|
Tanks need a buff!!!! LOL have you ever tried attacked in a tank wall or tank protecting from high ground? I think they are pretty strong.
On October 03 2012 09:29 conut wrote:
i don't agree at all with pretty much any of this, in fact i was thinking maps need to get bigger, all i think that needs to happen for the game is tanks need to get a bit of a buff.
But saying that small maps need to come back i don't think that is correct. Not at all, i am not going to tell you my league, or belittle your opinion because everyone sees the game differently, however smaller maps didn't balance the game at all. The game is fine how it is now, also you said mech isn't very good, or implied it but i think mech is VERY good right now... in the right hands.
and i don't get how smaller maps will make muta's good. Muta's keep you in your base, they stop you from moving out and make you constantly afraid of getting back stabbed. In no way will smaller maps or beta maps will make mutas good, no no no, they will become even worse. If i don't have to move very far out to kill you, then what is the point of mutas, they cant make a base trade happen or force me to turn around because the map is so small!
I don't think zerg need to be 1 base ahead of terran and protoss players like you said, however they need 3 base's to get up to hive tech then they can get as many base's as they can with their powerful army. Old maps had hard to take thirds, and without gas, i can't see zergs being that competitive.
You also said terran are not doing that good, but terrans are doing fine? what game are you watching haha, Even in the GSL we have a equal number or races (or as equal as possible). I don't miss every tourney being a T v T final.
basically i don't really know where your reasoning is behind this post (no offense).
|
Op has absolutely zero idea what he is talking about and is generally being stupid.
|
Don't try to repost a thread if it gets closed, especially when monk said "OP comes off as balance whiny, has an overly aggressive tone, and shows some poor understanding of the game and map design. Calling someone a 'fucking retard' definitely doesn't help either."
I mean seriously. Second time remaking a thread...
|
What a long winded thread about the evils of Terran and how Zerg just can't win every match up and should be given free wins.
The OP is pretty much asking for the opposite, did you even read it?
-"Mech is not really viable". Yeah. no. Playing TvZ mech is really powerful, it's even pretty common those days. Some player don't like it, but saying that mech is not completely viable is just...
-"macro game are decided in one big clash" maybe in gold, but at better level there's a lot more. drop/harass (ling runby, prism, drop, hellion runby,..) and as people mentionned, spread units ,use spells (fungu, FF,...)
-"certain players enforcing their beliefs on how the game should be played". You're actually doing the same, maps evolved toward a more macro oriented style because that's what the majority of player/viewer wanted. Not everybody like watching allin every game. And allin are still really powerful, some player use them quite a bit. It's just not"never go past 2 base" like in WoL start.
Overall you're post basically advocate to go back to the sea of allin we had back in early WoL because you don't like macro games, doing so with pretty stupid arguments.
|
a mod better close this before this gets out of hand...this is a retarded thread and has no good points whatsoever.
|
There is only 1 thing I agree with in this post and that's that almost all the maps feature closed naturals, but despite your insistence they DO need to be that way because of hellion runbys vs zerg and roach ling vs protoss, the game just isn't set up for them at the moment (mothership core should help).
The rest is falsehoods, especially if you're referring to the ladder map pool rather than just tournaments, Ohana is definitely a small map compared to the rest of the pool, close by ground entombed is definitely a thing that requires you to play it out differently, condemned ridge's large airspace, dropable cliff and wide third make it a very different kind of map.
You claim that the maps are shaping the gameplay, then claim that terran's wouldn't dominate smaller maps with wider chokes because "people have gotten better". That's a complete contradiction, Terran's options for 1 base aggression are extremely diverse and it's one of the reasons the maps have gone in this direction.
Your comments about the tank is a double edge sword, tanks are "weak" (relative to BW tanks) because buffing them would make them insane, the combination of low-cost and high dps marines and long range tanks has meant there's no way to convert air control into an advantage (something that is going to change in HotS with the tempest/viper) but until then, tanks will have to remain relatively weak because their ability to push past static defense, while being protected by the 2nd cheapest unit in the game was and is a major problem. The tank isn't weak because it needs to be be buffed, it's weak because if it were buffed it would be far too strong, at least in it's current incarnation it has a place in the game in at least 2/3 match ups.
The problem with wide main ramps is also a mirror match up problem (which you don't address) ling baneling vs ling baneling on wide ramps or 4 gate vs 4 gate isn't interesting when it's the only thing you can do, and is 100x worse than "deathball vs deathball" because the game doesn't even get a chance for harassment, different unit compositions, unusual resource management or even a basetrade.
The map pool isn't ideal, but with the current balance of the game it's entertaining and at least diverse in the midgame portion, your changes just aren't viable until some of the HotS changes come in, and even then some parts are not addressed.
|
On October 03 2012 10:02 Sacred Reich wrote:
@ Iodeet
If I squint just right, your name reads out 'idiot' to me. It doesn't get better for you when I notice how grammatically inept your post is.
Ad hominem is totally the best argument.
When you omit the top tier of players for your argument's sake, you omit a fuck-ton of relevant data to prove your point. I'd rather this game be balanced for the best players, not me.
|
On October 03 2012 10:11 Dingobloo wrote:
There is only 1 thing I agree with in this post and that's that almost all the maps feature closed naturals, but despite your insistence they DO need to be that way because of hellion runbys vs zerg and roach ling vs protoss, the game just isn't set up for them at the moment (mothership core should help).
The rest is falsehoods, especially if you're referring to the ladder map pool rather than just tournaments, Ohana is definitely a small map compared to the rest of the pool, close by ground entombed is definitely a thing that requires you to play it out differently, condemned ridge's large airspace, dropable cliff and wide third make it a very different kind of map.
You claim that the maps are shaping the gameplay, then claim that terran's wouldn't dominate smaller maps with wider chokes because "people have gotten better". That's a complete contradiction, Terran's options for 1 base aggression are extremely diverse and is one of the reasons the maps have gone in this direction.
Your comments about the tank is a double edge sword, tanks are "weak" (relative to BW tanks) because buffing them would make them insane, the combination of low-cost and high dps marines and long range tanks has meant there's no way to convert air control into an advantage (something that is going to change in HotS with the tempest/viper) but until then, tanks will have to remain relatively weak because their ability to push past static defense, while being protected by the 2nd cheapest unit in the game was and is a major problem. The tank isn't weak because it needs to be be buffed, it's weak because if it were buffed it would be far too strong, at least in it's current incarnation it has a place in the game in at least 2/3 match ups.
The problem with wide main ramps is also a mirror match up problem (which you don't address) ling baneling vs ling baneling on wide ramps or 4 gate vs 4 gate isn't interesting when it's the only thing you can do, and is 100x worse than "deathball vs deathball" because the game doesn't even get a chance for harassment, different unit compositions, unusual resource management or even a basetrade.
The map pool isn't ideal, but with the current balance of the game it's entertaining and at least diverse in the midgame portion, your changes just aren't viable until some of the HotS changes come in, and even then some parts are not addressed.
I see, thanks for the rigorous post. But about tanks, I can't be the only one who sees them as being meat shields in T v Z???
To everyone calling me retarded etc etc. If I was bold enough to make a thread on this, then most probably a large portion of players all think the same. Are they retarded also?
|
I agree with the OP, i may not be a high level player myself but as a very active spectator i think maps are too big, there is few to no engagements for the first 10 minutes. It pretty rare to see a game where both players are trying to get some sort of map control. In TvZ for example, you'll see the zerg player having no map control, seating happy with his 2 to 3 bases for a while and just defending, when he gets to the 70 to 85 drones mark, he'll then take map control and the terran will be fulfilled just chillin' near his third/fourth until he push, dropping his heart out in the meantime.
As a player, i always feel like playing on the ladder but i'm not such a committed player, i just want to play some games, make some progress and all but i after one game or two, i feel like i've played enough, it's almost 1 hour for 2 games at most! It's like when you wanna buy some coke and there is this old woman at the checkout who's trying to pay with every cents she got since WW2 and you have to stay there for 10 minutes because she can't even see what she's doing.
What i mean is i like macro games but i like short games too. In fact, i'm prone to say that i'ld rather watch a proxy two rax game than a 3xCC vs 3 hatches before pool. I'm not even an all in player, in fact i don't know any all ins besides the basic ones. I just love to see how pros micro units to get the best out of them. And sometimes, games get pretty effy and you get a beautiful 30 minutes scrappy game where both players try their best to secure a mining location at a 600mins/min income. It's the best kind of game for me.
It probably is a matter of personnal opinion but i feel like we should have some smaller maps where macro games are possible but early agressions favorized.
My two cents.
|
On October 03 2012 08:49 Sacred Reich wrote:Protoss and Zerg can and will just turtle up to the perfect 200/200 army composition, followed by a singular attack-command.
I can't believe this is part of your argument and your thread hasn't already been closed.
|
On October 03 2012 10:21 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 08:49 Sacred Reich wrote:Protoss and Zerg can and will just turtle up to the perfect 200/200 army composition, followed by a singular attack-command. I can't believe this is part of your argument and your thread hasn't already been closed.
It has... twice.
|
On October 03 2012 09:29 Zombo Joe wrote:
I guess everyone above me loves 20 minute long games that culminate in one deathball clash, over back and forth aggression.
For reference, BW maps were much smaller than the current SC2 map pool.
I'ld like to see some traverse time data to back up your claim. BW maps were pretty large by the end.
|
On October 03 2012 10:22 Antylamon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 10:21 -orb- wrote:On October 03 2012 08:49 Sacred Reich wrote:Protoss and Zerg can and will just turtle up to the perfect 200/200 army composition, followed by a singular attack-command. I can't believe this is part of your argument and your thread hasn't already been closed. It has... twice.
I spoke to Monk and he gave me permission to remake the thread provided I altered my tone and cut out anything that sounded like whining.
|
On October 03 2012 10:15 Sacred Reich wrote:
To everyone calling me retarded etc etc. If I was bold enough to make a thread on this, then most probably a large portion of players all think the same. Are they retarded also?
So because nobody else makes threads like this that means a large portion of players secretly believe this but don't want to be 'bold' and talk about it? That makes less sense than your actual argument, which is retarded.
And yes, they would also be retarded.
|
On October 03 2012 10:02 Sacred Reich wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 09:50 TheOGBlitzKrieg wrote:
to be honest, i'm suprised, but i really do see a lot of things that make sense in this thread. I think the maps really are pretty boring and too big now adays. it's like the maps are so big by the time my scout gets to their base it's already too late, i find myself having to chain scout like right when one dies i have to instantly send another just to be able to get there in a reasonable time to receive any intel... kulas ravine is a map that rings a bell when we talk about a large map with a lot of different advantages for strategical play, it was one of my favorite maps back in the day. it has some imbalances but if tweaked instead of just scrapped i think it could have been one of the best maps sc2 has ever had just due to how positional play was so important.
i don't really understand why every map has to revolve around being able to safely expand first builds... why can't their be different maps that you HAVE to play certain ways on, instead of the same boringness of commentators having to fill the first 5-8 minutes of each game with jokes since both sides are just powering economy... Well you may have said it in a better way to be honest, every map and MU revolves around safely expand first builds - I think this omits alot of interesting strategy and positional play. Even timing windows are literally thrown out of the window. As the game is like 3 years, the old argument of 'there is still yet to be explored in the game' is becoming increasingly hollow. @ Iodeet If I squint just right, your name reads out 'idiot' to me. It doesn't get better for you when I notice how grammatically inept your post is.
Nice one, but the name clearly reads Lodeet. And im on my cell phone so i dont care for grammer. Just keep ignorning the fact that everyone thinks your moronic. Closed minded simpletons like you should remain in the dark.
|
On October 03 2012 11:15 JamesArk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 10:15 Sacred Reich wrote:
To everyone calling me retarded etc etc. If I was bold enough to make a thread on this, then most probably a large portion of players all think the same. Are they retarded also?
So because nobody else makes threads like this that means a large portion of players secretly believe this but don't want to be 'bold' and talk about it? That makes less sense than your actual argument, which is retarded. And yes, they would also be retarded.
Ever been to school? Ever had the lecturer say to you:
'If you have a question, don't be afraid to ask because probably other people have the same question'.
Most of the posting in this thread are from fanboys who can't fathom that their precious game may not be perfect. As a result they circle against the OP. Its a damn shame that the more constructive posts in this thread (both for and against my opinion) are lost in the rabble.
Just don't post here, there are plenty of other threads on TL.
|
Ouch, so much hate on this thread. Sure, i, like most rational players, agree that most (well frankly all) of his points dont make sense, i feel that the unnecessary name calling on both sides aren't helping any one. *side note* saying a large portion of people think the same thing you do, but no one is brave enough to post anything is not really smart at all. if anyone could possibly agree with any of the points you made, they would probably join the other side of the argument after hearing that ignorant statement.
Also, if you hate the constant macro oriented games and "200 maxed A-move armies," a great person to check out would be Heart, who is renowned for his successful all-in's in all matchups
|
To be honest. I kinda miss the excitement of rushes. Much more exciting then alot of the crap deathball we see. Although I'm learning Zerg, and loving it, I often lose because I simply hate going BL + Infestor. Ultra Ling is okay, but I which Ultras were as mobile as they were in BW.
|
Haha I love this forum. OP asks for people not to be condescending to him, yet repeatedly acts condescending to others. And of course the game isn't perfect. Will it ever be? I find it funny that players like you who can't commit time to practicing macro and actually getting good late-game with your race have the audacity to come on here and whine that your gimmicky, all-in builds aren't good enough. Honestly, this whole thread is pointless.
|
This is nostalgia at its finest. Go watch the Ye Olde Map Tournament IPL ran 9 or so months back. The games were awful. The maps were awful. Smaller maps are coming back in to the game (Muspelheim is a decent size IMO), but OP has no idea what he's actually wishing for, or is completely blinded by nostalgia for...I don't even know, the worst maps Starcraft has ever seen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
