|
Author is either naive or knows nothing at all.
SC2 is not only about matching and countering your opponent. And the game dynamics flows all the time between opponents as offensive (someone who dictates the game) and defensive (and the player who scouts and reacts). The OP, for the information of the author, arises out of certain irregularities at certain levels as the game progresses. Just one example, QQ in ZvP mostly happen because of the inability of tier 3 zerg to deal with macroed maxed up P. This is not anymore about TOOLS, as you say it. There is really almost nothing efficient in the Z arsenal to counter the P deathball. This is the heart of every OP discussion - when the game reaches at point where chronologically and technologically both players should be equal or more or less so, but in practice are not!
This author should have saved all of us time and effort by posting his opening post in the Force Field analysis thread. Meh.
|
On April 04 2011 00:22 Abigail wrote:
You send a bunch of units and press A,and suddenly your opponent goes into a chaotic and uncoordinated mode,which you can take advantage of.Toss can warp in,true.But he cant control simultaneoous attacks so easily,while you,as attacker,assuming that you only press A and attack in 2 different spots,while nuking and controlling only one core army in the middle,have the mind control necessary,which your opponent hasnt.
In other words, play significantly better than your opponent, to win?
Besides which, by the time zerg has enough units to threaten multiple points at once, or the protoss is spread out enough, it's already too late.
|
On April 04 2011 00:38 GG.NoRe wrote:
Author is either naive or knows nothing at all.
SC2 is not only about matching and countering your opponent. And the game dynamics flows all the time between opponents as offensive (someone who dictates the game) and defensive (and the player who scouts and reacts). The OP, for the information of the author, arises out of certain irregularities at certain levels as the game progresses. Just one example, QQ in ZvP mostly happen because of the inability of tier 3 zerg to deal with macroed maxed up P. This is not anymore about TOOLS, as you say it. There is really almost nothing efficient in the Z arsenal to counter the P deathball. This is the heart of every OP discussion - when the game reaches at point where chronologically and technologically both players should be equal or more or less so, but in practice are not!
This author should have saved all of us time and effort by posting his opening post in the Force Field analysis thread. Meh.
Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers.
|
On April 04 2011 00:46 iChau wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:38 GG.NoRe wrote:
Author is either naive or knows nothing at all.
SC2 is not only about matching and countering your opponent. And the game dynamics flows all the time between opponents as offensive (someone who dictates the game) and defensive (and the player who scouts and reacts). The OP, for the information of the author, arises out of certain irregularities at certain levels as the game progresses. Just one example, QQ in ZvP mostly happen because of the inability of tier 3 zerg to deal with macroed maxed up P. This is not anymore about TOOLS, as you say it. There is really almost nothing efficient in the Z arsenal to counter the P deathball. This is the heart of every OP discussion - when the game reaches at point where chronologically and technologically both players should be equal or more or less so, but in practice are not!
This author should have saved all of us time and effort by posting his opening post in the Force Field analysis thread. Meh. Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers.
But Zerg doesn't! It has a smaller army!
|
The current discussion about zvp comes back to the "playing significantly better than your opponent in order to win" mindset. Yes, you can harass everywhere while reinforcing your main army just enough to BARELY hold against his resulting all-in (after your harass). But that means you have to send the perfect amount of, say, roaches to his 3rd to do dmg there and the perfect amount of, say lings to his nat to do dmg there while keeping the perfect amount of roach/hydra with your main army so he can't just say "F it, I'll just go kill him."
That is a perfect example of way out playing your opponent just to win a standard game.
|
On April 04 2011 00:52 Holophonist wrote:
The current discussion about zvp comes back to the "playing significantly better than your opponent in order to win" mindset. Yes, you can harass everywhere while reinforcing your main army just enough to BARELY hold against his resulting all-in (after your harass). But that means you have to send the perfect amount of, say, roaches to his 3rd to do dmg there and the perfect amount of, say lings to his nat to do dmg there while keeping the perfect amount of roach/hydra with your main army so he can't just say "F it, I'll just go kill him."
That is a perfect example of way out playing your opponent just to win a standard game.
There's no perfect numbers. Honestly, what are you talking about. Okay sure, I'll send exactly 19 lings to attack here because he only has 3 cannons. Oh yes, I'll also drop with exactly 3 overlords 26 roaches here according to my scouts. Oh wait, I'll send 5 mutalisks here because he has exactly 1 cannon.
It's harder to DEFEND multi-pronged attacks than it is to ATTACK with multi-pronged attacks. This is well-known.
Zerg will always win a base-trade if it comes to it. If the protoss is incapable of defending and tries to all-in, the zerg just needs to sneak his army away and there goes the base trade. Zerg wins (more bases, more everything, including current multi-pronged attacks).
It's not like you know exact numbers and that you're able to calculate every single step, you won't be able to defend if the protoss decides to all-in with the deathball. If he doesn't, you starve him to death.
So basically, I wouldn't call it outplaying because defending is harder than attacking.
On April 04 2011 00:48 Dragar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:46 iChau wrote:On April 04 2011 00:38 GG.NoRe wrote:
Author is either naive or knows nothing at all.
SC2 is not only about matching and countering your opponent. And the game dynamics flows all the time between opponents as offensive (someone who dictates the game) and defensive (and the player who scouts and reacts). The OP, for the information of the author, arises out of certain irregularities at certain levels as the game progresses. Just one example, QQ in ZvP mostly happen because of the inability of tier 3 zerg to deal with macroed maxed up P. This is not anymore about TOOLS, as you say it. There is really almost nothing efficient in the Z arsenal to counter the P deathball. This is the heart of every OP discussion - when the game reaches at point where chronologically and technologically both players should be equal or more or less so, but in practice are not!
This author should have saved all of us time and effort by posting his opening post in the Force Field analysis thread. Meh. Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers. But Zerg doesn't! It has a smaller army!
Lol I can't tell who you're siding with. However, zerg doesn't have a smaller army. You get so many more units compared to the deathball (high supply).
|
1)100 gas is not cheap.Having 5 sentries is 500gas.So we know that when our opponent has a sentry heavy unit compo,he is a little poor on other gas heavy units.Interesting.
Would be true if protoss wasn't able to expand with 1 zealot and 5 sentry safely.
Sentry is the only thing you will spend your gas before taking an expand in most scenario.
Sentry almost never cut in your high tehc unit produce rate if you don't lose them early.
And forcefields are not small.. each is the size of an Ultralisk, and everyone will tell you Ultra are fucking huge.
|
On April 04 2011 00:56 iChau wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:52 Holophonist wrote:
The current discussion about zvp comes back to the "playing significantly better than your opponent in order to win" mindset. Yes, you can harass everywhere while reinforcing your main army just enough to BARELY hold against his resulting all-in (after your harass). But that means you have to send the perfect amount of, say, roaches to his 3rd to do dmg there and the perfect amount of, say lings to his nat to do dmg there while keeping the perfect amount of roach/hydra with your main army so he can't just say "F it, I'll just go kill him."
That is a perfect example of way out playing your opponent just to win a standard game. There's no perfect numbers. Honestly, what are you talking about. Okay sure, I'll send exactly 19 lings to attack here because he only has 3 cannons. Oh yes, I'll also drop with exactly 3 overlords 26 roaches here according to my scouts. Oh wait, I'll send 5 mutalisks here because he has exactly 1 cannon. It's harder to DEFEND multi-pronged attacks than it is to ATTACK with multi-pronged attacks. This is well-known. Zerg will always win a base-trade if it comes to it. If the protoss is incapable of defending and tries to all-in, the zerg just needs to sneak his army away and there goes the base trade. Zerg wins (more bases, more everything, including current multi-pronged attacks). It's not like you know exact numbers and that you're able to calculate every single step, you won't be able to defend if the protoss decides to all-in with the deathball. If he doesn't, you starve him to death. So basically, I wouldn't call it outplaying because defending is harder than attacking. Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:48 Dragar wrote:On April 04 2011 00:46 iChau wrote:On April 04 2011 00:38 GG.NoRe wrote:
Author is either naive or knows nothing at all.
SC2 is not only about matching and countering your opponent. And the game dynamics flows all the time between opponents as offensive (someone who dictates the game) and defensive (and the player who scouts and reacts). The OP, for the information of the author, arises out of certain irregularities at certain levels as the game progresses. Just one example, QQ in ZvP mostly happen because of the inability of tier 3 zerg to deal with macroed maxed up P. This is not anymore about TOOLS, as you say it. There is really almost nothing efficient in the Z arsenal to counter the P deathball. This is the heart of every OP discussion - when the game reaches at point where chronologically and technologically both players should be equal or more or less so, but in practice are not!
This author should have saved all of us time and effort by posting his opening post in the Force Field analysis thread. Meh. Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers. But Zerg doesn't! It has a smaller army! Lol I can't tell who you're siding with. However, zerg doesn't have a smaller army. You get so many more units compared to the deathball (high supply).
No...
Zerg loses supply in queens, usually in drones (not always).
Secondly, due to the need to overproduce corruptors to stand a chance against collosi, there is at least equal (if not more supply) in corruptors compared to collosi. Four collosi need at least 12 corruptors or the ground army melts far too fast.
Finally, stalkers/sentries and roaches/hydras are usually in similar number.
If there are void rays it gets even worse, as the only way to handle that is to produce massive amounts of corruptors and remax on roaches.
|
On April 04 2011 00:56 iChau wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:52 Holophonist wrote:
The current discussion about zvp comes back to the "playing significantly better than your opponent in order to win" mindset. Yes, you can harass everywhere while reinforcing your main army just enough to BARELY hold against his resulting all-in (after your harass). But that means you have to send the perfect amount of, say, roaches to his 3rd to do dmg there and the perfect amount of, say lings to his nat to do dmg there while keeping the perfect amount of roach/hydra with your main army so he can't just say "F it, I'll just go kill him."
That is a perfect example of way out playing your opponent just to win a standard game. There's no perfect numbers. Honestly, what are you talking about. Okay sure, I'll send exactly 19 lings to attack here because he only has 3 cannons. Oh yes, I'll also drop with exactly 3 overlords 26 roaches here according to my scouts. Oh wait, I'll send 5 mutalisks here because he has exactly 1 cannon. It's harder to DEFEND multi-pronged attacks than it is to ATTACK with multi-pronged attacks. This is well-known. Zerg will always win a base-trade if it comes to it. If the protoss is incapable of defending and tries to all-in, the zerg just needs to sneak his army away and there goes the base trade. Zerg wins (more bases, more everything, including current multi-pronged attacks). It's not like you know exact numbers and that you're able to calculate every single step, you won't be able to defend if the protoss decides to all-in with the deathball. If he doesn't, you starve him to death. So basically, I wouldn't call it outplaying because defending is harder than attacking. Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:48 Dragar wrote:On April 04 2011 00:46 iChau wrote:On April 04 2011 00:38 GG.NoRe wrote:
Author is either naive or knows nothing at all.
SC2 is not only about matching and countering your opponent. And the game dynamics flows all the time between opponents as offensive (someone who dictates the game) and defensive (and the player who scouts and reacts). The OP, for the information of the author, arises out of certain irregularities at certain levels as the game progresses. Just one example, QQ in ZvP mostly happen because of the inability of tier 3 zerg to deal with macroed maxed up P. This is not anymore about TOOLS, as you say it. There is really almost nothing efficient in the Z arsenal to counter the P deathball. This is the heart of every OP discussion - when the game reaches at point where chronologically and technologically both players should be equal or more or less so, but in practice are not!
This author should have saved all of us time and effort by posting his opening post in the Force Field analysis thread. Meh. Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers. But Zerg doesn't! It has a smaller army! Lol I can't tell who you're siding with. However, zerg doesn't have a smaller army. You get so many more units compared to the deathball (high supply).
Yeah it's easier to do a multi-pronged attack than to defend a multi-pronged attack. I'm not talking about defending it. I'm talking about them just going and killing you. And it's not a straight up base trade because you don't have your whole army in his base. He can warp in some key units at home like sentries just to survive while his main army destroys you. And if you have to.... sneak out(??) and go kill his main while he's killing yours, you're gonna lose the base trade because he's already at your front door and you have to go walk to his... that's assuming you're even able to.... sneak out(??) away from his army.
And the zerg army is smaller because the difference in supply is drones usually. Look at the army tab to look at the min/resource count of the armies.
|
Frankly I don't know how anyone can think roach/hydra/corruptor can possibly work, when MMM+viking are far, far better units and trades fairly evenly with the Protoss composition, not to mention being far better at multi harass than zerg armies.
|
Horrible analysis in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong but gas 500 is a small price for 5 units which have the ability to completely destroy 1/3 of your army, and block the other 2/3 because they cant move past the force fields. I've even seen force fields done by very competent protoss where it not only cuts the army in half, but are so well placed that the front attacking half isnt even in range. Hell if this kind of unit existed for zerg I would be getting it every game. There really isn't an equivalent unit for zerg, that if you spend 500 gas on it will demolish an army so utterly like force fields.
The question of whether or not FF are OP is another question however. I dont have so much problems with it because I just get baneling drops and it works every time. Maybe we just have to find solutions for it. But I do feel that zergs are having a much tougher time thinking of counters.
TL;DR
- 500 gas is a small price to pay for 5 units which can utterly destroy your army by mutilating 1/3 and blocking the other 2/3 from even attacking
|
Protoss does win in base trades.
|
in my opinion (that counts for absolutely nothing considering my posting history) if you think protos is so overpowered switch to protoss. i've done it. then i got crushed by terran .... so i switched.... then i got crushed .... you get the point.
i think there are so many protoss because a lot of people think they're overpowered and so they switch to protoss.
also if you think colossi are overpowered just go kill him before he gets em.
as day9 said "what's the best counter against x ?" - "just go kill him".
|
Balance isn't about difficulty to execute, it's about ability to execute.
If there is a counter to something, regardless of how much harder it is to counter than it is to execute, it's balanced.
But as Artosis and IdrA have explicitly said: The professionals are stumped on how to counter the Protoss Death Ball. But yet they still haven't called it Imbalanced yet, they're still holding out on an explored tactic.
|
On April 04 2011 00:17 morimacil wrote:
Aye, its true. For example, if you have a war, and one side has sticks, and the other side has machine guns, then you can make the same claim, they are just tools, so no side has any inherent advantage.
machine guns have ammo, so eventually they run out
machine guns can miss due to human error
machine guns are slightly less effective when used in close range.
and so on. Even when comparing machine guns to sticks, you can make the argument that every tool is unique, and has its weaknesses.
Therefore, a war between a faction with machine guns, and another one armed with just sticks is completely balanced, because even machine guns are not OP when compared to sticks, after all, they will run out of bullets after having killed a couple hundred of people.
Lol, you made me laugh so hard.
On topic: I don't believe in imbalances that much (despite crying and whining in gosugamers in every single possible opportunity), i think that things need to be figured out to have a perfectly balanced game, just like in SC1. But that process works much slower for abilities that constrict opponent's micro.
|
On April 04 2011 01:29 Jeffbelittle wrote:
Balance isn't about difficulty to execute, it's about ability to execute.
If there is a counter to something, regardless of how much harder it is to counter than it is to execute, it's balanced.
You're kidding, right? This is so absurd I'm not sure how to disprove it intelligently. If the counter to a bunker rush was just to run a 3 minute mile while doing a complex math problem and also reciting the entire works of Shakespeare? Would it still be balanced? Of course not.
|
On April 04 2011 00:17 morimacil wrote:
Aye, its true. For example, if you have a war, and one side has sticks, and the other side has machine guns, then you can make the same claim, they are just tools, so no side has any inherent advantage.
machine guns have ammo, so eventually they run out
machine guns can miss due to human error
machine guns are slightly less effective when used in close range.
and so on. Even when comparing machine guns to sticks, you can make the argument that every tool is unique, and has its weaknesses.
Therefore, a war between a faction with machine guns, and another one armed with just sticks is completely balanced, because even machine guns are not OP when compared to sticks, after all, they will run out of bullets after having killed a couple hundred of people.
LOL at people who are taking this literally. OMG are you saying that if 100 people with machine guns went against 100 people with sticks its balanced? OMG noob. This actually brings up a very good point, morimacil compared machine guns to sticks exactly how the OP compared FF to the zerg army. Just because one thing has weakness doesn't mean it balances the game. To take an extreme example, if broodlords did 200 damage, its like if I said well they cant attack air and they are damn expensive, so they arent OP.
|
yeah... I thought he was serious. Then somebody PM'd and was like... are you an idiot? He was being sarcastic.
|
MLG.
+ Show Spoiler +Sheth did a drop against Huk in one of the games casted at MLG. Huk sends blink stalkers back to deal with drop, and collosi and sentries stop the assault at his third base. Then Huk attacks and wins.
|
I thought that whining about balance/ theorycrafting wasn't allowed anymore....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
