On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
How do you propose that we fix design flaws? The only party that has control over that is Blizzard, and they haven't patched this game in a decade.
So it's pretty much resignation then? We know there can be a better game, but it's just not out yet? I suppose I'm in the same boat - neither BW nor SC2 are anywhere near perfect (and I'm disappointed with HotS so far).
I'v always been fond of underused or underrated units, and I love the SCOUT ! Thanks for making a thread about it. I love these videos featuring "competitive" scout usage, so much fun, despite the unit's tactical flaws.
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
How do you propose that we fix design flaws? The only party that has control over that is Blizzard, and they haven't patched this game in a decade. It's not like a different map will suddenly encourage the use of underused units. They're underused for a reason: inefficiency. Costs and build times aren't things that any of us can change.
And lol, I really don't think dark archons prevent carriers in PvP. PvP is a pretty aggressive matchup that involves a lot of pressure and different kinds of harass. It's hard to mass up carriers while maintaining a force strong enough to stave off DTs, reaver harrass, and/or storm drops. And if you're not inflicting some kind of economic damage/pressure yourself, the opponent will just expand like insane, as shown in the previously linked Bisu vs. Much game. Sure, Much got out his carriers, but he was sitting on 1 base while Bisu had 5. That was why he lost, not because Bisu built scouts (which barely did anything, hard counter my ass).
The reason why Carriers fell out of use in PvP years and years ago began because of a Kingdom vs Reach game, I think it was. Carriers fell out long before PvP began to even resemble how it is now.
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
How do you propose that we fix design flaws? The only party that has control over that is Blizzard, and they haven't patched this game in a decade. It's not like a different map will suddenly encourage the use of underused units. They're underused for a reason: inefficiency. Costs and build times aren't things that any of us can change.
And lol, I really don't think dark archons prevent carriers in PvP. PvP is a pretty aggressive matchup that involves a lot of pressure and different kinds of harass. It's hard to mass up carriers while maintaining a force strong enough to stave off DTs, reaver harrass, and/or storm drops. And if you're not inflicting some kind of economic damage/pressure yourself, the opponent will just expand like insane, as shown in the previously linked Bisu vs. Much game. Sure, Much got out his carriers, but he was sitting on 1 base while Bisu had 5. That was why he lost, not because Bisu built scouts (which barely did anything, hard counter my ass).
The reason why Carriers fell out of use in PvP years and years ago began because of a Kingdom vs Reach game, I think it was. Carriers fell out long before PvP began to even resemble how it is now.
Really? I actually just assumed carriers had never been in use in PvP, due to the inherent nature of the matchup. If you know which game it is, can you link it? I don't know a lot about pre-2007 play, so I'd be interested in learning more about how PvP evolved over the years.
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
I'm sorry, but you're pretty much saying that there is a design flaw if all units are not viable in all matchups, and this is just really, really stupid. Each matchup is essentially a different game and needs to be played in different ways. I just really can't take this seriously at all.
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
I'm sorry, but you're pretty much saying that there is a design flaw if all units are not viable in all matchups, and this is just really, really stupid. Each matchup is essentially a different game and needs to be played in different ways. I just really can't take this seriously at all.
Of course each match-up is different, but the strategic capacity is more limited with less units effectively available. With more units and abilities, the strategic potential expands at the cost of it being exponentially harder to balance. Supposing that balance isn't an issue, what's your opposition to having more units be viable?
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
How do you propose that we fix design flaws? The only party that has control over that is Blizzard, and they haven't patched this game in a decade.
So it's pretty much resignation then? We know there can be a better game, but it's just not out yet? I suppose I'm in the same boat - neither BW nor SC2 are anywhere near perfect (and I'm disappointed with HotS so far).
You are missing the point. The scout is a feature of BW....Blizzard had the great forethought not only to give us several genuinely useful units. Just in case those ever became boring, they included units for all three races (ghost, queen, scout) that were so bad in comparison, that there mere appearance in a game makes it memorable, and makes the player that manages to use feel like a genius. (Infesting a terran command center that could have just sniped with any number of other units is great fun)
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
How do you propose that we fix design flaws? The only party that has control over that is Blizzard, and they haven't patched this game in a decade. It's not like a different map will suddenly encourage the use of underused units. They're underused for a reason: inefficiency. Costs and build times aren't things that any of us can change.
And lol, I really don't think dark archons prevent carriers in PvP. PvP is a pretty aggressive matchup that involves a lot of pressure and different kinds of harass. It's hard to mass up carriers while maintaining a force strong enough to stave off DTs, reaver harrass, and/or storm drops. And if you're not inflicting some kind of economic damage/pressure yourself, the opponent will just expand like insane, as shown in the previously linked Bisu vs. Much game. Sure, Much got out his carriers, but he was sitting on 1 base while Bisu had 5. That was why he lost, not because Bisu built scouts (which barely did anything, hard counter my ass).
The reason why Carriers fell out of use in PvP years and years ago began because of a Kingdom vs Reach game, I think it was. Carriers fell out long before PvP began to even resemble how it is now.
Really? I actually just assumed carriers had never been in use in PvP, due to the inherent nature of the matchup. If you know which game it is, can you link it? I don't know a lot about pre-2007 play, so I'd be interested in learning more about how PvP evolved over the years.
But now that I think about it more, I think it's a bit hasty to say that it is the DA alone that made carriers nonviable in PvP. It definitely contributes heavily, but it's hard to ignore how much PvP has changed outside of it (the death of stargate tech in general).
Also, more does not equal better. Post-Savior BW has largely retained the same general shape in all the matchups for years now, but yet still the game has continued to advance incredibly rapidly with a great deal of variation and shocking innovation. I just feel like people that complain about how some units are not viable in some matchups makes the game more limited have never really played the game or ever understood it enough to appreciate the real complexities of the game. Even if there were more units, some units simply are going to be more efficient and useful than other units for each matchup because each matchup demands different sets of skills and functions. Then, as the game progresses and people optimizes their shit, some units are simply going to be almost completely phased out because they just aren't as useful as some other units in certain matchups. So in the end we would end up in the same goddamned position because that's how the game works.
Just look at the hydra. Hydras are incredibly strong in ZvP because they have a lot of utility and play favorably against many of the Protoss units. I have always preferred using hydra based plays in ZvP for various reasons. On the other hand, they are not useful in ZvT bio most of the time because they are fucking useless against marine medic without defiler support, and because defilers are so important in ZvT a long with lurkers, it is less efficient to use hydras in the midgame because the gas can be used elsewhere. Getting lurkers and hive tech up in a timely manner is more useful and thus hydras are less used. They still have a big role to play against Terran mech though. Then you look at ZvZ where hydras are completely useless except in the super lategame because mutalingscourge simply is the most efficient because of their costs and design. To use hydras you need a strong drone count but ZvZ is the most larva conscious Zerg matchup and thus you need to use the most resource and larva efficient units which happen to be lings, mutas, and scourge, and these units play very favourably against hydras. Hydras are also quite mobile but mutalingscourge is even more mobile. Thus hydras take a back seat.
Because hydras take a back seat in 2/3 matchups, does that mean hydras have a design flaw? Fuck no.
There is probably things which can be improved, like small changes that could help the viability of hive tech ZvZ. Scouts are not something that needs improving at all though. They were infact too strong and had their ground attack lowered. You can still use them, if you want. I've used them in games sometimes in specific situations. I think most players are at a level where you can implement them in your play if you really wanted to.
I seriously think it's a little underrated. Nony vs KoreanSupreme in the replay section is a nice usage of 3 stargate scouts in PvT. This is when he didn't even really have the advantage in the game either.
Also someone mentioned bio TvP. Again i feel like people prehaps overlook it too much outside of deep six. My mechanics are bad, prehaps around D+ level. Yet the other day i attempted a strategy in which i went for CC first into 2rax, then tech to dropships and drop his mineral lines repeatedly. If i had included just 1 firebat in each drop or managed to macro while doing the drops i probably would have won, and this was against a C player.
Honestly if you actually play the game and not just watch progames you'll find you can do interesting stuff if you want.
On October 30 2011 03:03 lbmaian wrote: The fact that the game features a unit that's so rarely used and that also prevents other units from appearing in certain match-ups just sounds like bad unit design to me. The fact that you all are also satisfied with its role (nearly equivalent in role to SC2's mothership) kinda bothers me. It's like BW is THE epitome of the RTS genre, and that it would be bad, nay sacrilege, to try to improve it and get rid of this design flaw.
IMO, BW would be improved if the scout was not such a hard counter to capital ships and had some other role; the same could also be said about the devourer. Granted I haven't watched as much BW as the rest of you all, but I have yet to see a game that features a PvZ air battle that features both scouts and devourers.
The problem is that after the introduction of the Corsair in BW, the scout also lost its role as the primary protoss air-to-air unit. And as time went by, the game balanced itself out, leaving the Scout as the appendix of the game. Any serious tries to get the Scout back into the game will disturb the balance of the game in a great way.
I think we all might be forgetting just how OP Mojojojo was. The scout was badass.
But on a serious note, many units are just not meant to be used, and are indeed implemented for casual players, and for campaigning methods. I won't make a stupid BW/SC2 comparison, because I'm not retarded, but I hope you get my point. Blizzard doesn't need to make a game fully balanced just for pros; many casuals used, and still use the scout, for whatever reasons they want. Do I agree? No. But it's no big deal to have a useless unit in a game.
On October 29 2011 21:44 SkelA wrote: The Scout only real use is the counter for Carriers and Battlecruisers but you never see those units in pvp and pvt so its used mostly to humiliate your oponents.
This was pretty spot on, its not like Blizz put in units for no real reason, every unit was put in for a good reason and had a good amount of thought put into it .. today's metagame and maps just does not allow for those units to appear in the matchups.
Which is why I'd be fairly interested in Island/semi-island maps being reintroduced to progames ... even though they have all been fairly imba, I think it is still worth it for map makers to test their creativity and make a true island map that is semi-balanced :D
Scouts are what you make when you want to troll your opponent. That is their sole purpose ;o.
On October 29 2011 21:11 MasterReY wrote: In the beginning of "pro" BW most protoss used Scouts in almost all games. Blizzard just stoped balancing the whole game at one point and because the scout was used very often in the past they didnt change it i guess.
After that the game evolved and strategies got more defined and the scout wasnt used anymore. Blizzard couldnt look in the future.
Dont say it wasnt used if you dont it for sure. There are alot of old battle reports from people like Grrr and Zileas which massed scouts in PvP for example and killed nexuses with it etc.
koreasilver, I am aware that BW has continued to evolve a lot even in match-ups that have the least number of viable units.
If your point is that there may yet be a future non-BM non-incredibly-niche role for the rarely used units, well I have my doubts, but I'm hardly a BW scene expert.
If your point is that we all should be satisfied with the current complexity and evolution of those match-ups given the rarely used units, well I'm clearly not satisfied. I don't know how we'd "fix" those units, but I do think that their lack of usage is just a cop out by Blizzard - they were hoping those units would still be used, and if they turned out not to be useful yet the match-up was balanced enough, then so be it (especially after they moved on to WC3).
sheaRZerg, I think you give Blizzard too much credit :p
You're just not getting it. Not only that, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the history of balancing for BW so your accusation is baseless and meaningless.
EPT
