EPTIs Terran UP? Does It Matter? - Page 3
| Blogs > tombigbimbom |
|
NKB
United Kingdom608 Posts
| ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On August 01 2012 19:55 JonIrenicus wrote: Question is: with Broodwar, was blizzard so aggressive on patching the metagame? If Blizzard didn't patch so much, maybe now we would have some revolutionist, instead of what we got now: no one is happy about the current situation. the answer is sort of during the sc1 beta they in fact were quite aggressive in patching the metagame, in fact that's the main reason that scouts are so useless. many of the spells got severe overhauls, for example psi storm and multiple plagues would stack. instead of patch the metagame they used brood war to plug some holes in the game, particularly that mass mutas was considered overpowered at the time (remember no one could micro and terran and protoss tended to get stuck on 1 base) so they invented the corsair and valkyrie zealots got a rather extreme buff and the cost of teching up with terran was severely cut down. 4 pools were smashed into the ground and sunkens were completely reworked in a way that was a buff in the early game and a nerf in the lategame. those are the only things i remember being patched i think in the end tvz plays how blizzard intended it to but tvp 200/200 mech war with 30 bases was an accident. pvz might not be a total accident as there are analogous builds to ffe in warcraft 2, where you wall-in and tower up, that blizzard definitely knew about, but it probably surprises them that it turned out to be the standard build the main thing is by the time the pro scene had really started to pick up, they were done patching the game, and have moved on to warcraft 3. blizzard assumed at the time that everyone would transition over to that game, but warcraft 3 is terribly flawed for lots of reasons and then dota happened and singlehandedly killed the melee ladder for that game, so people who actually wanted to play an RTS went back to sc | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
It depends on how well the game was designed, or how lucky the game designers were. At least in SC2's case, there are definitely a lot more players and its a lot more popular. So one would think that these hidden build orders would be discovered a lot more quickly, lending some credibility to the idea of being upset after a few weeks or a month of imbalance (well okay not weeks  ) | ||
|
MyLastSerenade
Germany710 Posts
thanks!  | ||
|
Purind
Canada3562 Posts
On August 02 2012 01:39 Stratos_speAr wrote: It essentially means the same thing (I was being redundant). Terran's gameplay style was such that improvements in mechanics gave you massive improvements in performance, even at high levels. Protoss units in BW didn't have the mechanical ceiling to take advantage of ridiculously awesome mechanics (there's a reason that people joked about 1a2a3a Protoss in BW; there wasn't any real benefit to microing Protoss units as much as there was Terran units). Protoss also relied on spells/abilities far more than Terran, and had less harrassment/mobility options. All of this combined gives Terran the highest skill ceiling and Protoss the lowest; the best BW player ever would probably be able to perform better as Terran than as Protoss over a long period of time because of the subtle advantages of the race. SC2 seems to be the same way. He didn't understand the "Protoss is hardest to master" part and how it relates to the skill ceiling part of your post | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On August 01 2012 13:06 Bippzy wrote: In BW, from what I hear, Protoss could basically be C level vs Terran just by macroing, whereas terran had to make a ridiculous skill increase. I'm a subscriber to highest level balance disregarding skill level problems. This is the sort of balance issue should be a real concern, where one race is less mechanically or strategically challenging than another. Other imbalances can often can be solved through innovation, as the OP says. On August 01 2012 10:44 swim224 wrote: I must say, you think about things in a much more advanced way than I do. I can't even begin to comprehend the genius behind the argument you have just made. 5/5 Seriously? I've heard his argument plenty of times before, and it's fairly obvious to people who experienced the evolution of BW's metagame. I'm not saying he's wrong, but it's not revolutionary either. | ||
|
Urth
United States1256 Posts
On August 01 2012 09:53 tombigbimbom wrote:I was an "A" zerg player on ICCup Did no one else notice this part at all? Do you happen to have any proof of your "A" rank? | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On August 02 2012 09:06 Urth wrote: Did no one else notice this part at all? Do you happen to have any proof of your "A" rank? I noticed, but I didn't bring it up because his argument itself was valid and his credentials didn't matter too much to me. I assume others thought the same. OP, if you really are A rank in BW, you should stream yourself playing sometime. I can count the number of high level BW streamers on one hand now; more will definitely be welcome. | ||
|
KawaiiRice
United States2914 Posts
now we have no idea when a patch might hit to punish terrans for innovating new builds. blizzard for some reason is way more hands on this game compared to bw. its also a different situation because fans are more connected to foreign pros who are crying because these changes directly affect our livelihood. whereas in bw there were only korean pros and foreigners/random ppl that whined about balance there were qqing about protoss being easy and 1a2a3a etc. but their opinions didn't really matter. i have no idea if koreans actually whined or not since i cant speak korean lul; | ||
|
xmungam
United States1050 Posts
i really like them. think about the power of the TL community IRL... | ||
|
Murlox
France1699 Posts
On August 02 2012 01:39 Stratos_speAr wrote: It essentially means the same thing (I was being redundant). Terran's gameplay style was such that improvements in mechanics gave you massive improvements in performance, even at high levels. Protoss units in BW didn't have the mechanical ceiling to take advantage of ridiculously awesome mechanics (there's a reason that people joked about 1a2a3a Protoss in BW; there wasn't any real benefit to microing Protoss units as much as there was Terran units). Protoss also relied on spells/abilities far more than Terran, and had less harrassment/mobility options. All of this combined gives Terran the highest skill ceiling and Protoss the lowest; the best BW player ever would probably be able to perform better as Terran than as Protoss over a long period of time because of the subtle advantages of the race. SC2 seems to be the same way. Yeah, been there. You describe it well, well... at least I agree. Still what I don't get is how you can give a race the highest skill cap then say it's the easiest to master. Just a linguistic issue here, I don't understand that correlation. eg : higher skill cap, therefore harder to master or lower skill cap, therefore easier to master That would make more sense to me, but maybe there's something I'm not seeing  Edit : had to add the quote... didn't see page 3 < < Edit2 : On August 02 2012 07:43 Purind wrote: He didn't understand the "Protoss is hardest to master" part and how it relates to the skill ceiling part of your post Nailed it | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
| ||
| ||
