|
On February 05 2017 05:07 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 17:22 avilo wrote:On February 03 2017 17:10 Topdoller wrote:
Community has agreed this isnt an issue, please post this on the blizzard forums if you want the game changed. Blizzard do not have any representation on these forums
If you are having issues with Swarmhosts please post some examples of your games where you are losing to them on a persistent basis, a high level player may be able to offer some advice on tactics Uh...most of the community that plays mech will tell you the swarmhost is a problem from firsthand experience. They'd equally tell you the raven is but that it's the only counter-measure you have versus swarmhosts. I mean, does every single mech player need to get together and show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost vs mech for the community to come to agree that it's an issue? Current swarmhost was put on the same patch as "mech viability" and it absolutely crushes mech and forces the game to a stall. Get 50 ravens or autolose to swarmhosts is not a fun nor really healthy gameplay for people that wanna play mech. And saying "then don't play mech" is even more unhealthy because Terran should have more strategic options than only bio. It's crazy how people can demand evidence when you continue to make threads about the same topic for years, right? I mean, let's be real, it can't be YOUR fault that YOUR Mech play isn't working; it's that Mech is just straight up bad. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back in time, when you could wall Python diagonally with Depots and Turrets, have a 3-Turret-thick ring around your main and the 5th base you spend the better half of 30 minutes turtle-crawling to? Man, those were the days. In other news, in order to make broad generalizations about the viability of a strategy, and then scoff at the thought of producing "some examples of your games where you are losing to them" because you find it laughable that "every single mech player need to get together to show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost," you've essentially proven that you have no intention of proving anything. You took a reasonable request from someone who wanted to find out more about your standpoint, you exaggerated it to the point of hyperbole, phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then without blinking kept spitting the same exact narrative that you've been pushing for 10 pages. Come the fuck on. It's the blind leading the blind. You're begging the question while simultaneously providing proof by assertion. Onus probandi.
Do not. Argue. With. The Con Man. He has to make posts like this saying the game is broken to keep getting the money from deluded people he's conned into believing his bullshit.
|
On February 05 2017 12:29 showstealer1829 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 05:07 Jealous wrote:On February 03 2017 17:22 avilo wrote:On February 03 2017 17:10 Topdoller wrote:
Community has agreed this isnt an issue, please post this on the blizzard forums if you want the game changed. Blizzard do not have any representation on these forums
If you are having issues with Swarmhosts please post some examples of your games where you are losing to them on a persistent basis, a high level player may be able to offer some advice on tactics Uh...most of the community that plays mech will tell you the swarmhost is a problem from firsthand experience. They'd equally tell you the raven is but that it's the only counter-measure you have versus swarmhosts. I mean, does every single mech player need to get together and show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost vs mech for the community to come to agree that it's an issue? Current swarmhost was put on the same patch as "mech viability" and it absolutely crushes mech and forces the game to a stall. Get 50 ravens or autolose to swarmhosts is not a fun nor really healthy gameplay for people that wanna play mech. And saying "then don't play mech" is even more unhealthy because Terran should have more strategic options than only bio. It's crazy how people can demand evidence when you continue to make threads about the same topic for years, right? I mean, let's be real, it can't be YOUR fault that YOUR Mech play isn't working; it's that Mech is just straight up bad. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back in time, when you could wall Python diagonally with Depots and Turrets, have a 3-Turret-thick ring around your main and the 5th base you spend the better half of 30 minutes turtle-crawling to? Man, those were the days. In other news, in order to make broad generalizations about the viability of a strategy, and then scoff at the thought of producing "some examples of your games where you are losing to them" because you find it laughable that "every single mech player need to get together to show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost," you've essentially proven that you have no intention of proving anything. You took a reasonable request from someone who wanted to find out more about your standpoint, you exaggerated it to the point of hyperbole, phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then without blinking kept spitting the same exact narrative that you've been pushing for 10 pages. Come the fuck on. It's the blind leading the blind. You're begging the question while simultaneously providing proof by assertion. Onus probandi. Do not. Argue. With. The Con Man. He has to make posts like this saying the game is broken to keep getting the money from deluded people he's conned into believing his bullshit.
So, where's the proof that SH are not a problem?
Not to start a flame war, but in all seriousness you are doing the exact same thing that you say avilo is doing: neither of you is trying to establish their point by providing solid evidence (e.g. a collection of replays which show imbalance or lack of imbalance on the highest level). It's all theory crafting and rhetoric.
If you just happen to like SHs, that's alright. But keep the rhetoric to yourself. You're just sidetracking the issue.
|
On February 05 2017 21:31 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 12:29 showstealer1829 wrote:On February 05 2017 05:07 Jealous wrote:On February 03 2017 17:22 avilo wrote:On February 03 2017 17:10 Topdoller wrote:
Community has agreed this isnt an issue, please post this on the blizzard forums if you want the game changed. Blizzard do not have any representation on these forums
If you are having issues with Swarmhosts please post some examples of your games where you are losing to them on a persistent basis, a high level player may be able to offer some advice on tactics Uh...most of the community that plays mech will tell you the swarmhost is a problem from firsthand experience. They'd equally tell you the raven is but that it's the only counter-measure you have versus swarmhosts. I mean, does every single mech player need to get together and show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost vs mech for the community to come to agree that it's an issue? Current swarmhost was put on the same patch as "mech viability" and it absolutely crushes mech and forces the game to a stall. Get 50 ravens or autolose to swarmhosts is not a fun nor really healthy gameplay for people that wanna play mech. And saying "then don't play mech" is even more unhealthy because Terran should have more strategic options than only bio. It's crazy how people can demand evidence when you continue to make threads about the same topic for years, right? I mean, let's be real, it can't be YOUR fault that YOUR Mech play isn't working; it's that Mech is just straight up bad. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back in time, when you could wall Python diagonally with Depots and Turrets, have a 3-Turret-thick ring around your main and the 5th base you spend the better half of 30 minutes turtle-crawling to? Man, those were the days. In other news, in order to make broad generalizations about the viability of a strategy, and then scoff at the thought of producing "some examples of your games where you are losing to them" because you find it laughable that "every single mech player need to get together to show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost," you've essentially proven that you have no intention of proving anything. You took a reasonable request from someone who wanted to find out more about your standpoint, you exaggerated it to the point of hyperbole, phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then without blinking kept spitting the same exact narrative that you've been pushing for 10 pages. Come the fuck on. It's the blind leading the blind. You're begging the question while simultaneously providing proof by assertion. Onus probandi. Do not. Argue. With. The Con Man. He has to make posts like this saying the game is broken to keep getting the money from deluded people he's conned into believing his bullshit. So, where's the proof that SH are not a problem? Not to start a flame war, but in all seriousness you are doing the exact same thing that you say avilo is doing: neither of you is trying to establish their point by providing solid evidence (e.g. a collection of replays which show imbalance or lack of imbalance on the highest level). It's all theory crafting and rhetoric. If you just happen to like SHs, that's alright. But keep the rhetoric to yourself. You're just sidetracking the issue.
The onus of proof is on the person making the accusation, in this case the Great Con Man.
And even if it were not, it's pointless because the Great Con Man doesn't listen to reason, he simply tries to talk over people and repeats the lie in order to keep swindling deluded fanboys out of their money rather than actually having to get good at the game.
|
On February 05 2017 21:31 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 12:29 showstealer1829 wrote:On February 05 2017 05:07 Jealous wrote:On February 03 2017 17:22 avilo wrote:On February 03 2017 17:10 Topdoller wrote:
Community has agreed this isnt an issue, please post this on the blizzard forums if you want the game changed. Blizzard do not have any representation on these forums
If you are having issues with Swarmhosts please post some examples of your games where you are losing to them on a persistent basis, a high level player may be able to offer some advice on tactics Uh...most of the community that plays mech will tell you the swarmhost is a problem from firsthand experience. They'd equally tell you the raven is but that it's the only counter-measure you have versus swarmhosts. I mean, does every single mech player need to get together and show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost vs mech for the community to come to agree that it's an issue? Current swarmhost was put on the same patch as "mech viability" and it absolutely crushes mech and forces the game to a stall. Get 50 ravens or autolose to swarmhosts is not a fun nor really healthy gameplay for people that wanna play mech. And saying "then don't play mech" is even more unhealthy because Terran should have more strategic options than only bio. It's crazy how people can demand evidence when you continue to make threads about the same topic for years, right? I mean, let's be real, it can't be YOUR fault that YOUR Mech play isn't working; it's that Mech is just straight up bad. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back in time, when you could wall Python diagonally with Depots and Turrets, have a 3-Turret-thick ring around your main and the 5th base you spend the better half of 30 minutes turtle-crawling to? Man, those were the days. In other news, in order to make broad generalizations about the viability of a strategy, and then scoff at the thought of producing "some examples of your games where you are losing to them" because you find it laughable that "every single mech player need to get together to show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost," you've essentially proven that you have no intention of proving anything. You took a reasonable request from someone who wanted to find out more about your standpoint, you exaggerated it to the point of hyperbole, phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then without blinking kept spitting the same exact narrative that you've been pushing for 10 pages. Come the fuck on. It's the blind leading the blind. You're begging the question while simultaneously providing proof by assertion. Onus probandi. Do not. Argue. With. The Con Man. He has to make posts like this saying the game is broken to keep getting the money from deluded people he's conned into believing his bullshit. So, where's the proof that SH are not a problem? Not to start a flame war, but in all seriousness you are doing the exact same thing that you say avilo is doing: neither of you is trying to establish their point by providing solid evidence (e.g. a collection of replays which show imbalance or lack of imbalance on the highest level). It's all theory crafting and rhetoric. If you just happen to like SHs, that's alright. But keep the rhetoric to yourself. You're just sidetracking the issue.
It's up to avilo to prove they are broken, not to everyone else that they are not broken. I mean... You can't have random masters (or even, gasp, low GM!) players claiming that unit X is broken, and then expect everyone to believe that until someone goes through all the trouble to prove otherwise, according to whatever standard you deem to be necessary. Doesn't make any sense. We would have every unit in the game considered broken in no time. But sure. Let's talk about evidence for SHs not being OP. For me, the most telling piece of information is this:
If SHs were indeed a problem, we'd hear about it from the best players.
We have a code-S player posting in this thread, that is regularly playing the very best terrans in the world on the KR ladder, as well as in tournaments. I'm trusting her posts over a lower level player with known bias towards mech.
If there are indeed several top level players (including non-terrans) saying similar things, then that will be by far your strongest argument for SH being OP, and you should push that. I will reconsider myself at that point. Yes, I will reconsider if there is good evidence for the other side of an argument. But if this observation isn't shared by top players, and all we have is avilo and his followers, then, imo, there is little reason for us to take it seriously. Indeed, maybe you should reconsider your position yourself at that point.
|
Well it would be interesting hearing from some top 10 Korean Terrans if they think Swarm Hosts are balanced against mech.
If they say it is fine I will change my opinion.
Until then I will trust the experiene of almost every mech Terran player I have talked to about this issue.
|
On February 06 2017 00:59 MockHamill wrote:
Well it would be interesting hearing from some top 10 Korean Terrans if they think Swarm Hosts are balanced against mech.
If they say it is fine I will change my opinion.
Until then I will trust the experiene of almost every mech Terran player I have talked to about this issue.
So you're fine just discounting Scarlett's experience? She clearly says that it's not uncommon or 'not viable.'
IMO this basically settles this 'debate':
On January 10 2017 11:30 Scarlett` wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 06:45 SCC-Faust wrote:On January 10 2017 06:42 reneg wrote:On January 10 2017 06:31 SCC-Faust wrote:
I disagree that swarmhosts completely nullify mech. I think if you're able to survive the first few swarms and reach critical mass, a mech army becomes very formidable and can trample anything in its way. They're mostly the bane of anyone who just sits back in their base, trying to build up an unstoppable army. Suddenly you have to have more map presence than a single raven, and have to actually scout and react. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like a huge restraint on player style. Why would blizzard put in a unit that is anti-fun? What if my idea of fun is sitting in my base and making a big army? Because if its viable to sit in your base and get an ultimate army in a matchup it pretty much ruins the gameplay and makes it boring to watch Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 08:38 avilo wrote:
Gotta love how there's some clueless people in this thread that keep spewing out the "if you turtle SH do this etc"
Swarmhosts FORCE you to sit in base and turtle because you'll take free damage otherwise, and if you push out you get engulfed by free units or mass muta/corruptor etc.
The people right now that know about this strat and imbalance currently will make at least 10 swarmhosts and they have a free money generator the entire game to remax 4-5 times on whatever they want to while you're constantly losing buildings, and gas units, etc. for free every 30 seconds.
Something needs to be addressed with this unit. I'm also pretty sure this is why every korean Terran stopped going mech after the one series of innovation vs dark with the double reactor cheese...people realized if you see mech you just open 2 base muta into mass swarmhost and basically get an auto-win. TY/Gumiho still play mech most games (TY is 6.9k on KR; gumiho ~6.5kish) and innovation occasionaly does (he has a 7k account on kr) in tvz so it still seems pretty viable at least against zerg
|
On February 06 2017 01:12 reneg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 00:59 MockHamill wrote:
Well it would be interesting hearing from some top 10 Korean Terrans if they think Swarm Hosts are balanced against mech.
If they say it is fine I will change my opinion.
Until then I will trust the experiene of almost every mech Terran player I have talked to about this issue. So you're fine just discounting Scarlett's experience? She clearly says that it's not uncommon or 'not viable.' IMO this basically settles this 'debate': Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 11:30 Scarlett` wrote:On January 10 2017 06:45 SCC-Faust wrote:On January 10 2017 06:42 reneg wrote:On January 10 2017 06:31 SCC-Faust wrote:
I disagree that swarmhosts completely nullify mech. I think if you're able to survive the first few swarms and reach critical mass, a mech army becomes very formidable and can trample anything in its way. They're mostly the bane of anyone who just sits back in their base, trying to build up an unstoppable army. Suddenly you have to have more map presence than a single raven, and have to actually scout and react. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like a huge restraint on player style. Why would blizzard put in a unit that is anti-fun? What if my idea of fun is sitting in my base and making a big army? Because if its viable to sit in your base and get an ultimate army in a matchup it pretty much ruins the gameplay and makes it boring to watch On January 10 2017 08:38 avilo wrote:
Gotta love how there's some clueless people in this thread that keep spewing out the "if you turtle SH do this etc"
Swarmhosts FORCE you to sit in base and turtle because you'll take free damage otherwise, and if you push out you get engulfed by free units or mass muta/corruptor etc.
The people right now that know about this strat and imbalance currently will make at least 10 swarmhosts and they have a free money generator the entire game to remax 4-5 times on whatever they want to while you're constantly losing buildings, and gas units, etc. for free every 30 seconds.
Something needs to be addressed with this unit. I'm also pretty sure this is why every korean Terran stopped going mech after the one series of innovation vs dark with the double reactor cheese...people realized if you see mech you just open 2 base muta into mass swarmhost and basically get an auto-win. TY/Gumiho still play mech most games (TY is 6.9k on KR; gumiho ~6.5kish) and innovation occasionaly does (he has a 7k account on kr) in tvz so it still seems pretty viable at least against zerg
Yes I am perfectly fine discounting Scarlett's experience.
She is a good player but she is not a top 10 Korean Terran player with extensive knowledge on how to play mech.
If Innovation or Maru says Swarm Hosts are balanced against mech I will believe them.
So far almost everyone that says Swarm Hosts are fine are Zerg players. Almost no Terran mech player think Swarm Hosts are balanced.
|
On February 05 2017 23:09 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 21:31 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 05 2017 12:29 showstealer1829 wrote:On February 05 2017 05:07 Jealous wrote:On February 03 2017 17:22 avilo wrote:On February 03 2017 17:10 Topdoller wrote:
Community has agreed this isnt an issue, please post this on the blizzard forums if you want the game changed. Blizzard do not have any representation on these forums
If you are having issues with Swarmhosts please post some examples of your games where you are losing to them on a persistent basis, a high level player may be able to offer some advice on tactics Uh...most of the community that plays mech will tell you the swarmhost is a problem from firsthand experience. They'd equally tell you the raven is but that it's the only counter-measure you have versus swarmhosts. I mean, does every single mech player need to get together and show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost vs mech for the community to come to agree that it's an issue? Current swarmhost was put on the same patch as "mech viability" and it absolutely crushes mech and forces the game to a stall. Get 50 ravens or autolose to swarmhosts is not a fun nor really healthy gameplay for people that wanna play mech. And saying "then don't play mech" is even more unhealthy because Terran should have more strategic options than only bio. It's crazy how people can demand evidence when you continue to make threads about the same topic for years, right? I mean, let's be real, it can't be YOUR fault that YOUR Mech play isn't working; it's that Mech is just straight up bad. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back in time, when you could wall Python diagonally with Depots and Turrets, have a 3-Turret-thick ring around your main and the 5th base you spend the better half of 30 minutes turtle-crawling to? Man, those were the days. In other news, in order to make broad generalizations about the viability of a strategy, and then scoff at the thought of producing "some examples of your games where you are losing to them" because you find it laughable that "every single mech player need to get together to show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost," you've essentially proven that you have no intention of proving anything. You took a reasonable request from someone who wanted to find out more about your standpoint, you exaggerated it to the point of hyperbole, phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then without blinking kept spitting the same exact narrative that you've been pushing for 10 pages. Come the fuck on. It's the blind leading the blind. You're begging the question while simultaneously providing proof by assertion. Onus probandi. Do not. Argue. With. The Con Man. He has to make posts like this saying the game is broken to keep getting the money from deluded people he's conned into believing his bullshit. So, where's the proof that SH are not a problem? Not to start a flame war, but in all seriousness you are doing the exact same thing that you say avilo is doing: neither of you is trying to establish their point by providing solid evidence (e.g. a collection of replays which show imbalance or lack of imbalance on the highest level). It's all theory crafting and rhetoric. If you just happen to like SHs, that's alright. But keep the rhetoric to yourself. You're just sidetracking the issue. It's up to avilo to prove they are broken, not to everyone else that they are not broken. I mean... You can't have random masters (or even, gasp, low GM!) players claiming that unit X is broken, and then expect everyone to believe that until someone goes through all the trouble to prove otherwise, according to whatever standard you deem to be necessary. Doesn't make any sense. We would have every unit in the game considered broken in no time. But sure. Let's talk about evidence for SHs not being OP. For me, the most telling piece of information is this: If SHs were indeed a problem, we'd hear about it from the best players. We have a code-S player posting in this thread, that is regularly playing the very best terrans in the world on the KR ladder, as well as in tournaments. I'm trusting her posts over a lower level player with known bias towards mech. If there are indeed several top level players (including non-terrans) saying similar things, then that will be by far your strongest argument for SH being OP, and you should push that. I will reconsider myself at that point. Yes, I will reconsider if there is good evidence for the other side of an argument. But if this observation isn't shared by top players, and all we have is avilo and his followers, then, imo, there is little reason for us to take it seriously. Indeed, maybe you should reconsider your position yourself at that point.
You're actually not providing evidence but instead the conjecture that
Pros don't say SH builds in mech TvZ are problematic, therefore it's not an issue.
This is only a good argument if the meta at the pro level atm includes SH builds (or mech TvZ for that matter). If the meta does not include SH builds, we simply do not know if it's because they have not been discovered or because they're not viable. (Then again, I don't even watch a lot of SC2 anymore, so you can easily prove me wrong on this  )
Put this aside for a bit, though. Let's assume that SH builds are not overpowered but balanced vs mech. Do you think it's a good state of play if one (ground) unit trades with a whole set of other (ground) units? I don't think so and it should be discussed.
|
On February 06 2017 01:47 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 23:09 Cascade wrote:On February 05 2017 21:31 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 05 2017 12:29 showstealer1829 wrote:On February 05 2017 05:07 Jealous wrote:On February 03 2017 17:22 avilo wrote:On February 03 2017 17:10 Topdoller wrote:
Community has agreed this isnt an issue, please post this on the blizzard forums if you want the game changed. Blizzard do not have any representation on these forums
If you are having issues with Swarmhosts please post some examples of your games where you are losing to them on a persistent basis, a high level player may be able to offer some advice on tactics Uh...most of the community that plays mech will tell you the swarmhost is a problem from firsthand experience. They'd equally tell you the raven is but that it's the only counter-measure you have versus swarmhosts. I mean, does every single mech player need to get together and show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost vs mech for the community to come to agree that it's an issue? Current swarmhost was put on the same patch as "mech viability" and it absolutely crushes mech and forces the game to a stall. Get 50 ravens or autolose to swarmhosts is not a fun nor really healthy gameplay for people that wanna play mech. And saying "then don't play mech" is even more unhealthy because Terran should have more strategic options than only bio. It's crazy how people can demand evidence when you continue to make threads about the same topic for years, right? I mean, let's be real, it can't be YOUR fault that YOUR Mech play isn't working; it's that Mech is just straight up bad. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back in time, when you could wall Python diagonally with Depots and Turrets, have a 3-Turret-thick ring around your main and the 5th base you spend the better half of 30 minutes turtle-crawling to? Man, those were the days. In other news, in order to make broad generalizations about the viability of a strategy, and then scoff at the thought of producing "some examples of your games where you are losing to them" because you find it laughable that "every single mech player need to get together to show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost," you've essentially proven that you have no intention of proving anything. You took a reasonable request from someone who wanted to find out more about your standpoint, you exaggerated it to the point of hyperbole, phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then without blinking kept spitting the same exact narrative that you've been pushing for 10 pages. Come the fuck on. It's the blind leading the blind. You're begging the question while simultaneously providing proof by assertion. Onus probandi. Do not. Argue. With. The Con Man. He has to make posts like this saying the game is broken to keep getting the money from deluded people he's conned into believing his bullshit. So, where's the proof that SH are not a problem? Not to start a flame war, but in all seriousness you are doing the exact same thing that you say avilo is doing: neither of you is trying to establish their point by providing solid evidence (e.g. a collection of replays which show imbalance or lack of imbalance on the highest level). It's all theory crafting and rhetoric. If you just happen to like SHs, that's alright. But keep the rhetoric to yourself. You're just sidetracking the issue. It's up to avilo to prove they are broken, not to everyone else that they are not broken. I mean... You can't have random masters (or even, gasp, low GM!) players claiming that unit X is broken, and then expect everyone to believe that until someone goes through all the trouble to prove otherwise, according to whatever standard you deem to be necessary. Doesn't make any sense. We would have every unit in the game considered broken in no time. But sure. Let's talk about evidence for SHs not being OP. For me, the most telling piece of information is this: If SHs were indeed a problem, we'd hear about it from the best players. We have a code-S player posting in this thread, that is regularly playing the very best terrans in the world on the KR ladder, as well as in tournaments. I'm trusting her posts over a lower level player with known bias towards mech. If there are indeed several top level players (including non-terrans) saying similar things, then that will be by far your strongest argument for SH being OP, and you should push that. I will reconsider myself at that point. Yes, I will reconsider if there is good evidence for the other side of an argument. But if this observation isn't shared by top players, and all we have is avilo and his followers, then, imo, there is little reason for us to take it seriously. Indeed, maybe you should reconsider your position yourself at that point. You're actually not providing evidence but instead the conjecture that Show nested quote +Pros don't say SH builds in mech TvZ are problematic, therefore it's not an issue. This is only a good argument if the meta at the pro level atm includes SH builds (or mech TvZ for that matter). If the meta does not include SH builds, we simply do not know if it's because they have not been discovered or because they're not viable. (Then again, I don't even watch a lot of SC2 anymore, so you can easily prove me wrong on this ) Put this aside for a bit, though. Let's assume that SH builds are not overpowered but balanced vs mech. Do you think it's a good state of play if one (ground) unit trades with a whole set of other (ground) units? I don't think so and it should be discussed.
Are you saying that avilo has discovered that SHs are OP vs mech, but the top zergs inno, TY and Maru play mech against haven't discovered that? I find that very hard to believe.
|
Let me break it down a bit, i know its, to some extent, theorycrafting, but please discuss.
I'll talk about some builds. Those are viable. Turtle mech usually means a tech lab on first factory to get a tank and push with a strong army. This gives up map control and invites zerg to kill you slowly with swarmhosts.
Current terran mech always includes some pressure on early game and has a mobile army mid game.
Opening can consist on hellions, hellion banshee, hellion cyclone, hellion banshee cyclone. You can get cloak or blue flame. Basically, you do some pressure with this to transition into a mobile hellbat(hellion) cyclone army that secures map control.
Zerg anwers with roach ravager, otherwise, just die. The zerg can make some lings and pressure too on the early game before the mech ball becomes opressive. A Bane speed timing might be viable too. You don't go swarmhosts here, terran will kill all your stuff while locust is on cooldown. On top of that, terran has map control, so to harass with swarmhosts you really need a nydus and its not free.
At any point this hellbat cyclone (possible banshee, a few harass liberators, a raven) vs roach ravager can swing to one side.
Late game terran can achieve that terrifying hellion cyclone tank thor mech deathball, but zerg has the tools to deal with it. Vipers, broodlords or swarmhosts (hydras can be included mid game). However, its low count swarmhost with a roach ravager ball. more scary that a mass SH transition after both sides lose the army in a big fight is the dreadful muta switch, possible if the terran lost all the thors, but terran can still survive with 3 tech lab factory thor production.
Surely some tweaks can be done once we can figure out if this sort of mech is strong or weak, but the swamhost is not the problem. What is actually not viable vs swarmhosts is sitting back on two bases with some tanks to get a late third while the zerg just chills to infestation pit + nydus. Terran must dispute map control and force zerg to expend precious gas on ravagers (or something else).
So as i said, im pretty sure turtle mech is not viable, but other mech playstyles do not allow zerg to make a critical mass of swarmhosts + nydus unpunished, unless the swarmhosts are just the final blow. Those styles exist, they got buffed recently, try that before claiming mech is not viable.
|
On February 06 2017 10:18 Superbanana wrote:
Let me break it down a bit, i know its, to some extent, theorycrafting, but please discuss.
I'll talk about some builds. Those are viable. Turtle mech usually means a tech lab on first factory to get a tank and push with a strong army. This gives up map control and invites zerg to kill you slowly with swarmhosts.
Current terran mech always includes some pressure on early game and has a mobile army mid game.
Opening can consist on hellions, hellion banshee, hellion cyclone, hellion banshee cyclone. You can get cloak or blue flame. Basically, you do some pressure with this to transition into a mobile hellbat(hellion) cyclone army that secures map control.
Zerg anwers with roach ravager, otherwise, just die. The zerg can make some lings and pressure too on the early game before the mech ball becomes opressive. A Bane speed timing might be viable too. You don't go swarmhosts here, terran will kill all your stuff while locust is on cooldown. On top of that, terran has map control, so to harass with swarmhosts you really need a nydus and its not free.
At any point this hellbat cyclone (possible banshee, a few harass liberators, a raven) vs roach ravager can swing to one side.
Late game terran can achieve that terrifying hellion cyclone tank thor mech deathball, but zerg has the tools to deal with it. Vipers, broodlords or swarmhosts (hydras can be included mid game). However, its low count swarmhost with a roach ravager ball. more scary that a mass SH transition after both sides lose the army in a big fight is the dreadful muta switch, possible if the terran lost all the thors, but terran can still survive with 3 tech lab factory thor production.
Surely some tweaks can be done once we can figure out if this sort of mech is strong or weak, but the swamhost is not the problem. What is actually not viable vs swarmhosts is sitting back on two bases with some tanks to get a late third while the zerg just chills to infestation pit + nydus. Terran must dispute map control and force zerg to expend precious gas on ravagers (or something else).
So as i said, im pretty sure turtle mech is not viable, but other mech playstyles do not allow zerg to make a critical mass of swarmhosts + nydus unpunished, unless the swarmhosts are just the final blow. Those styles exist, they got buffed recently, try that before claiming mech is not viable.
That's quite wrong. You go from "early mid game with cyclone hellion vs roach ravagers" to "mech deathball versus viper". You completely skipped the mid game here.
Whether it's hellion/banshee or hellion cyclone, at some point the terran player will need tanks to survive and will have to surrender map control. If you don't, zerg player just goes hydras and obliterates hellion/cyclones, hellion/banshees (the "mobile early mech comps").
The moment zerg player gains the map control, he can build few swarm hosts and start harassing. From there, there's two scenarii :
- either the terran player turtles up on 3 bases and reaches for a 4rth while trying to defend locust waves ;
- either the terran player goes for a very macro style where you basically try to produce a huge amount of tanks/cyclones/hellions, with banshees and/or liberators, while being very agressive economically (basically, you try to overpower the zerg because evey SH is 4 supply and he'll only have a tiny ball of roaches/ravagers/hydra with it)
The problem is that the first option leads to a very boring game, and quite frankly doesn't work against a smart zerg. You'll just fight a 200/200 SH army, with creep all over the map and an insane economy/tech. That's mainly that each SH you build is a potential for an unlimited amount of locusts : you don't have to pay anything to fight, you can just drone up and build static defense to fend off harass. And when you see him try to push out, you'll activate 1/3 of you SH at a time, while you prepare for a huge high tech remax with the money you didn't use on units.
And the issue with the second option is that the SH is so hilariously cheap (less than a viking) that the game often "ends" very early : if you outproduced the zerg and contained him on 3-4 bases, and keep him rebuilding drones and army, while a few SHs try to shoo away your units, you're still gonna take a long time to kill him. Actually i've had some very fun games on cactus valley, where you have a lot of room to run arnoud with mech ground units against SH, but of course most maps don't allow that. Most maps have very little wiggle space and you can't push with all your army in one place with mech vs SHs.
A very, very easy way to solve the SH issue would be to have locusts wave cost 15 min or so, and revert the swoop range to 4. And the SH cost wouldn't even matter anymore. This would prevent zergs from both going SHs, spamm static defense to prevent the mech player from harassing, and in any case have the cash to replenish lost drones.
And then, as a mech player, you could try to out macro, out produce and actually deal damage when forcing zerg to pop locusts when he doesn't want to. Also, adding thors to your army would help you push through locust waves, meaning that 200/200 of SHs with mass spine/spores wouldn't be a thing anymore.
|
On February 06 2017 11:08 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 10:18 Superbanana wrote:
Let me break it down a bit, i know its, to some extent, theorycrafting, but please discuss.
I'll talk about some builds. Those are viable. Turtle mech usually means a tech lab on first factory to get a tank and push with a strong army. This gives up map control and invites zerg to kill you slowly with swarmhosts.
Current terran mech always includes some pressure on early game and has a mobile army mid game.
Opening can consist on hellions, hellion banshee, hellion cyclone, hellion banshee cyclone. You can get cloak or blue flame. Basically, you do some pressure with this to transition into a mobile hellbat(hellion) cyclone army that secures map control.
Zerg anwers with roach ravager, otherwise, just die. The zerg can make some lings and pressure too on the early game before the mech ball becomes opressive. A Bane speed timing might be viable too. You don't go swarmhosts here, terran will kill all your stuff while locust is on cooldown. On top of that, terran has map control, so to harass with swarmhosts you really need a nydus and its not free.
At any point this hellbat cyclone (possible banshee, a few harass liberators, a raven) vs roach ravager can swing to one side.
Late game terran can achieve that terrifying hellion cyclone tank thor mech deathball, but zerg has the tools to deal with it. Vipers, broodlords or swarmhosts (hydras can be included mid game). However, its low count swarmhost with a roach ravager ball. more scary that a mass SH transition after both sides lose the army in a big fight is the dreadful muta switch, possible if the terran lost all the thors, but terran can still survive with 3 tech lab factory thor production.
Surely some tweaks can be done once we can figure out if this sort of mech is strong or weak, but the swamhost is not the problem. What is actually not viable vs swarmhosts is sitting back on two bases with some tanks to get a late third while the zerg just chills to infestation pit + nydus. Terran must dispute map control and force zerg to expend precious gas on ravagers (or something else).
So as i said, im pretty sure turtle mech is not viable, but other mech playstyles do not allow zerg to make a critical mass of swarmhosts + nydus unpunished, unless the swarmhosts are just the final blow. Those styles exist, they got buffed recently, try that before claiming mech is not viable. That's quite wrong. You go from "early mid game with cyclone hellion vs roach ravagers" to "mech deathball versus viper". You completely skipped the mid game here. Whether it's hellion/banshee or hellion cyclone, at some point the terran player will need tanks to survive and will have to surrender map control. If you don't, zerg player just goes hydras and obliterates hellion/cyclones, hellion/banshees (the "mobile early mech comps"). The moment zerg player gains the map control, he can build few swarm hosts and start harassing. From there, there's two scenarii : - either the terran player turtles up on 3 bases and reaches for a 4rth while trying to defend locust waves ; - either the terran player goes for a very macro style where you basically try to produce a huge amount of tanks/cyclones/hellions, with banshees and/or liberators, while being very agressive economically (basically, you try to overpower the zerg because evey SH is 4 supply and he'll only have a tiny ball of roaches/ravagers/hydra with it) The problem is that the first option leads to a very boring game, and quite frankly doesn't work against a smart zerg. You'll just fight a 200/200 SH army, with creep all over the map and an insane economy/tech. That's mainly that each SH you build is a potential for an unlimited amount of locusts : you don't have to pay anything to fight, you can just drone up and build static defense to fend off harass. And when you see him try to push out, you'll activate 1/3 of you SH at a time, while you prepare for a huge high tech remax with the money you didn't use on units. And the issue with the second option is that the SH is so hilariously cheap (less than a viking) that the game often "ends" very early : if you outproduced the zerg and contained him on 3-4 bases, and keep him rebuilding drones and army, while a few SHs try to shoo away your units, you're still gonna take a long time to kill him. Actually i've had some very fun games on cactus valley, where you have a lot of room to run arnoud with mech ground units against SH, but of course most maps don't allow that. Most maps have very little wiggle space and you can't push with all your army in one place with mech vs SHs. A very, very easy way to solve the SH issue would be to have locusts wave cost 15 min or so, and revert the swoop range to 4. And the SH cost wouldn't even matter anymore. This would prevent zergs from both going SHs, spamm static defense to prevent the mech player from harassing, and in any case have the cash to replenish lost drones. And then, as a mech player, you could try to out macro, out produce and actually deal damage when forcing zerg to pop locusts when he doesn't want to. Also, adding thors to your army would help you push through locust waves, meaning that 200/200 of SHs with mass spine/spores wouldn't be a thing anymore.
You misunderstood. Obviously, terran transitions to the tank thor hellbat cyclone army gradually during the mid game, while zerg gets hydras before hive. I did not describe each stage, since the post was long and im not even talking about a specific opener or composition. Just showing some options besides turtle mech that are not shut down by swarmhosts by forcing zerg to spend gas in other stuff and not giving zerg the necessary time and map control to harass freely with a good number of SH. The fact you added some tanks doesn't mean you cannot push, in fact, you should.
But you are right when you say that if zerg secures map control, getting some SH is a bit cheap. Also right that the first option usually means a slow death.
Due to the second option, maybe some tweaks are welcome, but its not that bad for terran. Zerg will need locusts to defend since a pre-hive zerg that spent gas and supply on SH will not be able to get a good engage otherwise (unless the terran is careless with tank positioning). This minimizes the damage of locust harass.
I don't know if your proposal is good or if it will convince top zergs to not ever make SH again, they are already rare. It does drastically nerf mass SH while not punishing small numbers too much.
|
On February 06 2017 11:08 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 10:18 Superbanana wrote:
Let me break it down a bit, i know its, to some extent, theorycrafting, but please discuss.
I'll talk about some builds. Those are viable. Turtle mech usually means a tech lab on first factory to get a tank and push with a strong army. This gives up map control and invites zerg to kill you slowly with swarmhosts.
Current terran mech always includes some pressure on early game and has a mobile army mid game.
Opening can consist on hellions, hellion banshee, hellion cyclone, hellion banshee cyclone. You can get cloak or blue flame. Basically, you do some pressure with this to transition into a mobile hellbat(hellion) cyclone army that secures map control.
Zerg anwers with roach ravager, otherwise, just die. The zerg can make some lings and pressure too on the early game before the mech ball becomes opressive. A Bane speed timing might be viable too. You don't go swarmhosts here, terran will kill all your stuff while locust is on cooldown. On top of that, terran has map control, so to harass with swarmhosts you really need a nydus and its not free.
At any point this hellbat cyclone (possible banshee, a few harass liberators, a raven) vs roach ravager can swing to one side.
Late game terran can achieve that terrifying hellion cyclone tank thor mech deathball, but zerg has the tools to deal with it. Vipers, broodlords or swarmhosts (hydras can be included mid game). However, its low count swarmhost with a roach ravager ball. more scary that a mass SH transition after both sides lose the army in a big fight is the dreadful muta switch, possible if the terran lost all the thors, but terran can still survive with 3 tech lab factory thor production.
Surely some tweaks can be done once we can figure out if this sort of mech is strong or weak, but the swamhost is not the problem. What is actually not viable vs swarmhosts is sitting back on two bases with some tanks to get a late third while the zerg just chills to infestation pit + nydus. Terran must dispute map control and force zerg to expend precious gas on ravagers (or something else).
So as i said, im pretty sure turtle mech is not viable, but other mech playstyles do not allow zerg to make a critical mass of swarmhosts + nydus unpunished, unless the swarmhosts are just the final blow. Those styles exist, they got buffed recently, try that before claiming mech is not viable. That's quite wrong. You go from "early mid game with cyclone hellion vs roach ravagers" to "mech deathball versus viper". You completely skipped the mid game here. Whether it's hellion/banshee or hellion cyclone, at some point the terran player will need tanks to survive and will have to surrender map control. If you don't, zerg player just goes hydras and obliterates hellion/cyclones, hellion/banshees (the "mobile early mech comps"). The moment zerg player gains the map control, he can build few swarm hosts and start harassing. From there, there's two scenarii : - either the terran player turtles up on 3 bases and reaches for a 4rth while trying to defend locust waves ; - either the terran player goes for a very macro style where you basically try to produce a huge amount of tanks/cyclones/hellions, with banshees and/or liberators, while being very agressive economically (basically, you try to overpower the zerg because evey SH is 4 supply and he'll only have a tiny ball of roaches/ravagers/hydra with it) The problem is that the first option leads to a very boring game, and quite frankly doesn't work against a smart zerg. You'll just fight a 200/200 SH army, with creep all over the map and an insane economy/tech. That's mainly that each SH you build is a potential for an unlimited amount of locusts : you don't have to pay anything to fight, you can just drone up and build static defense to fend off harass. And when you see him try to push out, you'll activate 1/3 of you SH at a time, while you prepare for a huge high tech remax with the money you didn't use on units. And the issue with the second option is that the SH is so hilariously cheap (less than a viking) that the game often "ends" very early : if you outproduced the zerg and contained him on 3-4 bases, and keep him rebuilding drones and army, while a few SHs try to shoo away your units, you're still gonna take a long time to kill him. Actually i've had some very fun games on cactus valley, where you have a lot of room to run arnoud with mech ground units against SH, but of course most maps don't allow that. Most maps have very little wiggle space and you can't push with all your army in one place with mech vs SHs. A very, very easy way to solve the SH issue would be to have locusts wave cost 15 min or so, and revert the swoop range to 4. And the SH cost wouldn't even matter anymore. This would prevent zergs from both going SHs, spamm static defense to prevent the mech player from harassing, and in any case have the cash to replenish lost drones. And then, as a mech player, you could try to out macro, out produce and actually deal damage when forcing zerg to pop locusts when he doesn't want to. Also, adding thors to your army would help you push through locust waves, meaning that 200/200 of SHs with mass spine/spores wouldn't be a thing anymore.
Haha wow, you are just as delusional as Avilo himself if you actually think that suggestion for the SH is reasonable.
|
On February 06 2017 08:37 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 01:47 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 05 2017 23:09 Cascade wrote:On February 05 2017 21:31 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 05 2017 12:29 showstealer1829 wrote:On February 05 2017 05:07 Jealous wrote:On February 03 2017 17:22 avilo wrote:On February 03 2017 17:10 Topdoller wrote:
Community has agreed this isnt an issue, please post this on the blizzard forums if you want the game changed. Blizzard do not have any representation on these forums
If you are having issues with Swarmhosts please post some examples of your games where you are losing to them on a persistent basis, a high level player may be able to offer some advice on tactics Uh...most of the community that plays mech will tell you the swarmhost is a problem from firsthand experience. They'd equally tell you the raven is but that it's the only counter-measure you have versus swarmhosts. I mean, does every single mech player need to get together and show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost vs mech for the community to come to agree that it's an issue? Current swarmhost was put on the same patch as "mech viability" and it absolutely crushes mech and forces the game to a stall. Get 50 ravens or autolose to swarmhosts is not a fun nor really healthy gameplay for people that wanna play mech. And saying "then don't play mech" is even more unhealthy because Terran should have more strategic options than only bio. It's crazy how people can demand evidence when you continue to make threads about the same topic for years, right? I mean, let's be real, it can't be YOUR fault that YOUR Mech play isn't working; it's that Mech is just straight up bad. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back in time, when you could wall Python diagonally with Depots and Turrets, have a 3-Turret-thick ring around your main and the 5th base you spend the better half of 30 minutes turtle-crawling to? Man, those were the days. In other news, in order to make broad generalizations about the viability of a strategy, and then scoff at the thought of producing "some examples of your games where you are losing to them" because you find it laughable that "every single mech player need to get together to show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost," you've essentially proven that you have no intention of proving anything. You took a reasonable request from someone who wanted to find out more about your standpoint, you exaggerated it to the point of hyperbole, phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then without blinking kept spitting the same exact narrative that you've been pushing for 10 pages. Come the fuck on. It's the blind leading the blind. You're begging the question while simultaneously providing proof by assertion. Onus probandi. Do not. Argue. With. The Con Man. He has to make posts like this saying the game is broken to keep getting the money from deluded people he's conned into believing his bullshit. So, where's the proof that SH are not a problem? Not to start a flame war, but in all seriousness you are doing the exact same thing that you say avilo is doing: neither of you is trying to establish their point by providing solid evidence (e.g. a collection of replays which show imbalance or lack of imbalance on the highest level). It's all theory crafting and rhetoric. If you just happen to like SHs, that's alright. But keep the rhetoric to yourself. You're just sidetracking the issue. It's up to avilo to prove they are broken, not to everyone else that they are not broken. I mean... You can't have random masters (or even, gasp, low GM!) players claiming that unit X is broken, and then expect everyone to believe that until someone goes through all the trouble to prove otherwise, according to whatever standard you deem to be necessary. Doesn't make any sense. We would have every unit in the game considered broken in no time. But sure. Let's talk about evidence for SHs not being OP. For me, the most telling piece of information is this: If SHs were indeed a problem, we'd hear about it from the best players. We have a code-S player posting in this thread, that is regularly playing the very best terrans in the world on the KR ladder, as well as in tournaments. I'm trusting her posts over a lower level player with known bias towards mech. If there are indeed several top level players (including non-terrans) saying similar things, then that will be by far your strongest argument for SH being OP, and you should push that. I will reconsider myself at that point. Yes, I will reconsider if there is good evidence for the other side of an argument. But if this observation isn't shared by top players, and all we have is avilo and his followers, then, imo, there is little reason for us to take it seriously. Indeed, maybe you should reconsider your position yourself at that point. You're actually not providing evidence but instead the conjecture that Pros don't say SH builds in mech TvZ are problematic, therefore it's not an issue. This is only a good argument if the meta at the pro level atm includes SH builds (or mech TvZ for that matter). If the meta does not include SH builds, we simply do not know if it's because they have not been discovered or because they're not viable. (Then again, I don't even watch a lot of SC2 anymore, so you can easily prove me wrong on this ) Put this aside for a bit, though. Let's assume that SH builds are not overpowered but balanced vs mech. Do you think it's a good state of play if one (ground) unit trades with a whole set of other (ground) units? I don't think so and it should be discussed. Are you saying that avilo has discovered that SHs are OP vs mech, but the top zergs inno, TY and Maru play mech against haven't discovered that? I find that very hard to believe.
No, I'm just saying that SH builds might not be a stable part of the meta yet. I mean, you have to get to the mid game first before you can transition into mass SH, right? So, you need another composition (Roach + Ravager + Ling) to defend in the early game which lets you transition safely into mass SH.
What I'm saying is that a safe SH transition build like that might not have been mapped out yet (just like Broodlord + Infestor wasn't until late WoL). And therefore you don't see mass SH vs full mech in pro games.
It doesn't preclude however that a Broodlord + Infestor situation might turn up once a build has been figured out (in this case only in TvZ and only vs mech, though) This is what I think Avilo is trying to point out.
|
On February 06 2017 22:04 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 08:37 Cascade wrote:On February 06 2017 01:47 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 05 2017 23:09 Cascade wrote:On February 05 2017 21:31 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 05 2017 12:29 showstealer1829 wrote:On February 05 2017 05:07 Jealous wrote:On February 03 2017 17:22 avilo wrote:On February 03 2017 17:10 Topdoller wrote:
Community has agreed this isnt an issue, please post this on the blizzard forums if you want the game changed. Blizzard do not have any representation on these forums
If you are having issues with Swarmhosts please post some examples of your games where you are losing to them on a persistent basis, a high level player may be able to offer some advice on tactics Uh...most of the community that plays mech will tell you the swarmhost is a problem from firsthand experience. They'd equally tell you the raven is but that it's the only counter-measure you have versus swarmhosts. I mean, does every single mech player need to get together and show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost vs mech for the community to come to agree that it's an issue? Current swarmhost was put on the same patch as "mech viability" and it absolutely crushes mech and forces the game to a stall. Get 50 ravens or autolose to swarmhosts is not a fun nor really healthy gameplay for people that wanna play mech. And saying "then don't play mech" is even more unhealthy because Terran should have more strategic options than only bio. It's crazy how people can demand evidence when you continue to make threads about the same topic for years, right? I mean, let's be real, it can't be YOUR fault that YOUR Mech play isn't working; it's that Mech is just straight up bad. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back in time, when you could wall Python diagonally with Depots and Turrets, have a 3-Turret-thick ring around your main and the 5th base you spend the better half of 30 minutes turtle-crawling to? Man, those were the days. In other news, in order to make broad generalizations about the viability of a strategy, and then scoff at the thought of producing "some examples of your games where you are losing to them" because you find it laughable that "every single mech player need to get together to show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost," you've essentially proven that you have no intention of proving anything. You took a reasonable request from someone who wanted to find out more about your standpoint, you exaggerated it to the point of hyperbole, phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then without blinking kept spitting the same exact narrative that you've been pushing for 10 pages. Come the fuck on. It's the blind leading the blind. You're begging the question while simultaneously providing proof by assertion. Onus probandi. Do not. Argue. With. The Con Man. He has to make posts like this saying the game is broken to keep getting the money from deluded people he's conned into believing his bullshit. So, where's the proof that SH are not a problem? Not to start a flame war, but in all seriousness you are doing the exact same thing that you say avilo is doing: neither of you is trying to establish their point by providing solid evidence (e.g. a collection of replays which show imbalance or lack of imbalance on the highest level). It's all theory crafting and rhetoric. If you just happen to like SHs, that's alright. But keep the rhetoric to yourself. You're just sidetracking the issue. It's up to avilo to prove they are broken, not to everyone else that they are not broken. I mean... You can't have random masters (or even, gasp, low GM!) players claiming that unit X is broken, and then expect everyone to believe that until someone goes through all the trouble to prove otherwise, according to whatever standard you deem to be necessary. Doesn't make any sense. We would have every unit in the game considered broken in no time. But sure. Let's talk about evidence for SHs not being OP. For me, the most telling piece of information is this: If SHs were indeed a problem, we'd hear about it from the best players. We have a code-S player posting in this thread, that is regularly playing the very best terrans in the world on the KR ladder, as well as in tournaments. I'm trusting her posts over a lower level player with known bias towards mech. If there are indeed several top level players (including non-terrans) saying similar things, then that will be by far your strongest argument for SH being OP, and you should push that. I will reconsider myself at that point. Yes, I will reconsider if there is good evidence for the other side of an argument. But if this observation isn't shared by top players, and all we have is avilo and his followers, then, imo, there is little reason for us to take it seriously. Indeed, maybe you should reconsider your position yourself at that point. You're actually not providing evidence but instead the conjecture that Pros don't say SH builds in mech TvZ are problematic, therefore it's not an issue. This is only a good argument if the meta at the pro level atm includes SH builds (or mech TvZ for that matter). If the meta does not include SH builds, we simply do not know if it's because they have not been discovered or because they're not viable. (Then again, I don't even watch a lot of SC2 anymore, so you can easily prove me wrong on this ) Put this aside for a bit, though. Let's assume that SH builds are not overpowered but balanced vs mech. Do you think it's a good state of play if one (ground) unit trades with a whole set of other (ground) units? I don't think so and it should be discussed. Are you saying that avilo has discovered that SHs are OP vs mech, but the top zergs inno, TY and Maru play mech against haven't discovered that? I find that very hard to believe. No, I'm just saying that SH builds might not be a stable part of the meta yet. I mean, you have to get to the mid game first before you can transition into mass SH, right? So, you need another composition (Roach + Ravager + Ling) to defend in the early game which lets you transition safely into mass SH. What I'm saying is that a safe SH transition build like that might not have been mapped out yet (just like Broodlord + Infestor wasn't until late WoL). And therefore you don't see mass SH vs full mech in pro games. It doesn't preclude however that a Broodlord + Infestor situation might turn up once a build has been figured out (in this case only in TvZ and only vs mech, though) This is what I think Avilo is trying to point out.
So you say that the SH meta hasn't stabilized. Then how can you claim that it is broken?
Based on avilos theorycrafting? Despite there not being any signs in top KR ladder?
|
From what I understand, the Master and GM ZvT meta doesn't include much Swarm Host usage because SH are not powerful against the mech or bio used at that level, in large part because of their inactivity for long periods of time which is bad for engaging with an attacking opponent, and turtle mech is rarely used because most high level players don't find it powerful nor do they find it fun which avoids SH entirely because a a good Zerg player is almost never going to make them in an interactive game. Catz and Snute frequently tried to be creative with SH in the past, but no other players use them much since the first week or two of 3.8. If SH are so powerful against an incredibly small percentage of players utilizing a hyper specific style of play which happens to do poorly when another player counters that style with this fringe unit, then, in my opinion, the responsibility of dealing with the fringe unit (SH) should be with those players. It should be up to them to adapt just like every other player around them is constantly adapting to and evolving the meta every month, week, and day they play, especially if those players are are at the top of the ladder or professionals.
I used to go for my own poorly done 7 Roach rushes exclusively in ZvP because I liked the build, but when I was hard countered by proxy Void Rays I wouldn't complain. I understood that my build was bad and in order to win more ZvP I needed to be more aware of my enemy and more flexible in my own play instead of ranting for months about the silliest proxy Void Ray build ever that countered my own dumb build and demanding without evidence or good reasoning that Void Rays be removed or heavily nerfed. If I did that, people would have called me a madman, dismiss everything I say, and boo me out of every forum and stream I've ever been on, and for good reason.
Mech units are proven to be viable (look at Innovation and Gumiho, among other players as many here have noted). What isn't proven to be viable is this hyper specific, feels bad to play against, mech turtle Terran strategy which the majority of players want to be phased out of the game by weakening Terran mech units or by giving niche counters against them, not made stronger by eliminating threats to this style of play. A game design comparison is Blue Control in Magic: the Gathering, a deck that aims to deny your opponents cards from being played (in a way that forces their opponent to waste resources) until you have a win condition, a similar strategy that turtle mech players in SC2 go for (controlling the map, denying all of the opponent's units from attacking, preventing them from playing the game the intended, interactive way until you have a way to win in the late game), and is a deck archetype that has slowly been phased out of the game. It isn't fun to watch, it isn't fun to play against, and the overall state of MtG has directly improved (been made more fun for players old and new of all skill levels) because of this specific strategy becoming weaker due to less cards fitting into this deck and more ways to play the game which don't fit into this strategy. Players who enjoy that deck archetype go out of their way to invent new but unpopular ways to play their strategy, play in another format (akin to a previous expansion), get better with their deck to stay competitive, and/or sit content having fun with their niche decks and understanding why the state of the game is the way it is and why their deck is niche.
For all of those same reasons, Turtle Terran (and any turtle strategy) should be niche or seen in lower leagues because the players dislike it and it goes against the design of the game. Having a soft counter in Swarm Hosts (which I do believe is a soft counter) is not an imbalance for the game, it seems like an imbalance for you specifically, just like a silly proxy Void Ray build was an affliction to my ZvP winrate, but nobody else sees it as a problem. SH are also effective in the rare games of ZvZ and ZvP in which one player locks themselves into their base with static defense and keeps their army in base instead of attacking or harassing, something that will deter most Zerg strategies except for SH. But, again, from what I know this is a rare occurrence for most players, and lesser Zerg players won't even think to use SH in this situation.
And to the op directly: Your playstyle is fun for you and your fans, but it is not fun for the majority of players nor is it good for the health of the game as a whole for it to be powerful, and Swarm Hosts are one small way of keeping this playstyle in check so the state of the game remains good for everyone from both an in-game player perspective as well as an out-of-game viewer perspective. Hopefully I have made it clear why these things are important to consider when talking about balance and this type of strategy in SC2.
|
On February 06 2017 23:53 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 22:04 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 06 2017 08:37 Cascade wrote:On February 06 2017 01:47 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 05 2017 23:09 Cascade wrote:On February 05 2017 21:31 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 05 2017 12:29 showstealer1829 wrote:On February 05 2017 05:07 Jealous wrote:On February 03 2017 17:22 avilo wrote:On February 03 2017 17:10 Topdoller wrote:
Community has agreed this isnt an issue, please post this on the blizzard forums if you want the game changed. Blizzard do not have any representation on these forums
If you are having issues with Swarmhosts please post some examples of your games where you are losing to them on a persistent basis, a high level player may be able to offer some advice on tactics Uh...most of the community that plays mech will tell you the swarmhost is a problem from firsthand experience. They'd equally tell you the raven is but that it's the only counter-measure you have versus swarmhosts. I mean, does every single mech player need to get together and show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost vs mech for the community to come to agree that it's an issue? Current swarmhost was put on the same patch as "mech viability" and it absolutely crushes mech and forces the game to a stall. Get 50 ravens or autolose to swarmhosts is not a fun nor really healthy gameplay for people that wanna play mech. And saying "then don't play mech" is even more unhealthy because Terran should have more strategic options than only bio. It's crazy how people can demand evidence when you continue to make threads about the same topic for years, right? I mean, let's be real, it can't be YOUR fault that YOUR Mech play isn't working; it's that Mech is just straight up bad. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back in time, when you could wall Python diagonally with Depots and Turrets, have a 3-Turret-thick ring around your main and the 5th base you spend the better half of 30 minutes turtle-crawling to? Man, those were the days. In other news, in order to make broad generalizations about the viability of a strategy, and then scoff at the thought of producing "some examples of your games where you are losing to them" because you find it laughable that "every single mech player need to get together to show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost," you've essentially proven that you have no intention of proving anything. You took a reasonable request from someone who wanted to find out more about your standpoint, you exaggerated it to the point of hyperbole, phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then without blinking kept spitting the same exact narrative that you've been pushing for 10 pages. Come the fuck on. It's the blind leading the blind. You're begging the question while simultaneously providing proof by assertion. Onus probandi. Do not. Argue. With. The Con Man. He has to make posts like this saying the game is broken to keep getting the money from deluded people he's conned into believing his bullshit. So, where's the proof that SH are not a problem? Not to start a flame war, but in all seriousness you are doing the exact same thing that you say avilo is doing: neither of you is trying to establish their point by providing solid evidence (e.g. a collection of replays which show imbalance or lack of imbalance on the highest level). It's all theory crafting and rhetoric. If you just happen to like SHs, that's alright. But keep the rhetoric to yourself. You're just sidetracking the issue. It's up to avilo to prove they are broken, not to everyone else that they are not broken. I mean... You can't have random masters (or even, gasp, low GM!) players claiming that unit X is broken, and then expect everyone to believe that until someone goes through all the trouble to prove otherwise, according to whatever standard you deem to be necessary. Doesn't make any sense. We would have every unit in the game considered broken in no time. But sure. Let's talk about evidence for SHs not being OP. For me, the most telling piece of information is this: If SHs were indeed a problem, we'd hear about it from the best players. We have a code-S player posting in this thread, that is regularly playing the very best terrans in the world on the KR ladder, as well as in tournaments. I'm trusting her posts over a lower level player with known bias towards mech. If there are indeed several top level players (including non-terrans) saying similar things, then that will be by far your strongest argument for SH being OP, and you should push that. I will reconsider myself at that point. Yes, I will reconsider if there is good evidence for the other side of an argument. But if this observation isn't shared by top players, and all we have is avilo and his followers, then, imo, there is little reason for us to take it seriously. Indeed, maybe you should reconsider your position yourself at that point. You're actually not providing evidence but instead the conjecture that Pros don't say SH builds in mech TvZ are problematic, therefore it's not an issue. This is only a good argument if the meta at the pro level atm includes SH builds (or mech TvZ for that matter). If the meta does not include SH builds, we simply do not know if it's because they have not been discovered or because they're not viable. (Then again, I don't even watch a lot of SC2 anymore, so you can easily prove me wrong on this ) Put this aside for a bit, though. Let's assume that SH builds are not overpowered but balanced vs mech. Do you think it's a good state of play if one (ground) unit trades with a whole set of other (ground) units? I don't think so and it should be discussed. Are you saying that avilo has discovered that SHs are OP vs mech, but the top zergs inno, TY and Maru play mech against haven't discovered that? I find that very hard to believe. No, I'm just saying that SH builds might not be a stable part of the meta yet. I mean, you have to get to the mid game first before you can transition into mass SH, right? So, you need another composition (Roach + Ravager + Ling) to defend in the early game which lets you transition safely into mass SH. What I'm saying is that a safe SH transition build like that might not have been mapped out yet (just like Broodlord + Infestor wasn't until late WoL). And therefore you don't see mass SH vs full mech in pro games. It doesn't preclude however that a Broodlord + Infestor situation might turn up once a build has been figured out (in this case only in TvZ and only vs mech, though) This is what I think Avilo is trying to point out. So you say that the SH meta hasn't stabilized. Then how can you claim that it is broken? Based on avilos theorycrafting? Despite there not being any signs in top KR ladder?
Because in the event that a zerg can freely mass SHs against mech and plays on the same level, then one unit beats a whole set of units cost-for-cost (maybe even supply wise). I consider this to be broken. IMO the root of the problem here is bad design, but that's another thread.
It's a fallacy to say that there is no problem with a certain playstyle, because we never see it in pro matches. The same thing happened with Broodlord + Infestor: it took a while until this build stabilized but when it did the whole game was in a downward spiral.
|
I am starting to hear from Protoss players that Swarm Hosts is a problem in PvZ as well.
The solution is simple.
1. Increase cost to 150/100.
2. Change armour type to light so that hellions and adepts can chase down Swarm Hosts.
That way you can still build a few Swarm Hosts to harass outposts, workers and productions buildings, but mass Swarm Hosts is discouraged.
|
On February 07 2017 00:51 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 23:53 Cascade wrote:On February 06 2017 22:04 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 06 2017 08:37 Cascade wrote:On February 06 2017 01:47 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 05 2017 23:09 Cascade wrote:On February 05 2017 21:31 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 05 2017 12:29 showstealer1829 wrote:On February 05 2017 05:07 Jealous wrote:On February 03 2017 17:22 avilo wrote:
[quote]
Uh...most of the community that plays mech will tell you the swarmhost is a problem from firsthand experience. They'd equally tell you the raven is but that it's the only counter-measure you have versus swarmhosts.
I mean, does every single mech player need to get together and show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost vs mech for the community to come to agree that it's an issue?
Current swarmhost was put on the same patch as "mech viability" and it absolutely crushes mech and forces the game to a stall. Get 50 ravens or autolose to swarmhosts is not a fun nor really healthy gameplay for people that wanna play mech.
And saying "then don't play mech" is even more unhealthy because Terran should have more strategic options than only bio.
It's crazy how people can demand evidence when you continue to make threads about the same topic for years, right? I mean, let's be real, it can't be YOUR fault that YOUR Mech play isn't working; it's that Mech is just straight up bad. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back in time, when you could wall Python diagonally with Depots and Turrets, have a 3-Turret-thick ring around your main and the 5th base you spend the better half of 30 minutes turtle-crawling to? Man, those were the days. In other news, in order to make broad generalizations about the viability of a strategy, and then scoff at the thought of producing "some examples of your games where you are losing to them" because you find it laughable that "every single mech player need to get together to show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost," you've essentially proven that you have no intention of proving anything. You took a reasonable request from someone who wanted to find out more about your standpoint, you exaggerated it to the point of hyperbole, phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then without blinking kept spitting the same exact narrative that you've been pushing for 10 pages. Come the fuck on. It's the blind leading the blind. You're begging the question while simultaneously providing proof by assertion. Onus probandi. Do not. Argue. With. The Con Man. He has to make posts like this saying the game is broken to keep getting the money from deluded people he's conned into believing his bullshit. So, where's the proof that SH are not a problem? Not to start a flame war, but in all seriousness you are doing the exact same thing that you say avilo is doing: neither of you is trying to establish their point by providing solid evidence (e.g. a collection of replays which show imbalance or lack of imbalance on the highest level). It's all theory crafting and rhetoric. If you just happen to like SHs, that's alright. But keep the rhetoric to yourself. You're just sidetracking the issue. It's up to avilo to prove they are broken, not to everyone else that they are not broken. I mean... You can't have random masters (or even, gasp, low GM!) players claiming that unit X is broken, and then expect everyone to believe that until someone goes through all the trouble to prove otherwise, according to whatever standard you deem to be necessary. Doesn't make any sense. We would have every unit in the game considered broken in no time. But sure. Let's talk about evidence for SHs not being OP. For me, the most telling piece of information is this: If SHs were indeed a problem, we'd hear about it from the best players. We have a code-S player posting in this thread, that is regularly playing the very best terrans in the world on the KR ladder, as well as in tournaments. I'm trusting her posts over a lower level player with known bias towards mech. If there are indeed several top level players (including non-terrans) saying similar things, then that will be by far your strongest argument for SH being OP, and you should push that. I will reconsider myself at that point. Yes, I will reconsider if there is good evidence for the other side of an argument. But if this observation isn't shared by top players, and all we have is avilo and his followers, then, imo, there is little reason for us to take it seriously. Indeed, maybe you should reconsider your position yourself at that point. You're actually not providing evidence but instead the conjecture that Pros don't say SH builds in mech TvZ are problematic, therefore it's not an issue. This is only a good argument if the meta at the pro level atm includes SH builds (or mech TvZ for that matter). If the meta does not include SH builds, we simply do not know if it's because they have not been discovered or because they're not viable. (Then again, I don't even watch a lot of SC2 anymore, so you can easily prove me wrong on this ) Put this aside for a bit, though. Let's assume that SH builds are not overpowered but balanced vs mech. Do you think it's a good state of play if one (ground) unit trades with a whole set of other (ground) units? I don't think so and it should be discussed. Are you saying that avilo has discovered that SHs are OP vs mech, but the top zergs inno, TY and Maru play mech against haven't discovered that? I find that very hard to believe. No, I'm just saying that SH builds might not be a stable part of the meta yet. I mean, you have to get to the mid game first before you can transition into mass SH, right? So, you need another composition (Roach + Ravager + Ling) to defend in the early game which lets you transition safely into mass SH. What I'm saying is that a safe SH transition build like that might not have been mapped out yet (just like Broodlord + Infestor wasn't until late WoL). And therefore you don't see mass SH vs full mech in pro games. It doesn't preclude however that a Broodlord + Infestor situation might turn up once a build has been figured out (in this case only in TvZ and only vs mech, though) This is what I think Avilo is trying to point out. So you say that the SH meta hasn't stabilized. Then how can you claim that it is broken? Based on avilos theorycrafting? Despite there not being any signs in top KR ladder? Because in the event that a zerg can freely mass SHs against mech and plays on the same level, then one unit beats a whole set of units cost-for-cost (maybe even supply wise). I consider this to be broken. IMO the root of the problem here is bad design, but that's another thread. It's a fallacy to say that there is no problem with a certain playstyle, because we never see it in pro matches. The same thing happened with Broodlord + Infestor: it took a while until this build stabilized but when it did the whole game was in a downward spiral.
You're assuming that SH will be the equivalent to BL+Infestor. We don't know just yet if SH can force a stale meta in the TvZ matchup.
Keep in mind, the BL+Infestor wasn't OP. It was just the best composition that zerg can use against everything the terran can use. It wasn't OP, but it did create a very stale and boring meta. However, it was the job of the zerg to get to BL+Infestor, and terran was always tasked with defeating the zerg if they got there.
SH aren't as restrictive. SH's only issue is that it is incredibly effective against mech terran. Otherwise, we can all agree no zerg goes SH if terran is going bio.
|
Swarmhosts really seem to be a problem in the current build. It's becoming more clear in both matchups as Zergs are getting better at using them imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
