JTsyo
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2007
- 12,032
- 1,132
- 126
Sounds like at 7min you have the advantage but as soon as air comes out, you're in trouble. Did he have dropships or just walk them up the cliff?
Sounds like at 7min you have the advantage but as soon as air comes out, you're in trouble. Did he have dropships or just walk them up the cliff?
why not?
no that is exactly THE point... give the players some tools and a good game engine and let them experiment... this adds depth to a game... not a predefined behaviour...
you can do that in CoH as well? really? how many other options are there for "cover" besides the "cover system"
evident
Lifer
- Apr 5, 2005
- 12,130
- 749
- 126
he had a dropship. that way he could retreat his colossus quicker from attacking forces and fly it off the cliff rather than walking it (slower). more effective at kiting the attacking units it seemed. at that time i had a starport up but was supply blocked and was pumping out medvacs anyways since i was invested in the rushing at 7min w/ MM. could have easily gotten vikings but i had enough MM there to stop the colossus, along w/ the turret.
Have you ever played CoH? For one, you can actually make your own cover by putting up sandbags.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
Come on man.... if you've actually played more games its blatently obvious that CoH is a deeper game than starcraft 2, starcraft 2 simply has more units.
AyashiKaibutsu
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2004
- 9,306
- 4
- 81
Come on man... it's blatantly obvious that checkers is a deeper game than chess; Chess simply has more units.
evident
Lifer
- Apr 5, 2005
- 12,130
- 749
- 126
coh is a pretty inferior game to sc2. sorry. the fun factor isn't there. same with supreme commander.
JTsyo
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2007
- 12,032
- 1,132
- 126
CoH is harder to balance since it's based closer to reality. Example: doesn't matter how many rifleman you get on the tank, it's not going down unit you get some AT in there. SC2 any unit can take down a unit that it can hit. Both game have it's plus but I do find SC2 more fun to play.
So, I have a question for you guys who play this game regularly...
Do you find that Zerg is overpowered in team games?
I have been playing 3v3 for around 100 games with two friends of mine. We play toss/toss/terran and we generally draw masters/diamond level players... We got to a point last week where if the team we were playing had one more more zerg players and we were Favored we lost. Most of these games weren't even close. I believed that zerg allows too much flexibility and map control, which gave a huge advantage in team games...
Because of this I decided to switch to zerg for this team. Now I have 1500 games played as protoss and maybe 15 played as zerg. I can 9-pool and mass lings to muta but that's about it. I have no idea how to macro zerg, and upgrading my units other than speedlings is beyond me currently.
But we're winning now... Most zerg that we play mass lings early and if I can almost match them, then my partners absolutely stomp them. With my 9-pool Ive found that I can kill one of their players most games, and late game my muta/ling combo is enough to control the map even against masters zerg players.
What are your feelings about this? Do the teams with more zerg players usually win? Or am I off base? It was just getting to the point where I felt that the zerg player controlled the whole game against us, and I was powerless to do anything as protoss...
Do you find that Zerg is overpowered in team games?
I have been playing 3v3 for around 100 games with two friends of mine. We play toss/toss/terran and we generally draw masters/diamond level players... We got to a point last week where if the team we were playing had one more more zerg players and we were Favored we lost. Most of these games weren't even close. I believed that zerg allows too much flexibility and map control, which gave a huge advantage in team games...
Because of this I decided to switch to zerg for this team. Now I have 1500 games played as protoss and maybe 15 played as zerg. I can 9-pool and mass lings to muta but that's about it. I have no idea how to macro zerg, and upgrading my units other than speedlings is beyond me currently.
But we're winning now... Most zerg that we play mass lings early and if I can almost match them, then my partners absolutely stomp them. With my 9-pool Ive found that I can kill one of their players most games, and late game my muta/ling combo is enough to control the map even against masters zerg players.
What are your feelings about this? Do the teams with more zerg players usually win? Or am I off base? It was just getting to the point where I felt that the zerg player controlled the whole game against us, and I was powerless to do anything as protoss...
AyashiKaibutsu
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2004
- 9,306
- 4
- 81
I don't think Blizzard is putting a great deal of effort into 3vs3 play or even 2vs2. I don't play a lot though so I can't say they really are or not, but I tend to be very skeptical of claims like this (not that it didn't happen, but that it actually proves anything).
Before you changed to zerg, what did your team do?
-Did anyone on the team use like megarax, bunker rush, 2gate, etc? i.e., was anyone sacrificing a lot of economy early on to get off a 9/10pool style attack? Did you guys apply any early pressure?
-Was anyone on your team dedicated to map control & harassment? Now that you play zerg, you make slings & mutas. Slings are great for map control b/c they're fast and cheap. Mutas are a go-to unit for harassment. Previously was anyone on your team building an army with the express purpose of harassing and exerting map control?
I bet the answer to both of those questions is "No." Maybe if you used chargelots (use the charge ability to run faster not just attack) and/or blink stalkers to exert map control & harassed with DTs or HT drops or something and made that your entire focus, things could go better for you? I don't really think zerg is OP in team games. I think it's more commonplace for zerg players to use a playstyle that is amenable to map control & harassment... much moreso than typical players in the other 2 races.
I mean if your zerg opponents went like, roach/corruptor, you probably wouldn't be complaining much, lol.
Thing is, he's right. I play as random, and I'm pretty much equally good with every race, but with Zerg I end up with the most wins simply because it's (as you've said) easier to maintain map control. Speedling/Muta harassment is pretty damned easy.
Too bad Blizz doesn't balance for team games /shrug.
Yeah I don't think Blizz balances explicitly for team games either. Especially really large ones like 4v4s can pretty rough.
But I'm not convinced zerg is unbalanced even in 2v2. I wasn't trying to say it's easier for zerg to maintain map control. I'm not a very good zerg player (need waaaaaaay more practice, lol) so I don't feel like I should make that judgment.
My point was that it's much more common for zerg to use a build that leads to map control & harassment. Just like when the game was released, it was really common for protoss to 4gate (and still reasonably common), or really common for terran to get siege tanks and lock down parts of the map. Having never really used mutas, I don't know if it is easier or not. But the other 2 races definitely have the ability to exert map control and harass. It's not like their only mode of operation is to turtle up and defend.
Thinking about it, I guess it's mostly people making mistakes. Given that I play as random, people don't always wall off... If they don't, the game's over. If they do, I sometimes (if I'm feeling like ending the game quickly, for better or worse) push out a few banelings and have my protoss teammate use sentries to lock the other guy in his base. If not, I keep speedlings around to harass and watch for expansions (as well as defend) and macro up a bit - I'll have an expansion at this point simply because I can't spend the minerals I have fast enough on a single hatchery w/Queen. In low diamond 2v2 this wins most games for me.
The only real risk is a strong early push, but I can usually pump out enough lings to defend.
yes i played CoH...
so you listed one option for CoH.. and this option only allows you to use the same predefined cover system...
I listed several "cover" options for SC2...
so on the first glance it seems like SC2 is lacking a cover System compared to CoH but if you go deeper there are actually MORE options for "cover"...
CoH is a good game and i had a lot of fun with it...
But if you want depth, you need a very good balance (see chess... only one "race" -> easy to balance) and some "tools"/different units/buildings which can be combined in a lot of different ways...
If you are not familiar with starcraft, the beginning of a match always seems to be the same... the zerg builds his pool, gets his gas/queens and his expansion up... not a lot of depth there...
but in reality there is a big difference between building the Pool on 9 or on 13... or after a hatch etc... even the direction you send your first overlord can make or break your game!
There is a lot of depth in the game, a beginner is unable to perceive...
These are good points. I am the player on our team that goes for map control and harass. I guess the problem is that protoss cannot really do those things until late game... The games that we won were either by hitting the zerg early on, or staying alive until our terran can map control with tanks... I just think that zerg map control and harass is far better than any other race and therefore gives a natural advantage in team games. I suppose this is much the same as Warcraft Three used to be in 3v3 when all the top teams ran Orc, UD, NE, and you were laughed at if you played human...
Ill just have to play more zerg...
SC2 does not have a cover system. Period. You seem to imply that CoH having one is a negative.
Here are several CoH mechanics that have similar functions to "Forcefields, Chokes, PDDs, Vortex, High Ground"
Machine Gun fields of fire
Artillery
Suppressive fire
Smoke
Forced Retreat
Chokes
Barbed wire
Tank traps
Unit facing direction
etc
Don't forget the offensive abilities too.
Exactly... SC2 has no cover system... but there are tons of possibilities to provide some form of "cover"
apac wrote:
I argued that having thingks like a "cover system" does not necessarily mean CoH has more depth compared to SC2...
Depth comes from possibilities... the more VIABLE possibilities there are, the more depth comes into the games.. A lot of Units/Races/Buildings provides a lot of possibilities... but they need to be viable... -> good balancing is necessary..
and there are also a lot of similar options in SC2... but these options alone wont provide depth... if 9/10 options are useless because of bad balance there is no real depth... if going for unit x and then y is always the strongest option, there will be no depth...
I am not saying that CoH is that unbalanced, but simply listing some game mechanics and arguing that CoH has more depth because of them wont cut it...
u get my point?
correct!
i listed these elements simply to show that Starcraft has some forms of "cover" etc too... You cant simply build units and send them to the enemy (well you can but... you will not win against a good player ^^)
FF and stuff CAN add to the depth of the game if it is reasonable balanced... too strong or to weak and its only a "feature" without adding any depth to the game... If it is too strong it even removes depth, because the inferior features are not viable any more in a competitive game...
lots of features != depth...
JTsyo
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2007
- 12,032
- 1,132
- 126
I think team game balance is more a map issue than units. When the maps are arranged in such a way it's possible to attack one without having the engage the others, who ever attacks first has the advantage. Now decent teams should be scouting and in a position to react. I like bio lab in this regard, it provides a common area for defense but still allows for harass with air or dropships.
Yeah. Bio Lab is a great beginner map because it doesn't allow easily isolating and destroying individual players, and therefore doesn't demand instant response and super teamwork from the players. I feel some of the team maps are truly random at skill levels lower than ~diamond, because weaker players have neither that permanent vigilance/multitasking/aggression nor the teamwork required to deal with it otherwise than by luck. No variance like this exists at all in the 1v1 map pool. The equivalent in 1v1 would be - for instance - a map where both main and natural minerals are directly exposed to two separate cliffs, *and* there is direct ramp access to the cliffs from outside the base.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter