|
On February 07 2017 06:52 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 00:51 Turb0Sw4g wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
So BL Infestor was just the best composition Zergs had? Oh there's no doubt that this was the case, but you are saying it like there is nothing more to it. Could you beat BL Inf? Yes, you could, but ending the game before that phase in the game was everyones goal. I wonder why?
|
On February 07 2017 09:02 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 06:52 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On February 07 2017 00:51 Turb0Sw4g wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So BL Infestor was just the best composition Zergs had? Oh there's no doubt that this was the case, but you are saying it like there is nothing more to it. Could you beat BL Inf? Yes, you could, but ending the game before that phase in the game was everyones goal. I wonder why?
To large degree, because most find it really boring to play endless turtle games. 
|
On February 07 2017 09:02 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 06:52 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On February 07 2017 00:51 Turb0Sw4g wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So BL Infestor was just the best composition Zergs had? Oh there's no doubt that this was the case, but you are saying it like there is nothing more to it. Could you beat BL Inf? Yes, you could, but ending the game before that phase in the game was everyones goal. I wonder why?
I'm not approving or saying it was fun or right or good. The BL Infestor was a giant sore in the meta. It created horribly stale games that were predictable to some degree.
However, my comment was direct to Turb0Sw4g. He suggested that the SH will create a similar situation to the BL infestor. I posited that would likely not happen. BL infestor was the best composition for Zerg. No one will argue it, and that's why the meta became stale.
SH is not a unit used in a 'best composition' scenario. In fact, SH will likely become the 'niche' unit used in only a handful of scenarios. SH will not create a stale meta, because it is not a great option if the terran goes bio.
With that being said, I am not against testing changes to the SH, IF, it proves to be warranted. Unfortunately, we don't have enough pro games to make that judgment.
Sure we have a lot of anecdotal evidence that suggests the SH needs to be nerfed, but the source of evidence still requires something more concrete.
As I said before, the problem is that zerg has no other viable option against a mech terran. The SH is the only unit that can put a dent in the fortification of a mech terran.
|
As I said before, the problem is that zerg has no other viable option against a mech terran. The SH is the only unit that can put a dent in the fortification of a mech terran.
I don't think that's true. Zerg has so many options that are really strong vs mech.
Just to name some :
- Viper counter's literally every mech unit, except for widow mines.
- Invincible nydus is very powerful to punish slow mech units. We even saw them back in hots, when they could get denied by a worker pull as a part of an anit-mech strategy.
- 7 armor ultralisks are very powerful vs. ground based mech compositions, especially in combination with blinding clouds.
- Zerg has much higher mobility than mech and can easily punish a mech player that's out of position.
There are a lot of very strong unit compositions for zerg combined with vipers.
|
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 don't hear top players talking about it, because the top player know mech is still inferior versus Zerg. Swarmhost are not OP if you play Bio; which 95% continue to do. Why would a pro waste his/her time explaining obvious problems with a unit that nullifies an entire mech when they don't play mech? It's a moot point because it doesn't apply to their playstyle. Unless the Terran goes immediately into sky Terran, ground mech is broken versus swarmhosts.
I'm low gm/ high masters and I played a Zerg the other day who lost two of his 4 bases and was on the verge of losing the game. He was essentially mining out his main and expansion for the remaining part of the game. He made 30, NO IM NOT KIDDING, 30 swarm hosts and kept sending a never-ending wave of locust and pushed me across the map while he re-expanded and won the game. Remember, 30 swarmhosts would only cost 2.2k gas is essentially nothing in the meta game. Any other unit, muta, hydra, roach, broodlord, infestor etc he would have lost with my army supply. Is that fair? Please tell me what beats this aside from making the vastly more expensive unit, the Raven, which costs 125 gas more. I'm all ears. And don't say "don't let them get there" because this is a tier two unit which essentially costs as much as a marauder.
|
On February 08 2017 05:38 SirPinky 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 don't hear top players talking about it, because the top player know mech is still inferior versus Zerg. Swarmhost are not OP if you play Bio; which 95% continue to do. Why would a pro waste his/her time explaining obvious problems with a unit that nullifies an entire mech when they don't play mech? It's a moot point because it doesn't apply to their playstyle. Unless the Terran goes immediately into sky Terran, ground mech is broken versus swarmhosts. I'm low gm/ high masters and I played a Zerg the other day who lost two of his 4 bases and was on the verge of losing the game. He was essentially mining out his main and expansion for the remaining part of the game. He made 30, NO IM NOT KIDDING, 30 swarm hosts and kept sending a never-ending wave of locust and pushed me across the map while he re-expanded and won the game. Remember, 30 swarmhosts would only cost 2.2k gas is essentially nothing in the meta game. Any other unit, muta, hydra, roach, broodlord, infestor etc he would have lost with my army supply. Is that fair?
Well, it sounds to me like the Zerg player was capable of winning with anything and it just so happened to be Swarm Hosts instead of Roaches or Hydralisks or another type of army. "He was mining from his and expansion for the rest of the game. ... Except when he re-expanded and won" sounds like you're just upset at losing that match and feel justified about your feelings towards Zerg because there's a thread complaining about SH. If you upload the replay for people to watch, I'm sure it'd help a lot more than just saying you don't like a game you lost that supposedly should have won.
|
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.
^ I mean, while I do think that Swarm Hosts are really good against mech, this is kind of a compelling argument, and to the person above me, not all play styles are equally viable and trying to make them so is just not feasible. Roach Hydra used to be doable vs. Terran but they learned how to out bio it until it's doable (debatable I admit but it USED to be doable) but just not viable vs bio compared to mech, but if Roach/Hydra was further buffed to be completely viable like LBM is, ZvP would be broken, not sure how the same principle doesn't apply to mech. Bio kinda sucked in BW where mech was the more the standard of play, in my opinion it's just the same thing but reversed for SC2.
I still think Swarm Hosts would better serve the Overmind if they were turned into an anti mass sky army unit that could effectively take down Skyterran/Skytoss, not in an OP fashion, just one that a massing sky army player might actually have to fear.
I also have to ask, does anyone here besides a handful of Terran players actually WANT mech to be viable? Mech sucks to watch and play against, I'm fine with tanks being buffed or redesigned into working better with bio but tank turtle mech into Ravens is just trash.
|
On February 08 2017 02:02 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 09:02 Phaenoman wrote:On February 07 2017 06:52 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On February 07 2017 00:51 Turb0Sw4g wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So BL Infestor was just the best composition Zergs had? Oh there's no doubt that this was the case, but you are saying it like there is nothing more to it. Could you beat BL Inf? Yes, you could, but ending the game before that phase in the game was everyones goal. I wonder why? However, my comment was direct to Turb0Sw4g. He suggested that the SH will create a similar situation to the BL infestor. I posited that would likely not happen. BL infestor was the best composition for Zerg. No one will argue it, and that's why the meta became stale. SH is not a unit used in a 'best composition' scenario. In fact, SH will likely become the 'niche' unit used in only a handful of scenarios. SH will not create a stale meta, because it is not a great option if the terran goes bio.
I agree, but I was specifically talking about mech TvZ.
|
On February 08 2017 05:38 SirPinky 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 don't hear top players talking about it, because the top player know mech is still inferior versus Zerg. Swarmhost are not OP if you play Bio; which 95% continue to do. Why would a pro waste his/her time explaining obvious problems with a unit that nullifies an entire mech when they don't play mech? It's a moot point because it doesn't apply to their playstyle. Unless the Terran goes immediately into sky Terran, ground mech is broken versus swarmhosts. I'm low gm/ high masters and I played a Zerg the other day who lost two of his 4 bases and was on the verge of losing the game. He was essentially mining out his main and expansion for the remaining part of the game. He made 30, NO IM NOT KIDDING, 30 swarm hosts and kept sending a never-ending wave of locust and pushed me across the map while he re-expanded and won the game. Remember, 30 swarmhosts would only cost 2.2k gas is essentially nothing in the meta game. Any other unit, muta, hydra, roach, broodlord, infestor etc he would have lost with my army supply. Is that fair? Please tell me what beats this aside from making the vastly more expensive unit, the Raven, which costs 125 gas more. I'm all ears. And don't say "don't let them get there" because this is a tier two unit which essentially costs as much as a marauder.
I'm no good at starcraft, so I can't give you advice. I suggest you look at how TY, Innovation and Gumiho (I think?) deals with this at the top of KR ladder. That should work at your level as well. I think they stream sometimes, right? Scarlett said that they play Mech a lot in TvZ. Maybe you can try to find some vods? And I'm pretty sure there has been a few streamed tournament games with TvZ mech from koreans. Don't remember who it was... Maybe have a look at those? Or try asking in the strategy section?
Sorry for telling you what to do, but when you lose a game, I think it's healthier to look at how better players deal with it, rather than hit the forums and complain that it isn't fair. I think that goes for both gold players like me and master/low GM like you.
If a large fraction of the very top players struggle for a long time, then I'm happy to start talking about balance. But I don't see that right now. If I just missed that conversation, please link and I'll reconsider.
|
On February 08 2017 05:38 SirPinky 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 don't hear top players talking about it, because the top player know mech is still inferior versus Zerg. Swarmhost are not OP if you play Bio; which 95% continue to do. Why would a pro waste his/her time explaining obvious problems with a unit that nullifies an entire mech when they don't play mech? It's a moot point because it doesn't apply to their playstyle. Unless the Terran goes immediately into sky Terran, ground mech is broken versus swarmhosts. I'm low gm/ high masters and I played a Zerg the other day who lost two of his 4 bases and was on the verge of losing the game. He was essentially mining out his main and expansion for the remaining part of the game. He made 30, NO IM NOT KIDDING, 30 swarm hosts and kept sending a never-ending wave of locust and pushed me across the map while he re-expanded and won the game. Remember, 30 swarmhosts would only cost 2.2k gas is essentially nothing in the meta game. Any other unit, muta, hydra, roach, broodlord, infestor etc he would have lost with my army supply. Is that fair? Please tell me what beats this aside from making the vastly more expensive unit, the Raven, which costs 125 gas more. I'm all ears. And don't say "don't let them get there" because this is a tier two unit which essentially costs as much as a marauder.
Can you post a replay? I have a hard time picturing a Zerg being able to dump 90 supplies worth into Swarm Host after losing 2 bases and come out ahead. How many bases were you on? Let's see what went wrong for you and right for the Zerg that game.
|
On February 08 2017 05:38 SirPinky 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 don't hear top players talking about it, because the top player know mech is still inferior versus Zerg. Swarmhost are not OP if you play Bio; which 95% continue to do. Why would a pro waste his/her time explaining obvious problems with a unit that nullifies an entire mech when they don't play mech? It's a moot point because it doesn't apply to their playstyle. Unless the Terran goes immediately into sky Terran, ground mech is broken versus swarmhosts. I'm low gm/ high masters and I played a Zerg the other day who lost two of his 4 bases and was on the verge of losing the game. He was essentially mining out his main and expansion for the remaining part of the game. He made 30, NO IM NOT KIDDING, 30 swarm hosts and kept sending a never-ending wave of locust and pushed me across the map while he re-expanded and won the game. Remember, 30 swarmhosts would only cost 2.2k gas is essentially nothing in the meta game. Any other unit, muta, hydra, roach, broodlord, infestor etc he would have lost with my army supply. Is that fair? Please tell me what beats this aside from making the vastly more expensive unit, the Raven, which costs 125 gas more. I'm all ears. And don't say "don't let them get there" because this is a tier two unit which essentially costs as much as a marauder.
We heard the same back in the days with mutalisks ...
|
On January 04 2017 12:56 Solar424 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 12:52 avilo wrote:
Also to add...i don't think a lot of people even know about this issue yet because there haven't been many tournaments on the current patch, and most Terrans still go bio for the majority of their games.
I get that not everyone wants every game to be mech 100% either...but imagine if banelings were given another 50 extra HP on top of what they were already given. Bio would be unplayable because of 1 unit. That's kind of analogous to the situation here.
If you opt for mech, the guy just starts making swarmhosts and collects free cash for 20 minutes. Plenty of Terrans like Innovation and Gumiho have been making mech work, just not your "turtle for 30 minutes and mass Ravens" style. They focus on more mobile units like Hellions, Cyclones, and Banshees and end the game in around 10 minutes.
That's a timing. Not a viable macro style if you don't do significant damage early on. I'm zerg and I despise mech with all my soul, but fuck I'll defend terrans' right to have their mech games.
If "mech" is based around finishing the game in 10 minutes then it just becomes the PvZ immortal-sentry all-in from HotS that was literally just either "oh does the guy have enough defense? no? well, GG" or "Well, the zerg has enough units, GG"
|
Swarmhosts are still not addressed by the developers. It's been months, it's really about time TL start an initiative here along with the community to get this stuff addressed.
|
yeah atleast make them require hive for the flying ability, atm you get boxed in on 3 base and then z takes bases while you die slowly
its just swarmhosts and carriers, both which received mad buffs in the "mech patch 3.8" just revert those buffs and the game would be fine imo.
|
On March 17 2017 14:28 FoxDog wrote:
yeah atleast make them require hive for the flying ability, atm you get boxed in on 3 base and then z takes bases while you die slowly
its just swarmhosts and carriers, both which received mad buffs in the "mech patch 3.8" just revert those buffs and the game would be fine imo.
Yeah. But in the same time reverse Blinding Cloud nerf. Because with SH back to "dead unit" state, Zerg would have nothing to break lines of buffed tanks and thors.
|
On March 17 2017 14:51 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 14:28 FoxDog wrote:
yeah atleast make them require hive for the flying ability, atm you get boxed in on 3 base and then z takes bases while you die slowly
its just swarmhosts and carriers, both which received mad buffs in the "mech patch 3.8" just revert those buffs and the game would be fine imo. Yeah. But in the same time reverse Blinding Cloud nerf. Because with SH back to "dead unit" state, Zerg would have nothing to break lines of buffed tanks and thors.
That's what they want. If they don't win 1337% of their games they'll never be satisfied
User was warned for this post
|
On March 17 2017 14:51 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 14:28 FoxDog wrote:
yeah atleast make them require hive for the flying ability, atm you get boxed in on 3 base and then z takes bases while you die slowly
its just swarmhosts and carriers, both which received mad buffs in the "mech patch 3.8" just revert those buffs and the game would be fine imo. Yeah. But in the same time reverse Blinding Cloud nerf. Because with SH back to "dead unit" state, Zerg would have nothing to break lines of buffed tanks and thors.
say WHAT? it wouldnt be dead it would just require ~100 more seconds, if you had any idea how underpowered mech is against the swarmhosts you would say not only shouldnt they be able to fly, but the swarmhost cost should be increased as well as they are nigh uncatchable with their new speed buff
are you serious you think zerg cant win without the super powerful new swarmhost? even after hydra corruptor and queen buffs?
|
i saw the title in the sidebar and thought "probably an avilo thread hehe"
Imagine my surprise....
|
On March 17 2017 14:59 FoxDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 14:51 hiroshOne wrote:On March 17 2017 14:28 FoxDog wrote:
yeah atleast make them require hive for the flying ability, atm you get boxed in on 3 base and then z takes bases while you die slowly
its just swarmhosts and carriers, both which received mad buffs in the "mech patch 3.8" just revert those buffs and the game would be fine imo. Yeah. But in the same time reverse Blinding Cloud nerf. Because with SH back to "dead unit" state, Zerg would have nothing to break lines of buffed tanks and thors. say WHAT? it wouldnt be dead it would just require ~100 more seconds, if you had any idea how underpowered mech is against the swarmhosts you would say not only shouldnt they be able to fly, but the swarmhost cost should be increased as well as they are nigh uncatchable with their new speed buff are you serious you think zerg cant win without the super powerful new swarmhost? even after hydra corruptor and queen buffs?
On March 17 2017 14:55 showstealer1829 wrote:
That's what they want. If they don't win 1337% of their games they'll never be satisfied
I rest my case.
|
On March 17 2017 14:59 FoxDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 14:51 hiroshOne wrote:On March 17 2017 14:28 FoxDog wrote:
yeah atleast make them require hive for the flying ability, atm you get boxed in on 3 base and then z takes bases while you die slowly
its just swarmhosts and carriers, both which received mad buffs in the "mech patch 3.8" just revert those buffs and the game would be fine imo. Yeah. But in the same time reverse Blinding Cloud nerf. Because with SH back to "dead unit" state, Zerg would have nothing to break lines of buffed tanks and thors. say WHAT? it wouldnt be dead it would just require ~100 more seconds, if you had any idea how underpowered mech is against the swarmhosts you would say not only shouldnt they be able to fly, but the swarmhost cost should be increased as well as they are nigh uncatchable with their new speed buff are you serious you think zerg cant win without the super powerful new swarmhost? even after hydra corruptor and queen buffs?
You're right. I don't recognize how overpowered SH vs mech are. The only thing i recognize is that mech players are biased more than ISIS extremists about destroying infidels.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
