|
Yeah, nobody complains about lategame zealot warp-ins, etc. No mineral units here, boss!
Dude, seriously? I specifically stated they were useless outside of harassment.
Again, if you have replays of zerg successfully breaking a super late game protoss or mech army with no hosts at a professional level, by all means post them. When you say it's not fully explored, what do you expect to happen? What kind of miracle revelation are you looking for?
Still don't get why you keep talking about BW. It's a different game with different dynamics.
|
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. 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.
I'm not talking about number of bases I'm talking about worker saturation.
Each race can only have 66-80 workers before their army size suffers. The more bases you take for gas income, the lower your mineral income will be because your number of workers remains the same. In BW there was only 1 geyser (if that) per base, cutting gas saturation requirements in half. It also had worse mineral mining efficiency (you started losing efficiency as soon as 8ish workers iirc?) which meant that it was better to spread your workers across as many bases as possible to maximize mineral income.
Neither of those are true in SC2. 16 workers in one base is the same as 8 workers in each of 2 bases. You slightly lose efficiency going from 16-24 miners per base--but not lose so much that its cheaper to build mass base defenses to defend a far off 4rth/5th without an army.
You have 3 choices. You either use more of your workers mining gas (at the cost of mineral income), you spend more of your workers mining minerals (at the cost of gas), or you maximize your gas and mineral income (which gets you stuck with only 3 mining bases)
Terrans going bio usually get a 4rth and 5th while skipping gas on their 3rd and getting gas later in their natural to amp the mineral income. Muta/Bling players regularly get 4rths and 5ths with gas only and nothing on minerals--because Muta production + double melee/armor ups is so gas heavy. Protoss are usually derided for their "turtle on 3base" play despite that being their optimal income/production ratio getting a 4rth only if the main dries out.
To efficiently mine you need only 3 bases in SC2. Depending on your strategy you sacrifice either mineral or gas income to boost the other. But no, purely getting 4-5 bases and mining them efficiently is bad play.
|
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?
afaik they haven't, but when you're trying to do well you do what is considered the better strategy. Roach drops are good--but roaches by themselves are bad vs mech and drop tech by itself is not as good vs mech as mutaball play.
However, I do agree that roach drops/ling drops needs to be implemented more. Maybe its the habit terran players have of leaving 1-3 widow mines?
|
On May 14 2014 02:38 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +Yeah, nobody complains about lategame zealot warp-ins, etc. No mineral units here, boss! Dude, seriously? I specifically stated they were useless outside of harassment. Again, if you have replays of zerg successfully breaking a super late game protoss or mech army with no hosts at a professional level, by all means post them. When you say it's not fully explored, what do you expect to happen? What kind of miracle revelation are you looking for? Still don't get why you keep talking about BW. It's a different game with different dynamics. Wasn't talking about harassment, dude. Zealot waves are warped in after any army trade with T.
And when I say it's not fully explored, I mean it isn't fully explored. Back in WoL, mech turtling was only possible on certain maps. Improvements to the Raven and BC have made mech turtling more effective, and hellbats give Terran a better mineral dump, but mech armies are still slowwww, both to get made and to move. Changes in openers etc. have changed timings with respect to what each race is capable of at a given point in the game, and having the Swarm Host as a crutch has stagnated progress in non-HS ways of beating a mech army.
I'm not expecting a miracle revelation-- there rarely is one. I'm expecting Z players to get better at recognizing windows of weakness, figuring out composition-appropriate methods of trading, etc. This isn't the first time something like this has happened in SC2's lifetime.
And I bring up BW because even though it's a different game with different dynamics, it's a good demonstration of better mineral mining efficiency for more bases having no real impact on the viability of turtling.
|
On May 14 2014 02:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Fair enough. As long as you don't take away the only advantage the Tank has as a unit then i guess it's fine. In my mind, any unit with longer range will force Terran to turtle even harder to air, making the games worse.
In TvT there is indeed the air transition that "counters" mech, but that comes as a result of a lot of fighting, harass, failed pushes, etc. Going air is not the go to battle plan, it's more of a threat for the mech player that makes him push out before the bio player gets to much of an eco and infrastructure lead.
|
On May 14 2014 02:50 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 02:38 Squat wrote:Yeah, nobody complains about lategame zealot warp-ins, etc. No mineral units here, boss! Dude, seriously? I specifically stated they were useless outside of harassment. Again, if you have replays of zerg successfully breaking a super late game protoss or mech army with no hosts at a professional level, by all means post them. When you say it's not fully explored, what do you expect to happen? What kind of miracle revelation are you looking for? Still don't get why you keep talking about BW. It's a different game with different dynamics. Wasn't talking about harassment, dude. Zealot waves are warped in after any army trade with T. And when I say it's not fully explored, I mean it isn't fully explored. Back in WoL, mech turtling was only possible on certain maps. Improvements to the Raven and BC have made mech turtling more effective, and hellbats give Terran a better mineral dump, but mech armies are still slowwww, both to get made and to move. Changes in openers etc. have changed timings with respect to what each race is capable of at a given point in the game, and having the Swarm Host as a crutch has stagnated progress in non-HS ways of beating a mech army. I'm not expecting a miracle revelation-- there rarely is one. I'm expecting Z players to get better at recognizing windows of weakness, figuring out composition-appropriate methods of trading, etc. This isn't the first time something like this has happened in SC2's lifetime. And I bring up BW because even though it's a different game with different dynamics, it's a good demonstration of better mineral mining efficiency for more bases having no real impact on the viability of turtling.
I always think back to Savior's run in BW before the controversy.
Top terrans like Nada and Midas and Oov were having 70%-80% winrates vs zerg. Zerg in top level play was considered impossible. Then after so much time people being convinced it was OP as fuck--along came Savior showing the world that the game was balanced after all.
The same thing was said about Terran, until Boxer came along.
I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you that just because the game *feels* solved now, does not mean it is solved. Players *might* figure out something better than SH play. It happened in BW and I believe it can happen in SC2. However, the foreign scene in BW kind of disappeared most likely because Korea was the only place stubborn enough to "play through" the imbalance days and come out ahead with new timings, strategies, and tactics. I don't have much faith in the patience of foreigners.
|
On May 14 2014 02:43 Thieving Magpie 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. 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. I'm not talking about number of bases I'm talking about worker saturation. Each race can only have 66-80 workers before their army size suffers. The more bases you take for gas income, the lower your mineral income will be because your number of workers remains the same. In BW there was only 1 geyser (if that) per base, cutting gas saturation requirements in half. It also had worse mineral mining efficiency (you started losing efficiency as soon as 8ish workers iirc?) which meant that it was better to spread your workers across as many bases as possible to maximize mineral income. Neither of those are true in SC2. 16 workers in one base is the same as 8 workers in each of 2 bases. You slightly lose efficiency going from 16-24 miners per base--but not lose so much that its cheaper to build mass base defenses to defend a far off 4rth/5th without an army. You have 3 choices. You either use more of your workers mining gas (at the cost of mineral income), you spend more of your workers mining minerals (at the cost of gas), or you maximize your gas and mineral income (which gets you stuck with only 3 mining bases) Terrans going bio usually get a 4rth and 5th while skipping gas on their 3rd and getting gas later in their natural to amp the mineral income. Muta/Bling players regularly get 4rths and 5ths with gas only and nothing on minerals--because Muta production + double melee/armor ups is so gas heavy. Protoss are usually derided for their "turtle on 3base" play despite that being their optimal income/production ratio getting a 4rth only if the main dries out. To efficiently mine you need only 3 bases in SC2. Depending on your strategy you sacrifice either mineral or gas income to boost the other. But no, purely getting 4-5 bases and mining them efficiently is bad play. I don't disagree with this, but my point is that outside of Terran bio, the gas is far more important than the minerals. It's okay to not mine minerals completely efficiently at the stage of the game where more bases are getting taken. When Protoss expands past 3 bases, they don't wait to take the geysers until after their main geysers run dry-- they take them immediately. Because the gas is so important.
What's also true is that in BW, you had turtley PvZ and turtley TvP, and roughly even winrates despite there being an advantage in mineral mining efficiency to taking more bases. Changing that in SC2 really wouldn't make as big of a difference as people think it would. Having mineral units is nice, but Z's problem vs. turtle comps isn't being mineral starved.
|
Really I just think people get wayyyy too hung up on "3 bases is max efficiency!" because that doesn't really have that much of an impact on actual play. The only matchup changing that would really affect would be TvP, which is looking pretty balanced again anyway.
|
On May 14 2014 02:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 02:17 Big J wrote: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. Fair enough. As long as you don't take away the only advantage the Tank has as a unit then i guess it's fine. In my mind, any unit with longer range will force Terran to turtle even harder to air, making the games worse. In TvT there is indeed the air transition that "counters" mech, but that comes as a result of a lot of fighting, harass, failed pushes, etc. Going air is not the go to battle plan, it's more of a threat for the mech player that makes him push out before the bio player gets to much of an eco and infrastructure lead.
Air play in mech TvT also kind of just "happens" in that no one really *goes* for air more than during the fight for tank dominance (where air vision becomes a key fighting point) both players end up accidentally building 30ish vikings on both sides and realize that the game has taken to the skies. If more matchups played like this (Muta/Ling vs Marine/Tank did this often) where midgame fighting naturally evolved to different compositions, people would love watching SC2 games more. The opposite of this are things like Colossus Transitions from Templar play with Protoss where Protoss hides colossus production, not wanting to integrate them to the army until he gets 2-3 out and poking out with the mass at once instead of reinforcing positions with a steady but changing stream of units.
|
On May 14 2014 02:59 RampancyTW wrote:
Really I just think people get wayyyy too hung up on "3 bases is max efficiency!" because that doesn't really have that much of an impact on actual play. The only matchup changing that would really affect would be TvP, which is looking pretty balanced again anyway.
I wouldn't say it doesn't have an impact--but Barrin fans be Barrin fans 
The three base distinction only matters in the turtle vs mobile play, specifically Terran Drop harass and Muta/Ling play. People want players to *have* to spread out their bases so mobile armies are stronger than non-mobile armies. They then ask for Mech play to be viable. Its a very tall order which leads to frustrations on both sides of the discussion.
Its more of trying to sculpt the game play more than fixing a balance issue (at least that was my understanding of it)
|
In a ZvZ if one player plays extremely passive with swarm hosts and stays on a low number of bases. The other player is free to take the rest of the map, they dont need a large standing army to defend their bases. They go up to something like 100+ drones and stockpiles resources, then they build 100 spine/spore and/or sacrifice drones and build 200 supply of banelings. This proceeds to annhilate everything in one glorious tidal wave of acidic death. Stockpile enough and it could be followed up with another 200 supply army.
Would be made better if detection was not needed to see the swarm hosts though manually detonating over them works.
There would be similar extreme macro for other races. Terran having just 30 workers for 5 base gas income and plenty mules for mineral income. this allows for 170 supply in army at a time.
For protoss, what would be possible with say 6 bases gas income and 2 bases of mineral income, storms for everyone?
Of course these are extreme scenarios and they are all pretty unlikely but on a large enough map against a passive enough player the potential is there.
|
On May 14 2014 03:44 Startyr wrote:
In a ZvZ if one player plays extremely passive with swarm hosts and stays on a low number of bases. The other player is free to take the rest of the map, they dont need a large standing army to defend their bases. They go up to something like 100+ drones and stockpiles resources, then they build 100 spine/spore and/or sacrifice drones and build 200 supply of banelings. This proceeds to annhilate everything in one glorious tidal wave of acidic death. Stockpile enough and it could be followed up with another 200 supply army.
Would be made better if detection was not needed to see the swarm hosts though manually detonating over them works.
There would be similar extreme macro for other races. Terran having just 30 workers for 5 base gas income and plenty mules for mineral income. this allows for 170 supply in army at a time.
For protoss, what would be possible with say 6 bases gas income and 2 bases of mineral income, storms for everyone?
Of course these are extreme scenarios and they are all pretty unlikely but on a large enough map against a passive enough player the potential is there.
I kind of want a hive upgrade to remove the gas cost on banelings....
Is that wrong of me? That idea sounds so sexy. Make it like 500/500 and take 5 minutes to research, remove gas cost on banelings and just BOOM the map.
I can dream
|
On May 13 2014 19:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 17:55 starslayer wrote:
how about SH have to unburrow to release locust but can still only spawn 2 locust (no locust stacking only 2 at a time) making them more hit and run units rather set em and forgot em units as they are now making them have to use more micro making it a little hard to mass as it would be pretty hard/annoying to keep burrowing/unburrowing just to keep attacking one spot. or my favorite idea take away locust upgrades like infested terrans so the other races can attack into locust without it being such a lose That's absolutly not the problem. At all the higher levels, opponents are quite good at forcing movement/rerally out of them and Zergs are repositioning them all the time anyways, unless they actually want to siege/defend a particular location with them. Also there is no reason to nerf them against Protoss, unless you want the matchup to become imbalanced.
well the fact the reason where talking about the SH and all this stalemate bs i think it kinda is a problem aka stephno petreaus both just sat there and could do nothing, i believe that if they couldnt just let there SH sit there and keep spawning locust it would be 10x more interesting and make the SH harder to uses.what if say stephno wasnt quick enough to go burrow his SH spawn a bunch of locust unburrow go to his main inject or something and petreaus already burrowed his again or something along the lines meaning either stephno would have to run with his SH or hope he can burrow his fast enough to not lose all his stuff. because yes right now SH are set em and forget em and ill say it again watch any stephno zvz or any zvz with sh you just see both players burrow SH and watch the screen for like 10 mins maybe add some changlings in to block for a bit and hope the can move up. Now im not saying this is the solution but i think its moving towards it, making the swarmhost use more micro( more interesting) makes it a lil harder to mass ( not by much, but we already see a random SH walk into armys just about every SH game) and IMO wont allow for these terrible boring long games that we see more and more now.
|
Every time I see those endless locust battles.. I think to myself: Lurkers would have been so much cooler.
|
On May 14 2014 04:25 LarJarsE wrote:
Every time I see those endless locust battles.. I think to myself: Lurkers would have been so much cooler.
Lurkers would have been stale and boring bro. DB said so.
|
|
|
watching stephano nerchio, just thought that making SH vulnerable to contaminate could be really cool.
|
On May 14 2014 04:47 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 04:25 LarJarsE wrote:
Every time I see those endless locust battles.. I think to myself: Lurkers would have been so much cooler. Lurkers would have been stale and boring bro. DB said so.
We honestly can't believe anything DB says. Even when DK says something, we have difficulty believing it isn't an elaborate conspiracy theory :\
|
On May 14 2014 05:29 xuanzue wrote:
watching stephano nerchio, just thought that making SH vulnerable to contaminate could be really cool.
Problems with the fact spores do ridiculous dmg to overseers.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EaTCjjM.png)
