On October 30 2011 07:39 lbmaian wrote: 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
If we talk of units other than the scout, it's clearly possible. DA are probably underused for instance. Proof is, queens were almost never used for years, but they've had a pretty big role in countering mech as zerg this year. Or Valks. They have been used a bit more in TvT this year, and they've been used in TvZ for only 2 years and a half or something. As for the current complexity of the game, I'd say BW is doing pretty fucking well oO
Scout is the only unit not used and it wouldn't fit into the game because of overlap with corsair, is it that hard to understand. To 'fix' it would be to take it out. But since it's no affect leaving it in, who cares.
lbmaian... if you say anything that's different from "Brood War is a god given gift to man", "Brood War should be exactly like it is" and "Brood War is absolutely perfect and flawless", that means you're saying something really, really stupid and that are just not getting it and that you're making baseless and meaningless accusations.
I hope I cleared that for you, so you may never speak blasphemy again.
Edit: Oh, yeah, I forgot to say that it's also retarded.
Seriously, if there isn't at the least a thinly veiled insult to your intelligence in every single of our responses to your blasphemy, then we're not doing our job good enough!
It's retarded to bring up Blizzard balances and accuse them of just leaving the game as is just because the game seemed good enough despite there being design issues when Blizzard stopped patching the game a goddamned decade ago and units that are considered to be suboptimal in modern BW were still used in suboptimal ways long after the last balance patch. It is a baseless and meaningless accusation because that's not how the things happened.
For heaven's sake, when I watched BW on television at the very beginnings of the scene in South Korea, I saw a TvT where an mnm vs mnm battle happened. No one really knew what the fuck was going on. It is not as if back then people already figured out what is efficient or not to the degree people have mapped out in post-Savior times when the last balance patch was done. People were still doing crazy shit all over the place. How in the world could have anyone known that BW would turn out the way it is now 10 years ago? Furthermore, if Blizzard kept patching the game over the past 10 years to promote underused units the game would not have turned out as balanced as it is now. Imagine if Blizzard patched the queen so that it was stronger than it is now because no one used it. It would be flat out imbalanced in the context of today.
^Exactly. The scout does not need a buff in this day and age 10 years post patch bw. Doing so would completely fuck up the metagame of every matchup and have far-reaching consequences that no one could predict at the moment.
What you don't seem to realise is buffing the scout is not only buffing the scout, it is buffing everything else in the protoss arsenal accordingly, because protoss now has one more tool of destruction which you have to anticipate and if you get it wrong, you die.
Also try to avoid BW to SC2 comparisons, they are fundamentally completely different games. No matter what blizzard tries to do to make SC2 more 'balanced' and promote the usage of all available units, BW will remain the more dynamic game because of non-unit factors, such as how units move when put into a control group, how they spread out, the non-existence of 1a etc.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: 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.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: 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.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
On October 29 2011 22:00 Kiante wrote: bisu vs hwasin on python shows scouts being used to hold off a 5 fac push
could you give us a link? i realy wanna see that cuzz the scout is freaking AWSOME tatatatata
ehhm the scouts didnt do much I think. storms did. tatatatatata and nothing happened till the storm came. other units are just like: "hihihihahahahaha stop shooting! it's tickling!"
Not really
6 scout against no goliaths = gg push. The storm helped but without the scouts Bisu was done.
Well, if he didn't have the scouts, he would obv have more ground forces.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: 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.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game which requires unique strategies to deal with two radically different enemies is BAD? SERIOUSLY? It makes perfect sense that you would have to adopt a completely different strategy to cope with the all-overwhelming macro of the zerg and the high tech and damage units of the protoss. Your opinion that not having one cookie-cutter strategy to deal with both enemies seems anti-starcraft.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: 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.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game which requires unique strategies to deal with two radically different enemies is BAD? SERIOUSLY? It makes perfect sense that you would have to adopt a completely different strategy to cope with the all-overwhelming macro of the zerg and the high tech and damage units of the protoss. Your opinion that not having one cookie-cutter strategy to deal with both enemies seems anti-starcraft.
No, I am suggesting that having all units completely even to a point where any unit can be used or a small amount of every unit used in conjunction is bad. For example, going only zerglings sucks, but add in some lurkers and defilers and you have a great army. Building 5 of every unit sucks, but having a good balance of lurkers and hydras for example is good, which is why blizzard not constantly applying balance patches in BW was a good thing. Keeping things the way it is gives time to let people create different strategies instead of changing everything so often as to hinder the development of new strategies.
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 is a good point.
Scout AtG attack sucks balls. Their AtA is relatively strong against beefier targets.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: 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.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game which requires unique strategies to deal with two radically different enemies is BAD? SERIOUSLY? It makes perfect sense that you would have to adopt a completely different strategy to cope with the all-overwhelming macro of the zerg and the high tech and damage units of the protoss. Your opinion that not having one cookie-cutter strategy to deal with both enemies seems anti-starcraft.
No, I am suggesting that having all units completely even to a point where any unit can be used or a small amount of every unit used in conjunction is bad. For example, going only zerglings sucks, but add in some lurkers and defilers and you have a great army. Building 5 of every unit sucks, but having a good balance of lurkers and hydras for example is good, which is why blizzard not constantly applying balance patches in BW was a good thing. Keeping things the way it is gives time to let people create different strategies instead of changing everything so often as to hinder the development of new strategies.
finally someone who understands BW!
(why i found WC3 much less fun to watch: footman vs footman, huntress vs huntress, ghouls vs ghouls etc )
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: 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.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game which requires unique strategies to deal with two radically different enemies is BAD? SERIOUSLY? It makes perfect sense that you would have to adopt a completely different strategy to cope with the all-overwhelming macro of the zerg and the high tech and damage units of the protoss. Your opinion that not having one cookie-cutter strategy to deal with both enemies seems anti-starcraft.
No, I am suggesting that having all units completely even to a point where any unit can be used or a small amount of every unit used in conjunction is bad. For example, going only zerglings sucks, but add in some lurkers and defilers and you have a great army. Building 5 of every unit sucks, but having a good balance of lurkers and hydras for example is good, which is why blizzard not constantly applying balance patches in BW was a good thing. Keeping things the way it is gives time to let people create different strategies instead of changing everything so often as to hinder the development of new strategies.
finally someone who understands BW!
(why i found WC3 much less fun to watch: footman vs footman, huntress vs huntress, ghouls vs ghouls etc )
Well yeah, that's kind of how mirror matches up in any game work, at least in the earlier stages when you can only make basic units. It's not like HvH, NEvNE, UvU don't diversify once people start teching. Meanwhile in ZvZ, it's lings vs. lings and mutas vs. mutas all game, and PvP is inevitably going to have goons vs. goons or what have you. Besides, in WC3 battles, heroes play a major part, so even footmen fighting footmen will lead to different results based on whether you have an archmage or a paladin or whatever.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: 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.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game which requires unique strategies to deal with two radically different enemies is BAD? SERIOUSLY? It makes perfect sense that you would have to adopt a completely different strategy to cope with the all-overwhelming macro of the zerg and the high tech and damage units of the protoss. Your opinion that not having one cookie-cutter strategy to deal with both enemies seems anti-starcraft.
No, I am suggesting that having all units completely even to a point where any unit can be used or a small amount of every unit used in conjunction is bad. For example, going only zerglings sucks, but add in some lurkers and defilers and you have a great army. Building 5 of every unit sucks, but having a good balance of lurkers and hydras for example is good, which is why blizzard not constantly applying balance patches in BW was a good thing. Keeping things the way it is gives time to let people create different strategies instead of changing everything so often as to hinder the development of new strategies.
This, and it is fine having units that are situational. For example, devourers are rarely used but they basically serve a similar purpose to scout that is to fight vs heavy air. Devourers are only used in either late-game zvz, against bc zvt, against carriers zvp, for light air threats scourge are quite efficient(if microed carefully) at taking them out. The concept of devourers are still really needed though, because without devourers, it would make it a lot harder to combat those specific situations.
Having every unit usable in every situation is what I would actually say bad design. It just makes the units generic. And no changing the scout right now is bad, it will mess too much with the current mu unpredictably. But yes, I would agree that the concept of scouts could've been better as they are pretty much the most useless unit in the game. Then again, we said that about queens a couple of years ago, and now they are being used against mech zvt.
I remember a long time ago, in the Ascension tournament thing that Artosis was holding, G5 was in a PvZ vs someone, I forget who, but basically did the normal forge FE stargate, but instead of getting a Corsair, he got a Scout, and it was pretty funny.
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.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MSlZG.jpg)
i realy wanna see that cuzz the scout is freaking AWSOME tatatatata
)
