|
On August 24 2009 08:06 LosingID8 wrote: the queen makes zerg broken.
protoss macro when you get to late game is so ridiculously easy, it's kind of funny.
Did you use the obelisk? What was your impression: Chore or Awesome?
|
So, as someone who hasn't played the game yet, I have a question:
1 - How do you think the metagame (although we barely have a clue what that means at this point) would change, IF the macro mechanics were taken away?
I ask this question because a few things have occurred to me after watching the latest exhibition matches:
1 - Maybe SC2 feels SO fast because the macro mechanics give you the equivalent of an early expo without sacrificing early production of combat units.
2 - Maybe the Zerg are weak mid-game because the queen discourages the safe single or double expand typical of SC1 zerg in the super early game.
What do you guys think?
|
On August 24 2009 07:59 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 07:49 pzea469 wrote:No I see your point (trust me your not alone). Im just trying to understand the psychology of it. For instance you say that supply depot are directly connected to building more units. But so are minerals. Minerals + supply + production slot = unit. The time thing is an interesting observation. Is thier a difference between casting a mechanic every 40 seconds and building a supply about every 40 seconds? Well idk, i guess theres a thin line, since building units is also a timed thing. But you still have options in that. Sometimes its to ur benefit not to build another zealot after the last and save the minerals to build something else. With the obelisk, its never a good idea to skip its use. Theres no benefit to that. And in using it, theres no consequence, just pure benefit. Hmmm u know it seems to me like a big problem i have with the mechanics is that it uses its own recourse, its energy. So since its not costing YOU as the player anything to use it, its just dumb not to. Even building a probe sets u back initially. Theres no choice. I recongnize your point. Thats were most of these macro debates go: to the theoretical diferences. So yes while a probe does require some choice for when to build the big picture is that your still building probes repeatedly just like using the obelisk. I am not sure which matter more, the minor but theoretical differences or the big picture how it plays feeling.
When you build a probe you are losing minerals to start with to eventually produce more minerals faster than you could if you didn't have that probe, its an initial set-back that has long term benefits. When you build a supply depot you lose minerals and have to stop mining with an scv to build it, when you expand you are putting yourself at a disadvantage for the time being because of the economic advantage you will have later, these are all give and take things that must be balanced appropriately or you will become overwhelmed by your opponent, and whoever balances them best will almost always come out the victor.
By making an ability that will always allow you to mine more minerals faster without any consequences or always produce more units without any consequences, there is no balance, its simply a forced task you must complete to stay level with your opponent. If you make it cost minerals or force you in some other way to initially put yourself at a disadvantage for a long term gain, than that is an ability worth having in a competitive game. If you put tasks in a game where you must always perform them for the best outcome, you are taking much of the strategy out of a strategy game.
at least thats my opinion
|
at least thats my opinion
totally there with ya
|
On August 24 2009 08:24 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 07:59 Archerofaiur wrote:On August 24 2009 07:49 pzea469 wrote:No I see your point (trust me your not alone). Im just trying to understand the psychology of it. For instance you say that supply depot are directly connected to building more units. But so are minerals. Minerals + supply + production slot = unit. The time thing is an interesting observation. Is thier a difference between casting a mechanic every 40 seconds and building a supply about every 40 seconds? Well idk, i guess theres a thin line, since building units is also a timed thing. But you still have options in that. Sometimes its to ur benefit not to build another zealot after the last and save the minerals to build something else. With the obelisk, its never a good idea to skip its use. Theres no benefit to that. And in using it, theres no consequence, just pure benefit. Hmmm u know it seems to me like a big problem i have with the mechanics is that it uses its own recourse, its energy. So since its not costing YOU as the player anything to use it, its just dumb not to. Even building a probe sets u back initially. Theres no choice. I recongnize your point. Thats were most of these macro debates go: to the theoretical diferences. So yes while a probe does require some choice for when to build the big picture is that your still building probes repeatedly just like using the obelisk. I am not sure which matter more, the minor but theoretical differences or the big picture how it plays feeling. When you build a probe you are losing minerals to start with to eventually produce more minerals faster than you could if you didn't have that probe, its an initial set-back that has long term benefits. When you build a supply depot you lose minerals and have to stop mining with an scv to build it, when you expand you are putting yourself at a disadvantage for the time being because of the economic advantage you will have later, these are all give and take things that must be balanced appropriately or you will become overwhelmed by your opponent, and whoever balances them best will almost always come out the victor. By making an ability that will always allow you to mine more minerals faster without any consequences or always produce more units without any consequences, there is no balance, its simply a forced task you must complete to stay level with your opponent. If you make it cost minerals or force you in some other way to initially put yourself at a disadvantage for a long term gain, than that is an ability worth having in a competitive game. If you put tasks in a game where you must always perform them for the best outcome, you are taking much of the strategy out of a strategy game. at least thats my opinion Building the obelisk is akin to expanding. Its an initial investment that will reward you later. You have to decide if you wish to spend the minerals on units, on probes, on tech, or on an obelisk so that you can use the photon charge that will allow your probes to mine faster later on.
|
On August 24 2009 08:24 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 07:59 Archerofaiur wrote:On August 24 2009 07:49 pzea469 wrote:No I see your point (trust me your not alone). Im just trying to understand the psychology of it. For instance you say that supply depot are directly connected to building more units. But so are minerals. Minerals + supply + production slot = unit. The time thing is an interesting observation. Is thier a difference between casting a mechanic every 40 seconds and building a supply about every 40 seconds? Well idk, i guess theres a thin line, since building units is also a timed thing. But you still have options in that. Sometimes its to ur benefit not to build another zealot after the last and save the minerals to build something else. With the obelisk, its never a good idea to skip its use. Theres no benefit to that. And in using it, theres no consequence, just pure benefit. Hmmm u know it seems to me like a big problem i have with the mechanics is that it uses its own recourse, its energy. So since its not costing YOU as the player anything to use it, its just dumb not to. Even building a probe sets u back initially. Theres no choice. I recongnize your point. Thats were most of these macro debates go: to the theoretical diferences. So yes while a probe does require some choice for when to build the big picture is that your still building probes repeatedly just like using the obelisk. I am not sure which matter more, the minor but theoretical differences or the big picture how it plays feeling. When you build a probe you are losing minerals to start with to eventually produce more minerals faster than you could if you didn't have that probe, its an initial set-back that has long term benefits. When you build a supply depot you lose minerals and have to stop mining with an scv to build it, when you expand you are putting yourself at a disadvantage for the time being because of the economic advantage you will have later, these are all give and take things that must be balanced appropriately or you will become overwhelmed by your opponent, and whoever balances them best will almost always come out the victor. By making an ability that will always allow you to mine more minerals faster without any consequences or always produce more units without any consequences, there is no balance, its simply a forced task you must complete to stay level with your opponent. If you make it cost minerals or force you in some other way to initially put yourself at a disadvantage for a long term gain, than that is an ability worth having in a competitive game. If you put tasks in a game where you must always perform them for the best outcome, you are taking much of the strategy out of a strategy game. at least thats my opinion ye cause theres none of this in sc. Things that they force u to do so u can get ahead of ur opponent.
|
Well I would say the biggest decision I had to make about the queen was whether to do a hatch first FE build or a pool first build. If you think about the queen opens the door to a lot of interesting builds/strategies much like terran's salvage ability.
|
On August 24 2009 08:19 0neder wrote: So, as someone who hasn't played the game yet, I have a question:
1 - How do you think the metagame (although we barely have a clue what that means at this point) would change, IF the macro mechanics were taken away?
I ask this question because a few things have occurred to me after watching the latest exhibition matches:
1 - Maybe SC2 feels SO fast because the macro mechanics give you the equivalent of an early expo without sacrificing early production of combat units.
2 - Maybe the Zerg are weak mid-game because the queen discourages the safe single or double expand typical of SC1 zerg in the super early game.
What do you guys think? Any player can scv micro perfectly with a small amount of practice *atleast in early game* to not miss an scv to mineral patch....
|
-MBS..... was really helpful.However what was really annoying about it is that I couldn't find a way to set the default building. When I hit 55 to go back to my main it would end up going to some random hatchery. I gave read 2 different reports of how this works exactly. The first claimed that camera goes to the closest building to your current view And the second claimed that it goes to the biggest cluster of selected buildings.
|
It seems that you need less expo to build up a large army in sc2 ,isn'it ? In that case you'll got no disavantage staying in your main/natural base
|
On August 24 2009 09:57 owlman wrote: It seems that you need less expo to build up a large army in sc2 ,isn'it ? In that case you'll got no disavantage staying in your main/natural base its impossible to judge that until we've played ;D
|
On August 24 2009 09:01 houseurmusic wrote: Well I would say the biggest decision I had to make about the queen was whether to do a hatch first FE build or a pool first build. If you think about the queen opens the door to a lot of interesting builds/strategies much like terran's salvage ability.
I found that the Queen made FE much less viable in SC2, simply because of course you need spawning pool to make her, then she acts as a second hatchery herself pretty much, allowing 4 extra larvaes/25 seconds or so (idk how it compares to the production rate of an hatchery), and the early pool allows you to put pressure on your opponent on top of that, only for 50 minerals more (250+150 vs 350 mins).
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any situation where hatch first would be better than pool first.
|
On August 24 2009 10:17 lepape wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 09:01 houseurmusic wrote: Well I would say the biggest decision I had to make about the queen was whether to do a hatch first FE build or a pool first build. If you think about the queen opens the door to a lot of interesting builds/strategies much like terran's salvage ability. I found that the Queen made FE much less viable in SC2, simply because of course you need spawning pool to make her, then she acts as a second hatchery herself pretty much, allowing 4 extra larvaes/25 seconds or so (idk how it compares to the production rate of an hatchery), and the early pool allows you to put pressure on your opponent on top of that, only for 50 minerals more (250+150 vs 350 mins). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any situation where hatch first would be better than pool first.
Well Hatch first would be better if you wanted to have an expansion early.... a Second hatchery in your base though... that is no longer good.
Questions for those who played the blizzcon build
Is there a limitation on how many Queen's you can build (besides the mineral+supply cost)?
One Queen can continuously spawn larva on two hatcheries and not run out of energy?
Does the Proton charge Stack? (if you cast it twice immediately on probes to they get a longer duration than if you cat it once?)
It does seem like Mule-Comsat is the only balanced one... although that will become clear in the beta.
The Queen's heal+Creep colony can probably be balanced by lower energy costs
The Obelisk's other abilities seem less balancable given their limited range.
|
Well Hatch first would be better if you wanted to have an expansion early.... a Second hatchery in your base though... that is no longer good.
Questions for those who played the blizzcon build
Is there a limitation on how many Queen's you can build (besides the mineral+supply cost)?
None that I know of. I built around 5 one match just because I knew I was going to lose and wanted to try it.
|
United States17042 Posts
a lot of the new macro mechanics seem like they're going to be really interesting in terms of build order.
Most of the pro players (nada, savior) were playing P. imo, P is the most similar to sc1 units, and the progamers would like that because...well, they can't read english.
the queen basically gives you another hatch, and allows zerg to have way way too many larvae. Hotbid loved 1 hat hydra, and it seemed really really broken. Zatic (i think?) tried forge first fe, and hotbid had 30 hydra in front of P's base when the third cannon (before nex) finished.
I tried 1 base T against hotbid's Z, and I think that you could marine in bunker to fend off early agression, into sieged tank in mineral line. that assumes that you scout 1 hat 1 base hydra, and forces you to not be able to upgrade the mule. It didn't work for me though, as i accidently walled off my tank from my mineral line.
in general, the major takeaway point that i got from the sc2 stuff was that it still feels like sc. MBS and automine felt like they didn't really lower the skill ceiling, and it didn't really affect the game that much. I'm more worried about the hard counters of the game - 8 micro'd thors get trashed by 48 lings >.> and thors are something like 200 min 300 gas..?
|
United States17042 Posts
On August 24 2009 08:09 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 08:06 LosingID8 wrote: the queen makes zerg broken.
protoss macro when you get to late game is so ridiculously easy, it's kind of funny. Did you use the obelisk? What was your impression: Chore or Awesome?
It's a good build order macro mechanic. at the pro level, it's just going to be another task, and they'll have the timing down perfectly. It should make the build orders quite interesting, with the choices between the dark pylon thing, the gas's, and unit/gateway tech choice.
Charge btw (i saw this earlier in the thread) seems way too expensive, at something like 200 min 200 gas. Marine maruder is really good against protoss - as it's the easiest way to play, it feels like it's also the weakest.
|
United States17042 Posts
On August 24 2009 14:57 AlienAlias wrote:Show nested quote +Well Hatch first would be better if you wanted to have an expansion early.... a Second hatchery in your base though... that is no longer good.
Questions for those who played the blizzcon build
Is there a limitation on how many Queen's you can build (besides the mineral+supply cost)?
None that I know of. I built around 5 one match just because I knew I was going to lose and wanted to try it.
you can build as many as you want i think. It feels like the optimal number (depending on base distances) is going to be 1 for every 2 hatches. The "increase larvae" mechanic requires the queen to be at a new hat once every 20 seconds. So if your queen can get to your nat in 10 seconds, and then back, you can spawn new larvae every 20...Although i bet you run into a mana problem.
for us anyway, it looked like you needed 1 queen per hat optimal.
|
On August 24 2009 14:48 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 10:17 lepape wrote:On August 24 2009 09:01 houseurmusic wrote: Well I would say the biggest decision I had to make about the queen was whether to do a hatch first FE build or a pool first build. If you think about the queen opens the door to a lot of interesting builds/strategies much like terran's salvage ability. I found that the Queen made FE much less viable in SC2, simply because of course you need spawning pool to make her, then she acts as a second hatchery herself pretty much, allowing 4 extra larvaes/25 seconds or so (idk how it compares to the production rate of an hatchery), and the early pool allows you to put pressure on your opponent on top of that, only for 50 minerals more (250+150 vs 350 mins). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any situation where hatch first would be better than pool first. Well Hatch first would be better if you wanted to have an expansion early.... a Second hatchery in your base though... that is no longer good.
The main advantage of going FE is to get more larvae so you can build more workers, and since mineral saturation is not such a big deal early game, Queen can now accomplish that almost just as well.
I think FE would only be viable for gas heavy builds so you can get 3rd and 4th gas asap, then tech to lair for mutas or infestors most probably.
|
I didn't get a whole lot of use out of mules because I always needed the energy for scans and none of my games went past 2 bases. It's impossible to keep an scv alive against zerglings on creep, and you're obviously not going to get any scouting done when speed finishes. Against protoss, dts are bitches without spider mines so scans are important. Actually, in the first game I really wanted to test mules, I used my first 50 energy on one and promptly got raped by a warp prism + dt warp-in. Fun times. If you don't need energy for scanning late game or you have a bunch of bases, you can make mules, but how useful are they at that point?
The queen spawn larvae ability was extremely useful. I don't know why everyone has been complaining about zerg because I found them to be very good. You can power drones so easily with queens and still be relatively safe, then run over your opponent mid game.
The obelisk was ok as well. It didn't really feel like a chore, and they definitely pay for themselves quickly. It's a good enough idea that opens up different build orders and keeps you from being able to play the game without ever looking back at your base, which was the point of the macro mechanics.
|
United States17042 Posts
On August 24 2009 15:41 lepape wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 14:48 Krikkitone wrote:On August 24 2009 10:17 lepape wrote:On August 24 2009 09:01 houseurmusic wrote: Well I would say the biggest decision I had to make about the queen was whether to do a hatch first FE build or a pool first build. If you think about the queen opens the door to a lot of interesting builds/strategies much like terran's salvage ability. I found that the Queen made FE much less viable in SC2, simply because of course you need spawning pool to make her, then she acts as a second hatchery herself pretty much, allowing 4 extra larvaes/25 seconds or so (idk how it compares to the production rate of an hatchery), and the early pool allows you to put pressure on your opponent on top of that, only for 50 minerals more (250+150 vs 350 mins). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any situation where hatch first would be better than pool first. Well Hatch first would be better if you wanted to have an expansion early.... a Second hatchery in your base though... that is no longer good. The main advantage of going FE is to get more larvae so you can build more workers, and since mineral saturation is not such a big deal early game, Queen can now accomplish that almost just as well. I think FE would only be viable for gas heavy builds so you can get 3rd and 4th gas asap, then tech to lair for mutas or infestors most probably.
well, because the queens give you so many larve, you can make it so that you reach saturation really really quickly. The hatches work a lot more like nex/cc's in that they allow you to get access to more patches/gas, and there are so many larvae that zerg can just get much much more supply. Apparently, chill/hotbid compared supply earlygame, and zerg was at like 60, and T was at 40 (I think? anyone can correct me if necessary).
|
|
|
|