|
Hi guyz.
Everyday,when we sit on sc2,we consantly hear/read someone talking about OP.This is OP,that is OP,one race is OP,the other is OP,and so on.At least this happens to me all the time,even on ladder(diamond),where players are supposed to have some iron skin on the game concepts.
Well,i've been thinking about it,because sometimes i wander as well about some things in the game,which appear to be unstoppable.
The point i would like to make all think about is:why?Why is this/that so powerful?Why does the OP concept pop out?
Let's start with this simple question.What is sc2?
It is a war simulation,where teams with equal number of players(1v1,2v2,3v3 and so on) face each other,in order to archieve victory,by defeating your opponent/s.I think this is the best way to define this game.
My next examples will be for a 1v1 match,for simplicity.
How do we reach that goal?
By making choices.We analize our opponents race/map at first,then we keep on starving to get more and more clues on what his battle plan is,and react as best as we can.We use all of the experience/knowledge we have,and follow as best as we can the game course,in order to find a way to defeat our opponent.
How do we proceed when we face an opponent?
We choose the most appropriate strategy to defeat him.By our analysis,we decide that one thing is better then another,and we use it.If we are wrong,we try to find out why.But the key concept i would like to point out is that we use TOOLS.By tools,i mean everything useful we bring in,to be able to overwhelm the enemy.It may sound bad,but all we do is decide which tool is best to be able to win the game.Simple.
And consequently we all know which tools every race has in his arsenal.
What we don't usually think about,or at least this is my conclusion,is how every single tool works.
As a toss player,many times in ladder people tell me ''FF is so imba/storm is so imba'' and so on.So let's assume,for one moment,that you think that protoss race is imba.
Why?Because you assume that his tools are superior then yours.They are more powerful,they are impossible to counter:they are simply an easy way to win,which requires no skill.Why?Because you assume they are superior,and yours are inferior.
Let's pick up an example.Forcefields.Many people cry out how imba they are.Let's check out how do they work.
FF is an ability used by protoss's sentry unit,which is a gateway one.It costs 50m and 100g.This ability costs 50 mana,and affects a small area,preventing any ground unit(except gigantic ones)from stepping on it.We all know that.
Let's read again what i wrote,and try to find out the weak spots.
1)100gas,2)50 mana,3)small area 4)they are used by the player.Those are my clues.
1)100 gas is not cheap.Having 5 sentries is 500gas.So we know that when our opponent has a sentry heavy unit compo,he is a little poor on other gas heavy units.Interesting.
2)50 mana.Sentries have 200 mana pool,which is 4 FF.With 5 sentries,toss has a potential of 20 FF.The interesting part is:when they are out of mana,they have no FFs left.Interesting.
3)FF affects a small area.So in wider areas,many FFs are required,to cover the same portion of ground.
4)The player decides how to use them/if he wants to.So everytime there is a human influence on something,comes the skill element.And by extension,the mistake element.
What is our final response?How to counter those imba forcefields?
Maybe we should let the protoss waste his mana.Or engange him in open and wide areas.Or make him waste mana,and attack at the right moment.
What we can do,is force the opponent to waste/use poorly his tools,or preventing him from using them.
This is it.
Every single tool we use in the game,is unique.And has flaws and strenghts,depending on its usage.So try to find out how every single opponents tool works,find its weaknesses,and exploit them.There is no perfect tool in this game.Every race has his own,and they are all powerful,and weak at the same time.
I don't know if i'm right,i just wanted to try to give my own contribution to the ''OP'' topic,which is so actual in the sc2 scene.
Hope it's worth reading.
Thanks.
Best regards.
|
If you played warcraft3 then imbalance should be a clear concept in your head (especially if you were UD going up against an Orc)
|
The reason the concept of OP is easy to toss about in an RTS is because people forget that strategies are won and lost long before the gg.
In turn based strategies, both players can see when the game is "over" long before the last push. You simply see your pieces in the positions they are in and you can see that you just can't win.
However, in an RTS, people always feel as if they could have fixed something if they were simply faster, physically faster. They forget that "overall strategies" are just as effective in a turn based game as they are in a RTS and the winning position can be gained very easily long before the GG if you have superior strategy.
|
Thank you, it's refreshing to see a post that was constructed with such depth and clarity. :D
As a low tier player, I very much appreciate your analysis, it certainly gives me a bit more confidence when I see the dreaded snow globes. :D
|
On April 03 2011 23:56 babarossa wrote:
Thank you, it's refreshing to see a post that was constructed with such depth and clarity. :D
As a low tier player, I very much appreciate your analysis, it certainly gives me a bit more confidence when I see the dreaded snow globes. :D
I am as well nothing special in the sc2 world,i just thought it would be nice to tell what i think about it =)
|
Hey, your post would be way easier to read if you put spaces after punctuation marks.
On topic, i think you're right, instead of yelling imba, more effort should be spent trying to think outside the box!
|
On April 03 2011 23:56 lorkac wrote:
The reason the concept of OP is easy to toss about in an RTS is because people forget that strategies are won and lost long before the gg.
In turn based strategies, both players can see when the game is "over" long before the last push. You simply see your pieces in the positions they are in and you can see that you just can't win.
However, in an RTS, people always feel as if they could have fixed something if they were simply faster, physically faster. They forget that "overall strategies" are just as effective in a turn based game as they are in a RTS and the winning position can be gained very easily long before the GG if you have superior strategy.
Yeah, such as in PvP.
Blink stalkers vs Colossi play. Colossi are dominant in that match-up because once you have more colossi (or the opponent has none) you can simply push for the win.
However, the blink stalker user's goal is to catch the colossi deathball out of position, and force a base trade where the blink stalker user will win because his bases are more spread-out and he is more mobile than the slow colossi.
This is a great example of overall strategy imo: Go blink stalkers if the other user goes colossi, catch him off-guard, base race, and win.
Zerg can do the same thing. I faced a zerg who smartly did this (and Mr. Bitter is encouraging this type of play) by just attacking at multiple bases at once in Shakuras Plateau. Since the 3rd (near the tower) and the 4th (above or below your natural) is quite spread-out, you can abuse the immobility of the death-ball with mass roaches (mondragon style) or mass lings.
Overall strategy: If protoss goes into the inevitable deathball, attack at multiple spots and snipe down nexii, strengthen your economy while destroying your opponent's, and win.
|
Pretty sure this violates a rule; however, I'll text the thoughts in case it stays up 
Generally speaking: platinum+ players call imbalance when they put an incredible amount of effort into fighting their opponent; however, their efforts are mitigated by "X"
For instance: you make a huge MM army; however, 3/4 Colossi and some good Forcefields may win the fight.
So now: The Terran makes a thread how Forcefields and Colossi are OP in battle.net, don't provide a replay, and the idea becomes viral.
|
On April 04 2011 00:07 iChau wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2011 23:56 lorkac wrote:
The reason the concept of OP is easy to toss about in an RTS is because people forget that strategies are won and lost long before the gg.
In turn based strategies, both players can see when the game is "over" long before the last push. You simply see your pieces in the positions they are in and you can see that you just can't win.
However, in an RTS, people always feel as if they could have fixed something if they were simply faster, physically faster. They forget that "overall strategies" are just as effective in a turn based game as they are in a RTS and the winning position can be gained very easily long before the GG if you have superior strategy. Yeah, such as in PvP. Blink stalkers vs Colossi play. Colossi are dominant in that match-up because once you have more colossi (or the opponent has none) you can simply push for the win. However, the blink stalker user's goal is to catch the colossi deathball out of position, and force a base trade where the blink stalker user will win because his bases are more spread-out and he is more mobile than the slow colossi. This is a great example of overall strategy imo: Go blink stalkers if the other user goes colossi, catch him off-guard, base race, and win. Zerg can do the same thing. I faced a zerg who smartly did this (and Mr. Bitter is encouraging this type of play) by just attacking at multiple bases at once in Shakuras Plateau. Since the 3rd (near the tower) and the 4th (above or below your natural) is quite spread-out, you can abuse the immobility of the death-ball with mass roaches (mondragon style) or mass lings. Overall strategy: If protoss goes into the inevitable deathball, attack at multiple spots and snipe down nexii, strengthen your economy while destroying your opponent's, and win.
Which is the exact response to how to counter a deathball.THe deathball is slow,so just abuse it's low mobility,and try to brake through many spots simultaneously.
And this tactic comes by an analisys of the deathball flaws,not from complaining =)
|
On April 04 2011 00:09 Jeffbelittle wrote:Pretty sure this violates a rule; however, I'll text the thoughts in case it stays up Generally speaking: platinum+ players call imbalance when they put an incredible amount of effort into fighting their opponent; however, their efforts are mitigated by "X" For instance: you make a huge MM army; however, 3/4 Colossi and some good Forcefields may win the fight. So now: The Terran makes a thread how Forcefields and Colossi are OP in battle.net, don't provide a replay, and the idea becomes viral.
I think talking in a costructive way about something isnt a violation,always imho.
Im trying to find out why is the OP concept around,that's all.
|
I think, the reason why I sometimes think to myself, that P is too strong and Z too weak, because I have the feeling, that I in order to win against P, it takes me so much more effort, than for him to win against me.
1 little screw up or bad scouting, and you're dead. The other races, esp. Toss, are allowed to screw up a couple of times, and can still win, imho. Of course only, if the players are on equal skill level.
I think thats the big problem. Playing Zerg is quite difficult and requires a lot of thinking outside of the box, as you said. I don't really think that there is a big balance issue though.
|
Aye, its true. For example, if you have a war, and one side has sticks, and the other side has machine guns, then you can make the same claim, they are just tools, so no side has any inherent advantage.
machine guns have ammo, so eventually they run out
machine guns can miss due to human error
machine guns are slightly less effective when used in close range.
and so on. Even when comparing machine guns to sticks, you can make the argument that every tool is unique, and has its weaknesses.
Therefore, a war between a faction with machine guns, and another one armed with just sticks is completely balanced, because even machine guns are not OP when compared to sticks, after all, they will run out of bullets after having killed a couple hundred of people.
|
On April 04 2011 00:10 Abigail wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:07 iChau wrote:On April 03 2011 23:56 lorkac wrote:
The reason the concept of OP is easy to toss about in an RTS is because people forget that strategies are won and lost long before the gg.
In turn based strategies, both players can see when the game is "over" long before the last push. You simply see your pieces in the positions they are in and you can see that you just can't win.
However, in an RTS, people always feel as if they could have fixed something if they were simply faster, physically faster. They forget that "overall strategies" are just as effective in a turn based game as they are in a RTS and the winning position can be gained very easily long before the GG if you have superior strategy. Yeah, such as in PvP. Blink stalkers vs Colossi play. Colossi are dominant in that match-up because once you have more colossi (or the opponent has none) you can simply push for the win. However, the blink stalker user's goal is to catch the colossi deathball out of position, and force a base trade where the blink stalker user will win because his bases are more spread-out and he is more mobile than the slow colossi. This is a great example of overall strategy imo: Go blink stalkers if the other user goes colossi, catch him off-guard, base race, and win. Zerg can do the same thing. I faced a zerg who smartly did this (and Mr. Bitter is encouraging this type of play) by just attacking at multiple bases at once in Shakuras Plateau. Since the 3rd (near the tower) and the 4th (above or below your natural) is quite spread-out, you can abuse the immobility of the death-ball with mass roaches (mondragon style) or mass lings. Overall strategy: If protoss goes into the inevitable deathball, attack at multiple spots and snipe down nexii, strengthen your economy while destroying your opponent's, and win. Which is the exact response to how to counter a deathball.THe deathball is slow,so just abuse it's low mobility,and try to brake through many spots simultaneously. And this tactic comes by an analisys of the deathball flaws,not from complaining =)
You know, that gets said a lot but its really not that slow. And Zerg's roach / hydra army isn't noticably faster. Gets worse for Zerg with the ability to warp in units, which compensates for the slightly reduced mobility of a protoss army anyway. Yes mass lings are fast but theyre also fairly eay to deal with unless you blunder your cannon / pylon placement
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 04 2011 00:17 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:10 Abigail wrote:On April 04 2011 00:07 iChau wrote:On April 03 2011 23:56 lorkac wrote:
The reason the concept of OP is easy to toss about in an RTS is because people forget that strategies are won and lost long before the gg.
In turn based strategies, both players can see when the game is "over" long before the last push. You simply see your pieces in the positions they are in and you can see that you just can't win.
However, in an RTS, people always feel as if they could have fixed something if they were simply faster, physically faster. They forget that "overall strategies" are just as effective in a turn based game as they are in a RTS and the winning position can be gained very easily long before the GG if you have superior strategy. Yeah, such as in PvP. Blink stalkers vs Colossi play. Colossi are dominant in that match-up because once you have more colossi (or the opponent has none) you can simply push for the win. However, the blink stalker user's goal is to catch the colossi deathball out of position, and force a base trade where the blink stalker user will win because his bases are more spread-out and he is more mobile than the slow colossi. This is a great example of overall strategy imo: Go blink stalkers if the other user goes colossi, catch him off-guard, base race, and win. Zerg can do the same thing. I faced a zerg who smartly did this (and Mr. Bitter is encouraging this type of play) by just attacking at multiple bases at once in Shakuras Plateau. Since the 3rd (near the tower) and the 4th (above or below your natural) is quite spread-out, you can abuse the immobility of the death-ball with mass roaches (mondragon style) or mass lings. Overall strategy: If protoss goes into the inevitable deathball, attack at multiple spots and snipe down nexii, strengthen your economy while destroying your opponent's, and win. Which is the exact response to how to counter a deathball.THe deathball is slow,so just abuse it's low mobility,and try to brake through many spots simultaneously. And this tactic comes by an analisys of the deathball flaws,not from complaining =) You know, that gets said a lot but its really not that slow. And Zerg's roach / hydra army isn't noticably faster. Gets worse for Zerg with the ability to warp in units, which compensates for the slightly reduced mobility of a protoss army anyway. Yes mass lings are fast but theyre also fairly eay to deal with unless you blunder your cannon / pylon placement
You forget that a human being is controlling an army.Attacking in 4 different directions,makes it TONS more difficult for someone to defend,if he has one army.
You send a bunch of units and press A,and suddenly your opponent goes into a chaotic and uncoordinated mode,which you can take advantage of.Toss can warp in,true.But he cant control simultaneoous attacks so easily,while you,as attacker,assuming that you only press A and attack in 2 different spots,while nuking and controlling only one core army in the middle,have the mind control necessary,which your opponent hasnt.
|
It's rreeeaaaally not this complicated. Some things are overpowered. When you have to be considerably better than your opponent to win, he's probably doing something that's overpowered.
Take this hyperbole as an example: If roaches could shoot up and had 1000 hp, it would be OP. Considering all the different strategies and units in the game, it's unreasonable to think that nothing in the game is OP.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 04 2011 00:17 morimacil wrote:
Aye, its true. For example, if you have a war, and one side has sticks, and the other side has machine guns, then you can make the same claim, they are just tools, so no side has any inherent advantage.
machine guns have ammo, so eventually they run out
machine guns can miss due to human error
machine guns are slightly less effective when used in close range.
and so on. Even when comparing machine guns to sticks, you can make the argument that every tool is unique, and has its weaknesses.
Therefore, a war between a faction with machine guns, and another one armed with just sticks is completely balanced, because even machine guns are not OP when compared to sticks, after all, they will run out of bullets after having killed a couple hundred of people.
This is absolutely false,because you assume that one race has only one tool available.Every race has tons of possibilities,and tons of way to play the same game.
What are you trying to say?Zerg has sticks and toss has guns?Sounds absolutely absurd to me.
|
On April 04 2011 00:22 Abigail wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 04 2011 00:17 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:10 Abigail wrote:On April 04 2011 00:07 iChau wrote:On April 03 2011 23:56 lorkac wrote:
The reason the concept of OP is easy to toss about in an RTS is because people forget that strategies are won and lost long before the gg.
In turn based strategies, both players can see when the game is "over" long before the last push. You simply see your pieces in the positions they are in and you can see that you just can't win.
However, in an RTS, people always feel as if they could have fixed something if they were simply faster, physically faster. They forget that "overall strategies" are just as effective in a turn based game as they are in a RTS and the winning position can be gained very easily long before the GG if you have superior strategy. Yeah, such as in PvP. Blink stalkers vs Colossi play. Colossi are dominant in that match-up because once you have more colossi (or the opponent has none) you can simply push for the win. However, the blink stalker user's goal is to catch the colossi deathball out of position, and force a base trade where the blink stalker user will win because his bases are more spread-out and he is more mobile than the slow colossi. This is a great example of overall strategy imo: Go blink stalkers if the other user goes colossi, catch him off-guard, base race, and win. Zerg can do the same thing. I faced a zerg who smartly did this (and Mr. Bitter is encouraging this type of play) by just attacking at multiple bases at once in Shakuras Plateau. Since the 3rd (near the tower) and the 4th (above or below your natural) is quite spread-out, you can abuse the immobility of the death-ball with mass roaches (mondragon style) or mass lings. Overall strategy: If protoss goes into the inevitable deathball, attack at multiple spots and snipe down nexii, strengthen your economy while destroying your opponent's, and win. Which is the exact response to how to counter a deathball.THe deathball is slow,so just abuse it's low mobility,and try to brake through many spots simultaneously. And this tactic comes by an analisys of the deathball flaws,not from complaining =) You know, that gets said a lot but its really not that slow. And Zerg's roach / hydra army isn't noticably faster. Gets worse for Zerg with the ability to warp in units, which compensates for the slightly reduced mobility of a protoss army anyway. Yes mass lings are fast but theyre also fairly eay to deal with unless you blunder your cannon / pylon placement You forget that a human being is controlling an army.Attacking in 4 different directions,makes it TONS more difficult for someone to defend,if he has one army. You send a bunch of units and press A,and suddenly your opponent goes into a chaotic and uncoordinated mode,which you can take advantage of.Toss can warp in,true.But he cant control simultaneoous attacks so easily,while you,as attacker,assuming that you only press A and attack in 2 different spots,while nuking and controlling only one core army in the middle,have the mind control necessary,which your opponent hasnt.
Yep, not everyone is AdelScott or LiquidTyler. Even they can't properly deflect multiple attacks.
Warping in units can only take you so far because you can only warp in 6-10 units at a time (off 3 bases) to defend. Zerg has tremendous numbers, so 50 speedlings (only 25 supply...) can attack the 3rd, roaches can sneak into the main to snipe off critical tech buildings, etc.
It's not that hard to select a group of units and right clicking on an object, but having a calm mindset and defending every single attack is incredibly difficult.
|
I really don't think this is anything new, I think most of the people know what you just wrote...
The more experienced players(=pros) complain about units/tools that have more strenghts than weaknesses or weaknesses that you can't exploit with the current possibilities.
You use the forcefield as example: "make him waste mana and engage in wide areas" may seem a good counter in theory but everyone knows that this won't work in practice(it's basically the same as the "Ultimate Z FF counter = running away?"- thread).
Also there are other things that are/were considered as "OP"(roaches, reapers, tanks, KA) and unfortunately they are/were no tools that your opponents can "waste" or you can run away from but units you have/had to engage(finding a weakness of mass roaches/5rax reaper might be a little bit difficult, considering the possibilities the races had to counter these "tools")!
First of all, I think this thread is in the wrong section and secondly people already have so many chances to cry about what they think is imbalanced on TL.net. I don't think you need another thread that will end in a huge whining about this oh so imbalanced game....
|
On April 04 2011 00:24 Abigail wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 04 2011 00:17 morimacil wrote:
Aye, its true. For example, if you have a war, and one side has sticks, and the other side has machine guns, then you can make the same claim, they are just tools, so no side has any inherent advantage.
machine guns have ammo, so eventually they run out
machine guns can miss due to human error
machine guns are slightly less effective when used in close range.
and so on. Even when comparing machine guns to sticks, you can make the argument that every tool is unique, and has its weaknesses.
Therefore, a war between a faction with machine guns, and another one armed with just sticks is completely balanced, because even machine guns are not OP when compared to sticks, after all, they will run out of bullets after having killed a couple hundred of people. This is absolutely false,because you assume that one race has only one tool available.Every race has tons of possibilities,and tons of way to play the same game. What are you trying to say?Zerg has sticks and toss has guns?Sounds absolutely absurd to me.
Its just looking at 1 tool, machine guns in my example, and seeing how it has a weakness compared to sticks (eventuqally running out of ammo). Just like the OP is looking at 1 tool, forcefields, and analyzing a weakness, the fact that after 20 forcefields, the sentries will be oom.
I didnt mention zergs, or protoss, you are the one bringing them up.
Im just agreeing with the OP, that every single tool has a weakness.
I however dont agree that jus because something has a weakness, that makes it balanced, sometimes that weakness is not really a big enough weakness compared to the other tools available.
|
On April 04 2011 00:17 morimacil wrote:
Aye, its true. For example, if you have a war, and one side has sticks, and the other side has machine guns, then you can make the same claim, they are just tools, so no side has any inherent advantage.
machine guns have ammo, so eventually they run out
machine guns can miss due to human error
machine guns are slightly less effective when used in close range.
and so on. Even when comparing machine guns to sticks, you can make the argument that every tool is unique, and has its weaknesses.
Therefore, a war between a faction with machine guns, and another one armed with just sticks is completely balanced, because even machine guns are not OP when compared to sticks, after all, they will run out of bullets after having killed a couple hundred of people.
Wait. Are you trying to claim that in this scenario, machine guns aren't OP because they'll run out of bullets once everybody on the other side is dead?? So you're assuming that the stick army has more guys to throw away? What about an army of equal size one with sticks and the other with machine guns?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
