hell, 2-base T vs. 5 base Z in the midgame was uncommon but still seen, and resulted in wins for T with a good all-in push. ZvP/T was predicated on huge base advantages, but winrates were still roughly even.
As a side note, when/why did Z stop doing roach drops vs. meching T?
As far as mineral units, every army will benefit from having a bunch mixed in. Every single race's army composition will include some mineral units for utility. But the gas-intensive units are overall better, yes. Otherwise, what the hell would be the point of investing huge amounts of resources into units that provide no tangible supply-effectiveness advantage?
|
On May 14 2014 02:13 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 02:09 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 01:49 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 01:41 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:37 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote:
[quote]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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. Minerals, yeah, but outside of bio Terran you're not going to be mineral limited at that point. It's the geysers. And Zergs absolutely get benefit from mining 5+ bases at once and most will do it if they get the chance. at the cost of mineral income--its a math efficiency thing. There is a relative max number of workers you can have before your army is too small. You can mine minerals efficiently at 3 bases with that number. You can take more than 3 bases and grab geysers if you wish, but you won't have the workers available to mine the minerals any more efficiently than if you simply had grabbed 3 bases. Now, at around the 15 minute mark, you will start "losing" a base every 4-6 minutes because first your main dries up, then your nat, by then its your third that's dried up, etc... In BW, due to the inefficiency of mining, if you had 7 bases vs your opponent's 5 bases, even at an even worker count (neither of you has more workers than the other) the guy with 7 bases would have a higher income. This is not the case with SC2. It is not a problem, but it is a fact. Yeah, but at the point of the game where it matters, gas income is far more important than perfectly-efficient mineral income. Saying "BUT BUT BUT 3 BASES IS ALL YOU NEED FOR PERFECT MINERAL MINING" makes no sense to me, because who gives a shit about mineral mining at that point? Tech units are gas-heavy. As I said in what you quoted, "It is not a problem, but it is a fact" He was telling you that unless your production needs you to be mining from 8 gas geysers at once, 3 bases is all you need. 16 workers per mineral line + 6 workers for gas = 66 active workers on 3 bases. Go to 24 miners per mineral line and you have 80 workers at high efficiency on 3 bases. To maximize a 4rth base you'd need to go up to 110 workers. You could also mine 4 bases inefficiently with those same 66-80 workers (66 Terran, 70+ Protoss, 80~ zerg) or you could mine 3 bases efficiently. The math will result in the same income. Unless you need 8 gas geysers mining at the same time to maintain production, you never need to go to 4 active bases at once. This is stupid. Everybody's production benefits from 8+geysers, even if you technically don't "need" it. No it doesn't. You need so many workers that your army size will suffer if you saturate 10-12 geysers. If every base had 1 gas with double the mining rate that would be more true. I actually think that would be a very good idea. Adding an additional 6 workers to mine an extra 2 geysers isn't going to kill your army. And really the whole point of gaining an economic advantage is to start forcing trades to whittle your opponent down, so ideally you're never fighting at supply cap.
If you want to make the argument that Terran bio + support doesn't benefit from additional expansions, sure, I'll agree with that no problem. For the other two races and any mech-heavy comp, though, there's a huge benefit.
|
On May 14 2014 01:44 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Any long range artillery (presumably to out range Tanks) is out of the question for me. Such a unit with support needs to be countered. What is that counter? Raven PDD/ air. So you turn turtling in to more and more turtling.
Something like abduct, blinding cloud, a better nidus and smart map design are just a few things that can or could be used to combat mech and do it in an exciting fashion, unlike SHs.
I will look for games a bit later, but i remember that before the mass sit back and do nothing SH strat was discovered, bliding cloud was used against mech and it was so effective mech was considered dead. Granted, vikings were buffed since then through the upgrade merger, but there is a lot to be experimented with there. I think it's unfair to say that you know for sure mass SHs are the only way.
I think the SHs rob us of much more exciting games.
I dont think it needs to outrange tanks. It just needs to be able to attack buildings and stray units so that you can use your mapdominance as zerg to position it in the proper angles.
Blinding cloud and abduct combined with 9-11 range is probably enough to make it hard to turtle up multiple locations.
Sure there are other ways. Muta/SH already does that. For other units as mutas to be reasonable with multipronged, i believe there would need to be bigger changes than swap the SH with another unit.
Also since you mentioned bio vs mech. You ultimately transition into air from bio, else you have the exact same problems that zerg has against mech without SHs.
|
On May 14 2014 02:14 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 01:50 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:41 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:37 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote: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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. Minerals, yeah, but outside of bio Terran you're not going to be mineral limited at that point. It's the geysers. And Zergs absolutely get benefit from mining 5+ bases at once and most will do it if they get the chance. Benefit, yes. Enough to allow trades against a turtling mech or toss? Nowhere near. Every attack results in a one sided massacre. Look at how many locusts are expended to kill a single unit in these games. Imagine that being roach/ing/hydra. If having more bases ensured the kind if advantage you think exists, surrendering map control and playing it Goody or Reality style would not be viable. Yet it is. Zerg needs some way to either nullify or directly break a late game army. Right now this is the swarm host. I'm open to other ideas. But just saying "zerg can fight with abducts/blinding cloud and nydus and stuff!" is ignoring the fact that it's simply not true. Yeah, but at the point of the game where it matters, gas income is far more important than perfectly-efficient mineral income.
Saying "BUT BUT BUT 3 BASES IS ALL YOU NEED FOR PERFECT MINERAL MINING" makes no sense to me, because who gives a shit about mineral mining at that point? Tech units are gas-heavy. This is a part of the problem, mineral units are complete shit past a certain point as anything except harassment. Everything is about a huge blob of big, scary gas units. That's why terran bio is so much fun to watch, it can be active with almost every unit over the whole game, and doesn't have to be petrified of losing an engagement because the army doesn't cost over 9000 gas. This is rubbish. Playing Goody or Reality style was perfectly viable in BW as well. Hell, 2-base T vs. 5 base Z in the midgame was uncommon but still seen, and resulted in wins for T with a good all-in push. ZvP/T was predicated on huge base advantages, but winrates were still roughly even. As a side note, when/why did Z stop doing roach drops vs. meching T? As far as mineral units, every army will benefit from having a bunch mixed in. Every single race's army composition will include some mineral units for utility. But the gas-intensive units are overall better, yes. Otherwise, what the hell would be the point of investing huge amounts of resources into units that provide no tangible supply-effectiveness advantage?
Incorrect. No one uses mineral units for the main army comp unless it's bio, or to soak up some damage and die. The point bout gas units better is that they are TOO much better. Nuances. Which I suspect you understood just find on your own. GJ with the straw man.
No idea what your example from BW was about, rather random and not very relevant. This was a pretty bad and unproductive post. Do better.
Adding an additional 6 workers to mine an extra 2 geysers isn't going to kill your army. And really the whole point of gaining an economic advantage is to start forcing trades to whittle your opponent down, so ideally you're never fighting at supply cap.
If you want to make the argument that Terran bio + support doesn't benefit from additional expansions, sure, I'll agree with that no problem. For the other two races and any mech-heavy comp, though, there's a huge benefit
Adding 18 harvesters to saturate 6 geysers does hurt. And the whole point is that zerg cannot whittle down an opponent with trades if they play super defensively, because any attack will just end up getting crushed. Getting to supply cap with a good army vs a zerg army with no swarm hosts is trivially easy.
|
On May 14 2014 02:19 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 02:14 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:50 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:41 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:37 Squat wrote:On May 14 2014 01:31 RampancyTW wrote:On May 14 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2014 00:44 RampancyTW wrote: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. Its a timing issue. The problem is not that races don't need 8 gases by the end of a 40minute game, its that having more than 3 active bases at once is actually detrimental to you as a player. It is better to hold 3 active bases and expanding once 1 is about to mine out. I disagree completely, if I'm not taking a 4th by the 15 minute mark it means something has gone terribly wrong with my midgame Uh, 15 mins is about when your main and nat begin to dry up, if they haven't done so already. That's the whole point, surrendering map control to ensure virtual immunity from pressure has almost no repercussions. If mining from 6-7 bases at once provided a proportional benefit, giving up map presence would be far more impactful. As this is not the case, it causes zerg, a race that is supposed to overwhelm with macro and economy, to behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. Minerals, yeah, but outside of bio Terran you're not going to be mineral limited at that point. It's the geysers. And Zergs absolutely get benefit from mining 5+ bases at once and most will do it if they get the chance. Benefit, yes. Enough to allow trades against a turtling mech or toss? Nowhere near. Every attack results in a one sided massacre. Look at how many locusts are expended to kill a single unit in these games. Imagine that being roach/ing/hydra. If having more bases ensured the kind if advantage you think exists, surrendering map control and playing it Goody or Reality style would not be viable. Yet it is. Zerg needs some way to either nullify or directly break a late game army. Right now this is the swarm host. I'm open to other ideas. But just saying "zerg can fight with abducts/blinding cloud and nydus and stuff!" is ignoring the fact that it's simply not true. Yeah, but at the point of the game where it matters, gas income is far more important than perfectly-efficient mineral income.
Saying "BUT BUT BUT 3 BASES IS ALL YOU NEED FOR PERFECT MINERAL MINING" makes no sense to me, because who gives a shit about mineral mining at that point? Tech units are gas-heavy. This is a part of the problem, mineral units are complete shit past a certain point as anything except harassment. Everything is about a huge blob of big, scary gas units. That's why terran bio is so much fun to watch, it can be active with almost every unit over the whole game, and doesn't have to be petrified of losing an engagement because the army doesn't cost over 9000 gas. This is rubbish. Playing Goody or Reality style was perfectly viable in BW as well. Hell, 2-base T vs. 5 base Z in the midgame was uncommon but still seen, and resulted in wins for T with a good all-in push. ZvP/T was predicated on huge base advantages, but winrates were still roughly even. As a side note, when/why did Z stop doing roach drops vs. meching T? As far as mineral units, every army will benefit from having a bunch mixed in. Every single race's army composition will include some mineral units for utility. But the gas-intensive units are overall better, yes. Otherwise, what the hell would be the point of investing huge amounts of resources into units that provide no tangible supply-effectiveness advantage? Incorrect. No one uses mineral units for the main army comp unless it's bio, or to soak up some damage and die. The point bout gas units better is that they are TOO much better. Nuances. Which I suspect you understood just find on your own. GJ with the straw man. No idea what your example from BW was about, rather random and not very relevant. This was a pretty bad and unproductive post. Do better. Yeah, nobody complains about lategame zealot warp-ins, etc. No mineral units here, boss!
Mineral units' advantages are production speed and cost efficiency. Gas units' advantages tend to be supply efficiency and space control. They both have their places, and if mineral units were closer to gas units in performance, there would be no point in dumping several times the resources into the same supply of units.
And people (like you) talk about how if taking additional bases meant something, turtling up on 3 bases wouldn't be viable... despite the fact that there's a long BW history of turtling up on low base counts being viable.
Show nested quote +Adding an additional 6 workers to mine an extra 2 geysers isn't going to kill your army. And really the whole point of gaining an economic advantage is to start forcing trades to whittle your opponent down, so ideally you're never fighting at supply cap.
If you want to make the argument that Terran bio + support doesn't benefit from additional expansions, sure, I'll agree with that no problem. For the other two races and any mech-heavy comp, though, there's a huge benefit Adding 18 harvesters to saturate 6 geysers does hurt. And the whole point is that zerg cannot whittle down an opponent with trades if they play super defensively, because any attack will just end up getting crushed. Getting to supply cap with a good army vs a zerg army with no swarm hosts is trivially easy.
And a Z vs. a player that plays super defensively can expand at will and use that gas to rush out tech/upgrades. Mass banelings are also underutilized-- cost inefficient, but very supply efficient in those big-trade scenarios. Combating current turtling isn't really fully explored at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
