|
On March 30 2011 21:41 halvorg wrote:
Unrealistic expectation to think that you could implement this without simply removing proxy pylons, with all maps being of different sizes, and some maps (like scrap station, or close by air shattered temple) have very close bases.
Pvp is pretty much extremely unforgiving and reliant on unit control regardless of opening.
The range around the nexus represents usable pylons for warpgate. Please define 'proxy pylons' as proxy pylons can still placed outside the range, just that they're not usable for wargates. You can build buildings on those.
To draw a parallel, in BW, maps were what determined balance of matchups. Base distance would just dictate a different style of play.
|
I got an interresting idea, offensive pylon is strong but is not the real problem. putting pylon near the choke so you can warp in on top of the ramp is actually the real thing that make PvP 4 gate fest.
So why not do the following.
You can warp in unit in pylon range like now BUT now you CANT warpin unit in an enemy pylon range .. (can say it create a disturbance or something)
So you can defend from up the ramp warpin with pylon, defend 4 warpgate with sentry/immortal whatever you want to open with.
what you guys think ?
|
On March 30 2011 21:48 kyzers0ze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 21:41 halvorg wrote:
Unrealistic expectation to think that you could implement this without simply removing proxy pylons, with all maps being of different sizes, and some maps (like scrap station, or close by air shattered temple) have very close bases.
Pvp is pretty much extremely unforgiving and reliant on unit control regardless of opening.
The range around the nexus represents usable pylons for warpgate. Please define 'proxy pylons' as proxy pylons can still placed outside the range, just that they're not usable for wargates. You can build buildings on those. To draw a parallel, in BW, maps were what determined balance of matchups. Base distance would just dictate a different style of play.
Yeah i mean warp-in pylons, sorry. I take it that was what you meant in your OP.
Anyways, it doesn't matter. Blizzard won't implement such a huge change anyways.
|
Its simple, you can't "Balance" PvP without totally screwing up PvT and PvZ. Besides, its a mirror match. That means its impossible to be imba, since you have the same units, the same costs, the same timings, the same everything.
Yes, one player may hit the other faster, that means the attacker just was better at his timings.
|
On March 30 2011 21:41 HeaDStrong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 21:29 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On March 30 2011 21:25 2Pacalypse- wrote:On March 30 2011 21:12 HeaDStrong wrote:
Thinking how to improve one's play rather than improving the game would be a good starting point improving a matchup... I agree with this. If you compare it to BW of course you'll see SC2 left a lot to be desired, but it's completely different game so a lot of BW game concepts simply doesn't apply in SC2 (ie. defender's advantage). So instead of trying to endlessly change SC2 until you get another BW, improving one's play is much better choice here. if the game has flaws why not do a good suggestion like this? in my opinion as i wrote above this would have positive effects on the game overall and at the same time vastly improve the without a doubt most hated matchup in the game. Yes because it's so much easier to say that the game is broken than tackling the problem head on and applying the current game rules and making your stuff work... So many SC2 players are focused on fixing the game rather than fixing their game... So much lost potential actually solving problems and creating new strategies. The game should only be fixed after people have been failing and failing and even failing some more to bring balance by their own means. If blizz ends up patching stuff every time people are unhappy SC2 will turn into a game with three space races that each gather minerals and have different unit and building models and skins.
To be blunt, PvP IS broken. When 1 build dominates an entire matchup, that matchup is broken.
Aside from cannon rushes and proxy 2gate, 4warpgate rush IS the dominant build. The only "counter" we have seen developed is the 3stalker rush and it is not 100% foolproof. Players are getting past that 3stalker rush build and adapting the 4warpgate. From a spectator's and a player's standpoint, the same build every game is not good.
World vs Korea showmatch spoilers below.
+ Show Spoiler +White-Ra had to do an extreme build against MC to beat the 4warpgate rush.
|
On March 30 2011 21:53 57 Corvette wrote:
Its simple, you can't "Balance" PvP without totally screwing up PvT and PvZ. Besides, its a mirror match. That means its impossible to be imba, since you have the same units, the same costs, the same timings, the same everything.
Yes, one player may hit the other faster, that means the attacker just was better at his timings.
This isn't really balancing the matchup as it is opening it up a bit. Wouldn't you like to see more variation as a spectator? Making 4gate a viable option to punish greedy protosses while also having safe non-4gate builds that can defend against the push would go a long way in making the matchup interesting. Right now, it's cringe worthy.
|
On March 30 2011 21:53 kyzers0ze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 21:41 HeaDStrong wrote:On March 30 2011 21:29 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On March 30 2011 21:25 2Pacalypse- wrote:On March 30 2011 21:12 HeaDStrong wrote:
Thinking how to improve one's play rather than improving the game would be a good starting point improving a matchup... I agree with this. If you compare it to BW of course you'll see SC2 left a lot to be desired, but it's completely different game so a lot of BW game concepts simply doesn't apply in SC2 (ie. defender's advantage). So instead of trying to endlessly change SC2 until you get another BW, improving one's play is much better choice here. if the game has flaws why not do a good suggestion like this? in my opinion as i wrote above this would have positive effects on the game overall and at the same time vastly improve the without a doubt most hated matchup in the game. Yes because it's so much easier to say that the game is broken than tackling the problem head on and applying the current game rules and making your stuff work... So many SC2 players are focused on fixing the game rather than fixing their game... So much lost potential actually solving problems and creating new strategies. The game should only be fixed after people have been failing and failing and even failing some more to bring balance by their own means. If blizz ends up patching stuff every time people are unhappy SC2 will turn into a game with three space races that each gather minerals and have different unit and building models and skins. To be blunt, PvP IS broken. When 1 build dominates an entire matchup, that matchup is broken. Aside from cannon rushes and proxy 2gate, 4warpgate rush IS the dominant build. The only "counter" we have seen developed is the 3stalker rush and it is not 100% foolproof. Players are getting past that 3stalker rush build and adapting the 4warpgate. From a spectator's and a player's standpoint, the same build every game is not good. World vs Korea showmatch spoilers below. + Show Spoiler +White-Ra had to do an extreme build against MC to beat the 4warpgate rush.
pffft.. this is borderline stupid...
1. Who says that EVERYTHING apart from 4gate has been tried? And even your own spoiler contradicts it. Game tweaks should be the last resort after a long trial and error attempt to fix it. You want everything so fast everything laid down for you... It takes time bro..
2. It's a mirror matchup how can it even be broken? It doesn't give anyone any advantage. Look at ZvZ in broodwar. The only viable option is Mutas. Does anyone say ZvZ is broken or boring? Nope. It's an amazing matchup where players use the same strategy and the winner is decided by minor tweaks and gaining little edges in execution. As a product of this you have Jeadong who is a master in this matchup know all the ins and outs and wins a lot of games.
3. Certain strategies are stronger than other strategies. In BW if zergs dont cheese in ZvT they go 12 hatch. Terrans will always fast expand in all matchups. The game is that figured out and doesn't leave that many viable options on what to do. This changes over the time and with maps, but to great deal some things don't lose value. Maybe 4wgate is some sort of direction of balance and persisting value in the PvP matchup, which will involve tweaks around it and develop a metagame from there. Problem?
|
XDsCrazy's suggestion is also the one I have been for all along. Pylon + Pylon = no warp in area for either side. Warp Prism not effected.
That way there is no warp above the forcefield on the ramp. There is no warping into the mineral line. There is almost no warping into your base or near your base for the enemy at all late game. While leaving both other match-ups totally un-effected.
|
I rather see the Nexus Shield Battery idea implemented TBH.
|
I still think that the pvp in sc2 should be compared to bw zvz, not pvp. In BW you have reavers, which were amazing at dealing with dragoon or zealot rushes.
|
On March 30 2011 22:25 HeaDStrong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 21:53 kyzers0ze wrote:On March 30 2011 21:41 HeaDStrong wrote:On March 30 2011 21:29 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On March 30 2011 21:25 2Pacalypse- wrote:On March 30 2011 21:12 HeaDStrong wrote:
Thinking how to improve one's play rather than improving the game would be a good starting point improving a matchup... I agree with this. If you compare it to BW of course you'll see SC2 left a lot to be desired, but it's completely different game so a lot of BW game concepts simply doesn't apply in SC2 (ie. defender's advantage). So instead of trying to endlessly change SC2 until you get another BW, improving one's play is much better choice here. if the game has flaws why not do a good suggestion like this? in my opinion as i wrote above this would have positive effects on the game overall and at the same time vastly improve the without a doubt most hated matchup in the game. Yes because it's so much easier to say that the game is broken than tackling the problem head on and applying the current game rules and making your stuff work... So many SC2 players are focused on fixing the game rather than fixing their game... So much lost potential actually solving problems and creating new strategies. The game should only be fixed after people have been failing and failing and even failing some more to bring balance by their own means. If blizz ends up patching stuff every time people are unhappy SC2 will turn into a game with three space races that each gather minerals and have different unit and building models and skins. To be blunt, PvP IS broken. When 1 build dominates an entire matchup, that matchup is broken. Aside from cannon rushes and proxy 2gate, 4warpgate rush IS the dominant build. The only "counter" we have seen developed is the 3stalker rush and it is not 100% foolproof. Players are getting past that 3stalker rush build and adapting the 4warpgate. From a spectator's and a player's standpoint, the same build every game is not good. World vs Korea showmatch spoilers below. + Show Spoiler +White-Ra had to do an extreme build against MC to beat the 4warpgate rush. pffft.. this is borderline stupid... 1. Who says that EVERYTHING apart from 4gate has been tried? And even your own spoiler contradicts it. Game tweaks should be the last resort after a long trial and error attempt to fix it. You want everything so fast everything laid down for you... It takes time bro.. 2. It's a mirror matchup how can it even be broken? It doesn't give anyone any advantage. Look at ZvZ in broodwar. The only viable option is Mutas. Does anyone say ZvZ is broken or boring? Nope. It's an amazing matchup where players use the same strategy and the winner is decided by minor tweaks and gaining little edges in execution. As a product of this you have Jeadong who is a master in this matchup know all the ins and outs and wins a lot of games. 3. Certain strategies are stronger than other strategies. In BW if zergs dont cheese in ZvT they go 12 hatch. Terrans will always fast expand in all matchups. The game is that figured out and doesn't leave that many viable options on what to do. This changes over the time and with maps, but to great deal some things don't lose value. Maybe 4wgate is some sort of direction of balance and persisting value in the PvP matchup, which will involve tweaks around it and develop a metagame from there. Problem?
I am going to answer your questions in order.
1. I never said that everything has been tried. I stated that 4warpgate is dominant.
2. In bw, there are deeper strategic insights from  Shark's article and hivetech zvz. There are zergling counter attacks, scourge timings. It isn't the same.
3. For SC2 PvP to be as developed as BW ZvZ, is going to take a long time. The point im trying to get across is that the lategame management as seen in the other sc2 matchups is almost non-existent in PvP.
|
On March 30 2011 22:44 GreEny K wrote:
I still think that the pvp in sc2 should be compared to bw zvz, not pvp. In BW you have reavers, which were amazing at dealing with dragoon or zealot rushes.
It sucked at dealing with them without a shuttle. Dragoons kinda raped it.
The biggest difference in the pvp is the timing difference created by warp in mechanic. You start the push at first two/three units created and back up with 4 more as the pylon finishes. So you hit with 6 units at the timing for the third production timing...
I also agree it is more similar to zvz where they 10 years later still can't consistently reach hive.
|
I just hope that at some point 4 gate gets a change, and then I'm not speaking about TvP/ZvP but just for the sake of PvP.
For my part they could even do something like, you can't warp in if pylon power is overlapping or something like that, or whatever solution so it is only affecting PvP.
At this point it is just getting old, and it is quite clear that the dominance of 4WG isn't gonna be broken anytime soon.
I mean how silly is it actually that you can fight at your opponent's base and be on a completely equal footing with him in terms of reinforcements.
It just breaks to much with like the "classic" rts/sc rules.
Anyway, imo just something needs to happen, either from blizzard out or from the players (some sort of new strat/build), because in a couple of months/year from now it's just gonna be so boring watching another top level match, but just pure 4gate allins.
And obviously, all MU's will have the same trends to them because some things just don't work (going pure roach vs marine/tank for example), but just constant 4gate's is just a bit to silly.
And I don't that there is anyone out there who actually enjoy's watching PvP.
|
On March 30 2011 22:50 kyzers0ze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 22:25 HeaDStrong wrote:On March 30 2011 21:53 kyzers0ze wrote:On March 30 2011 21:41 HeaDStrong wrote:On March 30 2011 21:29 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On March 30 2011 21:25 2Pacalypse- wrote:On March 30 2011 21:12 HeaDStrong wrote:
Thinking how to improve one's play rather than improving the game would be a good starting point improving a matchup... I agree with this. If you compare it to BW of course you'll see SC2 left a lot to be desired, but it's completely different game so a lot of BW game concepts simply doesn't apply in SC2 (ie. defender's advantage). So instead of trying to endlessly change SC2 until you get another BW, improving one's play is much better choice here. if the game has flaws why not do a good suggestion like this? in my opinion as i wrote above this would have positive effects on the game overall and at the same time vastly improve the without a doubt most hated matchup in the game. Yes because it's so much easier to say that the game is broken than tackling the problem head on and applying the current game rules and making your stuff work... So many SC2 players are focused on fixing the game rather than fixing their game... So much lost potential actually solving problems and creating new strategies. The game should only be fixed after people have been failing and failing and even failing some more to bring balance by their own means. If blizz ends up patching stuff every time people are unhappy SC2 will turn into a game with three space races that each gather minerals and have different unit and building models and skins. To be blunt, PvP IS broken. When 1 build dominates an entire matchup, that matchup is broken. Aside from cannon rushes and proxy 2gate, 4warpgate rush IS the dominant build. The only "counter" we have seen developed is the 3stalker rush and it is not 100% foolproof. Players are getting past that 3stalker rush build and adapting the 4warpgate. From a spectator's and a player's standpoint, the same build every game is not good. World vs Korea showmatch spoilers below. + Show Spoiler +White-Ra had to do an extreme build against MC to beat the 4warpgate rush. pffft.. this is borderline stupid... 1. Who says that EVERYTHING apart from 4gate has been tried? And even your own spoiler contradicts it. Game tweaks should be the last resort after a long trial and error attempt to fix it. You want everything so fast everything laid down for you... It takes time bro.. 2. It's a mirror matchup how can it even be broken? It doesn't give anyone any advantage. Look at ZvZ in broodwar. The only viable option is Mutas. Does anyone say ZvZ is broken or boring? Nope. It's an amazing matchup where players use the same strategy and the winner is decided by minor tweaks and gaining little edges in execution. As a product of this you have Jeadong who is a master in this matchup know all the ins and outs and wins a lot of games. 3. Certain strategies are stronger than other strategies. In BW if zergs dont cheese in ZvT they go 12 hatch. Terrans will always fast expand in all matchups. The game is that figured out and doesn't leave that many viable options on what to do. This changes over the time and with maps, but to great deal some things don't lose value. Maybe 4wgate is some sort of direction of balance and persisting value in the PvP matchup, which will involve tweaks around it and develop a metagame from there. Problem? I am going to answer your questions in order. 1. I never said that everything has been tried. I stated that 4warpgate is dominant. 2. In bw, there are deeper strategic insights from Shark's article and hivetech zvz. There are zergling counter attacks, scourge timings. It isn't the same. 3. For SC2 PvP to be as developed as BW ZvZ, is going to take a long time. The point im trying to get across is that the lategame management as seen in the other sc2 matchups is almost non-existent in PvP.
They were not questions, but I'm going to reply to your answers any way.
Simple: None of the three points you just presented were hinting that a change in the game mechanics is required to fix the 'problem'. So what's the deal here? Here we go again:
1. For someone who's not stating the game is totally broken introducing a fix is a somewhat harsh remedy.
2. You think by discussing and analyzing the game rules rather than analyzing the gameplay we're ever going to reach an insight into sc2 equivalent to the one of Shark?
3. There's not much late game in bw ZvZ or PvP. Because usually the lesser player does not deserve going into the late game as he's being punished for every little mistake and loses. If we had the opposite, that would warrant a discussion of a broken matchup...
So let me ask a direct question: Is this all just you being upset about WhiteRa losing?
I think everyone agrees that the current state of sc2 PvP is broken in a sense that 4warpgate rushing is so dominant.
1. I never said that everything has been tried. I stated that 4warpgate is dominant.
So you admit that not everything has been tried, yet you are so confident it's broken beyond repair...
|
On March 30 2011 21:28 niteReloaded wrote:
There are many elegant ways to tweak this, blizzard just needs to be willing to.
Anyone who reads this, please reply your thoughts, because I believe many of these ideas are good and could be used with no more than minor adjustments.
1st option, probably the most normal:
- Make the Warp-in duration depend on the distance from the closest Nexus. So if you're proxy warping, your stalkers take maybe 2-3 seconds longer to warp. There's the small defenders advantage, should be enough for top players.
2nd option:
- make the units more vulnerable during the warping-in phase. Should discourage the in-your-face warping on high ground
3rd option:
- make Gateways in Gateway mode produce units slightly faster than warpgates, like 5-10%, again, the goal is to reintroduce the defenders advantage
4th option, most work with balancing needed, but probably best for the game:
- re-do the whole paradigm of Protoss by moving the warpgate tech to a higher Tier, and also make the WarpGate have a downside to it, rather than just being an auto-upgrade.
Should I post these on the battle.net forums? Thoughts please.
I totally support this  Go, tell Blizzard about it, on the 4th option, good idea!
|
at this point i really think blizzard wants to avoid balance tweaks that require compensation, i.e. some nerf/buff that breaks the game so hard that you need something completely unrelated to be buffed/nerfed to compensate. this chain of reactions makes things way harder to control, which makes it more understandable from a realistic perspective to make self contained balance changes.
on the warp in mechanic, i feel like the concept lends to great harassment opportunities in the midgame and onwards, which is great, but the concept of warping in most of your army (the first wave of 4wg attack) is a little bit broken as it does eliminate defender's advantage, whereas the midgame harassment only breaks up the defender's focus.
certain tweaks like making warp in only available within a distance of the nexus have too many problems by adjusting both the harassment and rush opportunities. I feel like there is an obvious solution to this that makes the warp in mechanic equally viable in the later stages of the game without making it eliminate early game defender's advantage: just making it only acquirable later on in the game.
this can be done by implementing either longer research time (a la recent stim changes), higher resource cost, or (less likely) available from a different building, like the twilight council. In my opinion giving it a 30 second longer research time would be the most valuable change, as its only big effect is that you wouldn't be able to wait until it's done to warp in the bulk of your army. in pvp for example, you would have more than 2 stalkers 1 zealot before your warpgate finished, which would mean strategies like the yonghwa 3 stalker build could be extended to have 4 or 5 stalkers and thus be more effective at obtaining map control and eliminating pylons.
in summary, afaik blizzard has 2 people in their sc2 balance division. good luck getting them to read any of this.
|
maybe one day we will see a metagame shift and standard pvp will be nexus first. xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
