Anti rushing?

Wow Duke that is a great strategie it shure would work against me........................................................................ YEA RIGHT HAHAHAHAHA. Like I say people can never adapt easily and you have to do it well and not just slightly do it. You have to move on.

 

I hate rush !

I hate when people don't give you time to build any unit to defend your base from the rush

I noticed something :
- Zergs are strong in the beginning thanks to their rush but are crushed by the other races at the end.
- Protoss are weak at the beginning but they mostly win at the end.
- Terrans are balanced

 

yeah whenever i play against protoss and they don't get destroyed right away then they get to build carriers and then they kill everyone.

 

/\ not always. The scourge are the bane of carriers. Better players generally win more. The races are mostly balanced.

 

I agree with most of you accept upon the scourge thing. They are not in the new game I think I heard them say in one of the inteviews that they will not be in the game because they had only one role and that was it, plus it was deemed overpowered by the producers and shot down. That was the only unit that they had discarded from the Zerg so far accept the Queen ( they tossed her out a while ago they didnt even bother rendering her into 3d lolz).

Also I have made my own strategy for the Protoss so that they have an extreamly good start and they can beat the game before anyone gets to teir 3. So no worries for the Protoss' natural bad start just go back 1 page and you will find it. Oh yea did I mention the Zerg suck Protoss rule and the Terrans are ok.

 

Protoss are strong at end-game because they can build carriers and they beat everyone else with them?  Where do you guys come up with this info?

Protoss isn't that weak in the beginning, Zerg isn't weak at all in late-game, and Terran isn't the middle ground race.  Terran is actually the race that's strong towards late-game.

Things don't fall that neatly into place for the three races people.  And it definitely isn't always in the order of Protoss, Terran, Zerg.  People always seem to want to believe that on everything Terran is the "in between" race, but it just isn't like that.

 

The races don't necessarily win based on time of game. It is true of course that the zerg get their best units earlier than the Protoss but that doesn't make any one race better late game.

Also I Agree while Terrans are in between zerg and 'toss in terms of power they are not a middle ground race they are the most versatile.

 

Actually Terran units have the most firepower, not Protoss. Protoss is actually not that hot in the damage output department when attack cooldown and unit supply count is taken into account. The zergling is still the king as far as damage per cooldown per food goes. Protoss can still contend even with their inefficient damage output only because their units are so resilient, and they have good tools as far as technology goes.

Terran is also not that versatile, in fact, Terran is probably the least flexible race. The Zerg has the greatest flexibility, which is one of the Zerg's main strengths.

Protoss has a strong early and mid-game, while Terran gains their true strengh from mid-game and on. Zerg IMO, is just steady throughout, not too good not too bad. But since no game is played only with any one stage of the game, you must account for early, mid, and late-game all together as a whole. And based on that fact, the three races are equally balanced for the most part.

 

Sometimes I dread when Remy is going to post because he covers the issue so fully that I feel I have nothing to add.

This is pretty much the case here. The Terran most definitely have the most fragile units, just slightly individually weaker than the Zerg, but they pack so much punch from a distance that it's just insane to try to kill them on the ground when they're in a large enough number.

This builds on the "one-shot-momentum" concept that Remy talks about.

Then you have the Protoss that are pretty much the armor whores. They rely on high HP, high damage output. While they can't match Terran hit for hit, their units last longer and so their units that may be either underkill or the attack isn't all that outstanding do the job. In essence, they die a lot slower so the same unit keeps doing its job for a longer period of time. This occurs more and more toward the later stages of the game.

Finally, the Zerg never really change with the exception of the Ultralisk and the addition of the Defiler with Dark Swarm.

These two units, in addition to the Devourer and Guardian, are pretty much Zerg's only ways of coping with Tier 3. Otherwise it's just Tier 2 units that pick up the slack. They have no capital ship, so they just continue to rely on the swarm mentality.

Dark Swarm finally allows them to take a strongly held area of the map. This happens a lot, especially with Terran players, as turtling becomes a favorite in later gameplay.

 

rushing is a part of the spectrum of strategy, as long as it carries enough risks and downsides when it fails its ok. tactical variety is what makes the game great.

 

Amen to that Reaker. Competitive games would suck without variety, whether it be early-game rush or the large scale battles of late-game.

 

Agreed completely. The only issue I see on the matter is if Rushes should be game deciding on their own. But there is hardly anything to avoid that I think.

 

The Zergling rush is the reason why many people like the demo's of ST2.
Rushing is just a way to win fast, I mean, even the pro's rush, but they aren't playing for fun.

 

Blizzard wants rushes to be game deciding, which is why it is the way it is. It's better than the more dragged out games of War3 IMO.

 

That is true, but in Warcraft 3 the Hero units are deciding, and that happens most of the time when they are at their maximum.
In Starcraft, without Hero units, strategy and rushing is more important, because you simply can't crush a well defended base with a single unit like in Warcraft 3.

 

Early game hero rushes are not game ending in most cases. I think the easy answer is SC is fast paced fun, and War3 is ~yawn... huh, what?

 

That unfortunatly true but SC actually can get really long as well I remember my logest game was I think about 14 hours strait It was like the gathering of super pros it never ended my team won with me (as toss) and friend (terran) finnaly won I think the first person got defeated in about the 3rd hour and about the same time span for each I regret recording it to the very fiber of my being.

But my message to you guys is that this game can get really long to (if you have a lot of experiance and about a novels worth of strategies up your sleive because I saw some really effective but entirly odd and never even imagined strats so get ready to face some of those people who have almost no lives whatsover outside of their computer)

 

Sorry I didn't feel like reading through the 14 pages in this thread lol.

I think customizable game settings like this should definitely be implemented in Starcraft II. It wouldn't be used at all in pro circuit, but would be a great addition for regular gamers to want the flexibility and options to play how they want in multiplayer modes.