|
On July 23 2015 06:09 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote:
"Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what? It was badly worded, let me rephrase. Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same.
Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake.
So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion.
Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
|
"It's difficult to list builds gained because knowing what works/doesn't at a high level and years down the line is pretty impossible. It's safe to say that it's a net loss though but more on that in the rethread."
?_?
Seems in the first sentence you say it's difficult to know what is gained. Yet in the second sentence you say it's safe to know it's a net loss.
|
On July 23 2015 06:37 mishimaBeef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 06:09 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote:
"Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what? It was badly worded, let me rephrase. Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same. Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake. So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion. Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
Your example is massively misplaced because the game isn't about making a person more able to practice mid/lategame engagements. The design team is throwing away a good identity for the game for an untested image.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/184790-bw-sc2-game-length-comparison
I can only imagine with LOTV that time is even shorter, they're compressing interesting points of aggression into a much smaller frame of time, LOTV will either go two ways, the game time will be very short or the gametime will be much longer because advantages are much more pronounced in the lead up to 200/200 than at that point meaning two equal skilled players will struggle to finish the game.
The key point about the link is the variation in game length I really don't think that LOTV will promote that variation.
|
The point I'm making is that it's better to get right into the action instead of having to build up for 10 minutes and then find out you lose because of your first relevant mistake.
Example: Long ago, when I was a courageous patron of iccup, I was playing a PvT. Oh turns out 8-10 minutes into the game that I just lose because I forgot zealot leg speed upgrade... Well gee, why couldn't I have been interacting at the 5-6 minute mark with my zealots vs his mech instead? That way I save 3-4 minutes or so due to my mistake. And how will I remember to get zealot leg speed? Repetition, and mistakes are more memorable.
|
On July 23 2015 06:41 mishimaBeef wrote:
"It's difficult to list builds gained because knowing what works/doesn't at a high level and years down the line is pretty impossible. It's safe to say that it's a net loss though but more on that in the rethread."
?_?
Seems in the first sentence you say it's difficult to know what is gained. Yet in the second sentence you say it's safe to know it's a net loss.
Because effective builds and potential builds are different things. It's impossible to know the amount of effective builds at this stage because the top level players haven't played around with it much so something that I can't defend might be very easy for a top level Korean, a good example would be 10 pool banes a lot of Koreans have defending 10 pool banes from a 15 hatch 15 pool position whereas a EU masters player would still struggle to defend effectively.
Now potential builds is easier to measure, lets assuming for number on the supply count a potential option presents itself. With 6 workers I have 6 pool 7 pool 8 pool 9 pool ect, with 12 workers I have 6 less potential pool timings so therefore it's probable that I have more builds. No whether all those builds are effective or not is debatable (I will be looking into it from a ZvZ perspective since that has the most earlygame variety of any matchup) but I feel that it's a safe bet that there's a net loss.
|
On July 23 2015 06:53 mishimaBeef wrote:
The point I'm making is that it's better to get right into the action instead of having to build up for 10 minutes and then find out you lose because of your first relevant mistake.
Example: Long ago, when I was a courageous patron of iccup, I was playing a PvT. Oh turns out 8-10 minutes into the game that I just lose because I forgot zealot leg speed upgrade... Well gee, why couldn't I have been interacting at the 5-6 minute mark with my zealots vs his mech instead? That way I save 3-4 minutes or so due to my mistake. And how will I remember to get zealot leg speed? Repetition, and mistakes are more memorable.
Ladder isn't a practice chamber mistakes happen times shouldn't be compressed because if you make a mistake it's less time "wasted" secondly I could argue that the length in gametime decreases the "frustration" of losing because of a mistake and could actually make you more complacent about fixing that mistake, I've not forgotten adrenal glands ever since I had a 45 minute game that reverted back to the stone age and I lost because my lings couldn't deal enough damage to the remaining stalkers/zealots.
|
Another point is that though 2x5 = 1x10, 2x5 means I was able to use 2 strategies, instead of 1. Diversity!
|
I've been playing SC for 15~ years and I like 12 workers. It's different for sure, but not in a bad way.
|
On July 21 2015 18:25 jekku wrote:
The game feels VERY different with 12 workers. Everything seems so rushed (that with all the new units added harassment potential). I'm a bit of a traditionalist, I like having 6 workers and seeing the game develop like a fine work of art. However, I think we need to give it a bit more time to see how it works. I really would prefer a scale back to maybe 10 or 8 to see how it works.
I'm a traditionalist myself. Bring back the Dune II zero starting workers design 
|
I've had enough of cheese in the ladder. Time to cut down people laddering to masters with cannon or bunker rush.
|
I really hope they at least scale this down. WoL and HOTS had early/mid/late game. Now it feels like just mid/late game. I for one enjoy the 3 phases of each game.
|
after playing some 70 games or so im kinda used to it.. the only thing that i don't like is missing the 13 supply bec money comes too fast.. like you have to be super focused on the start of the game so u wont miss your build orders
|
On July 23 2015 06:58 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 06:41 mishimaBeef wrote:
"It's difficult to list builds gained because knowing what works/doesn't at a high level and years down the line is pretty impossible. It's safe to say that it's a net loss though but more on that in the rethread."
?_?
Seems in the first sentence you say it's difficult to know what is gained. Yet in the second sentence you say it's safe to know it's a net loss. Because effective builds and potential builds are different things. It's impossible to know the amount of effective builds at this stage because the top level players haven't played around with it much so something that I can't defend might be very easy for a top level Korean, a good example would be 10 pool banes a lot of Koreans have defending 10 pool banes from a 15 hatch 15 pool position whereas a EU masters player would still struggle to defend effectively. Now potential builds is easier to measure, lets assuming for number on the supply count a potential option presents itself. With 6 workers I have 6 pool 7 pool 8 pool 9 pool ect, with 12 workers I have 6 less potential pool timings so therefore it's probable that I have more builds. No whether all those builds are effective or not is debatable (I will be looking into it from a ZvZ perspective since that has the most earlygame variety of any matchup) but I feel that it's a safe bet that there's a net loss.
As a Z, we're losing 0 builds that I personally have used more than 5 times (macroplayer) and while it's cool to see koreans barely holding something an EU master would almost always die to in 1 of the 9 matchups divided by the minority that constitutes these sorts of games it's not a net loss for players nor spectators. Is it easier to attack when baneling all in'ing than to defend with hatch first, and is it a cointoss for both players when it comes to selecting the best build in hots zvz? It is. The less coinflippy stuff in the early game, the better imho. It gives the better player more room to shine. This is not hearthstone.
edit:
I would like to see a slight buff to unupgraded overlord speed personally as 4 player maps now introduce more randomness than in hots when it comes to scouting.
On July 23 2015 07:04 Ovid wrote:
Ladder isn't a practice chamber mistakes happen times shouldn't be compressed because if you make a mistake it's less time "wasted"
This is not the main reason it's being changed, it's just a nice side effect alongside other nice side effects.
On July 23 2015 07:04 Ovid wrote:
secondly I could argue that the length in gametime decreases the "frustration" of losing because of a mistake and could actually make you more complacent about fixing that mistake, I've not forgotten adrenal glands ever since I had a 45 minute game that reverted back to the stone age and I lost because my lings couldn't deal enough damage to the remaining stalkers/zealots.
To turn your 1st argument around, time shouldn't be inflated to increase the frustration of making mistakes.
You could argue that, but it's not a good argument.
|
W/ 12 worker start, Bliz trying to make new strategies/timings to cover up that their new units haven't significantly changed or improved the game!
!!!
Just like the weird new maps. Bliz try to make new strategies to hide fact that new units are rather coying if not detrimental to the 'experience' of SC2
|
On July 23 2015 13:59 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
W/ 12 worker start, Bliz trying to make new strategies/timings to cover up that their new units haven't significantly changed or improved the game!
!!!
Just like the weird new maps. Bliz try to make new strategies to hide fact that new units are rather coying if not detrimental to the 'experience' of SC2
Also, the 12-worker-start is a hidden buff for all late-game tier-3 units. We're probably gonna see them more often then ever before since it takes shorter time to get to the traditional "late-game".
|
On July 23 2015 14:42 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 13:59 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
W/ 12 worker start, Bliz trying to make new strategies/timings to cover up that their new units haven't significantly changed or improved the game!
!!!
Just like the weird new maps. Bliz try to make new strategies to hide fact that new units are rather coying if not detrimental to the 'experience' of SC2 Also, the 12-worker-start is a hidden buff for all late-game tier-3 units. We're probably gonna see them more often then ever before since it takes shorter time to get to the traditional "late-game".
yes. been playing some games. and been seeing battlecruisers and carriers which is a good thing.
|
On July 23 2015 15:25 shin_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 14:42 TedCruz2016 wrote:On July 23 2015 13:59 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
W/ 12 worker start, Bliz trying to make new strategies/timings to cover up that their new units haven't significantly changed or improved the game!
!!!
Just like the weird new maps. Bliz try to make new strategies to hide fact that new units are rather coying if not detrimental to the 'experience' of SC2 Also, the 12-worker-start is a hidden buff for all late-game tier-3 units. We're probably gonna see them more often then ever before since it takes shorter time to get to the traditional "late-game". yes. been playing some games. and been seeing battlecruisers and carriers which is a good thing.
It's a good thing because it's rare to see them in Hots, it's not a good thing because it's all too common in Lotv. The thing you want is a large breadth of games, you want the short cheesy ones you want the epic battles where all the bases get mined out and you want everything in-between. 12 Workers doesn't encourage that (Sure it's not the only thing impacting this but it's a major proponent)
|
On July 23 2015 10:19 flipstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 06:58 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 06:41 mishimaBeef wrote:
"It's difficult to list builds gained because knowing what works/doesn't at a high level and years down the line is pretty impossible. It's safe to say that it's a net loss though but more on that in the rethread."
?_?
Seems in the first sentence you say it's difficult to know what is gained. Yet in the second sentence you say it's safe to know it's a net loss. Because effective builds and potential builds are different things. It's impossible to know the amount of effective builds at this stage because the top level players haven't played around with it much so something that I can't defend might be very easy for a top level Korean, a good example would be 10 pool banes a lot of Koreans have defending 10 pool banes from a 15 hatch 15 pool position whereas a EU masters player would still struggle to defend effectively. Now potential builds is easier to measure, lets assuming for number on the supply count a potential option presents itself. With 6 workers I have 6 pool 7 pool 8 pool 9 pool ect, with 12 workers I have 6 less potential pool timings so therefore it's probable that I have more builds. No whether all those builds are effective or not is debatable (I will be looking into it from a ZvZ perspective since that has the most earlygame variety of any matchup) but I feel that it's a safe bet that there's a net loss. As a Z, we're losing 0 builds that I personally have used more than 5 times (macroplayer) and while it's cool to see koreans barely holding something an EU master would almost always die to in 1 of the 9 matchups divided by the minority that constitutes these sorts of games it's not a net loss for players nor spectators. Is it easier to attack when baneling all in'ing than to defend with hatch first, and is it a cointoss for both players when it comes to selecting the best build in hots zvz? It is. The less coinflippy stuff in the early game, the better imho. It gives the better player more room to shine. This is not hearthstone. edit: I would like to see a slight buff to unupgraded overlord speed personally as 4 player maps now introduce more randomness than in hots when it comes to scouting. Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 07:04 Ovid wrote:
Ladder isn't a practice chamber mistakes happen times shouldn't be compressed because if you make a mistake it's less time "wasted" This is not the main reason it's being changed, it's just a nice side effect alongside other nice side effects. Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 07:04 Ovid wrote:
secondly I could argue that the length in gametime decreases the "frustration" of losing because of a mistake and could actually make you more complacent about fixing that mistake, I've not forgotten adrenal glands ever since I had a 45 minute game that reverted back to the stone age and I lost because my lings couldn't deal enough damage to the remaining stalkers/zealots. To turn your 1st argument around, time shouldn't be inflated to increase the frustration of making mistakes. You could argue that, but it's not a good argument.
ZvZ is in a very good place, it's not a coinflip matchup everysingle earlygame build has a preset method of dealing with it with 15 hatch and a reasonably timed pool. This just gives people flexibility, if Byul knows that Curious likes going 15 hatch 17 gas 16 pool he could go for the safer 9 pool and take the advantage or he could go 9/10 pool banes and try for the win. What has your personal usage got to do with anything, I listed builds that you will see in the pro-scene ever so often and lastly your first point contradicts the last one, when that player going 15 hatch defends something that most masters players would flat out die to it's cool to see, it's cant at the same time not highlight the differential of skill?
As I said, assuming that each number on the supply count is a potential option. With 6 workers I have 6 pool 7 pool 8 pool 9 pool ect, with 12 workers I have 6 less potential pool timings so therefore it's probable that 6 workers leads to more builds.
You haven't given a reason why it's not a net loss because all you've compared Hots to is Hots, and your assertions on that in my opinion are wrong.
I'm not going to bother going down the endless route of arguments and counter arguments over emotions based playing with this game since it will lead to nothing productive.
|
First people will make drones until they place a hatch - this will be the econ opener.
Then people will make 0 drones and go aggro - this will be the aggro opener.
Then the middle ground will be created.
|
On July 23 2015 19:39 Ovid wrote:
ZvZ is in a very good place, it's not a coinflip matchup everysingle earlygame build has a preset method of dealing with it with 15 hatch and a reasonably timed pool. This just gives people flexibility, if Byul knows that Curious likes going 15 hatch 17 gas 16 pool he could go for the safer 9 pool and take the advantage or he could go 9/10 pool banes and try for the win.
Seems like you agree that it's a guessing game, and at pro level it's a guessing game with a statistical background. Good.
On July 23 2015 19:39 Ovid wrote:
What has your personal usage got to do with anything, I listed builds that you will see in the pro-scene ever so often and lastly your first point contradicts the last one, when that player going 15 hatch defends something that most masters players would flat out die to it's cool to see, it's cant at the same time not highlight the differential of skill?
I like to play solid (macrostyle), and on ladder I have 0 info on my opponent. Where's a majority of games played? Ladder. I don't consider early pools solid play, do you consider it solid play with 0 information? Nevermind that I have a personal opinion, objectively, is it solid? Yes \ no.
I don't understand why you would say it's contradictory when I'm being a grownup and acknowledging that seeing someone hold what for most is a buildorderloss is cool & skillful, but in terms of the # of games where that actually happens it's not a big loss compared to the benefits reaped. It's 1 of 9 matchups, and if you divide it further where having 6 workers makes for a more interesting ZvZ than 12 would, it's extremely limited. Let me know if i need to re-word it again.
On July 23 2015 19:39 Ovid wrote:
You haven't given a reason why it's not a net loss because all you've compared Hots to is Hots, and your assertions on that in my opinion are wrong.
Of course I'm discussing mainly what we're losing from hots, it's a figured out game in terms of what you are advocating to keep and we know what we're losing. LOTV is in beta and will change, and if you think we can predict what the game will look like in terms of early game already, before the real pros have started practicing and preparing, before all changes to the game are said and done, you're being silly.
The trade off is worth it, and many seem to agree. I don't mind losing any of the builds you have mentioned for a faster game, most are rarely seen (for good reason) and for the Z builds it's only slight variations of the same "I hope you're not (hopefully blindly) prepared" mantra.
Do you think there will be more or less build order wins in LOTV compared to hots? Apart from the overlord scouting, I'm inclined to say less. I consider that a good thing, do you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
