|
On July 25 2015 15:10 Cascade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 25 2015 07:53 GoSuNamhciR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 07:50 BisuDagger wrote:
Cheese is too strong because you are used to an outdated way of thinking. LoTV will require you to retrain your early game. Eventually it will all be worked out. Also, blizzard is balancing around this economy. So they will nerf or buff whatever it takes. Bottom line, this is beta so sometimes your stuck with a bad situation for a while. Blame balance not the economy. I disagree. Strength of the cheese hasn't changed.. it's the fact you cannot scout it. This is due to accelerated early game. Blizzard said in HOTS, they wanted to get away from BO wins in WOL due to poor scouting for the 3 races. They buffed reaper scouting role while nerfing its damage role, buffed overlord speed, and gave sentries Hallucination for free and speed buffed the mothership core which used to be defensive only. These all made scouting much more reliable, however in this game you can lose to a BO win simply due to the fact you cannot scout fast enough unless you send one of your very starting workers. I don't understand... You say - "you cannot scout fast enough unless you send one of your very starting workers" and - "Workers decreased from 12 to 9 - This would allow scouting to have its proper use again, we are currently back to WOL scouting where BO wins were rampant." Do you mean that we need 9 workers so that we can scout before we get 12 workers? Why don't you actually scout with one of your first workers at the 12-worker start as you say then? At 0:00 you send an scv? If you want to start with fewer workers so that you can scout at a lower worker count, wouldn't the first thing to try in live lotv be to scout at 0:00? Also this: On July 25 2015 07:50 BisuDagger wrote:
Cheese is too strong because you are used to an outdated way of thinking. LoTV will require you to retrain your early game. Eventually it will all be worked out. Also, blizzard is balancing around this economy. So they will nerf or buff whatever it takes. Bottom line, this is beta so sometimes your stuck with a bad situation for a while. Blame balance not the economy. The beta is always cheesy. It takes like half a year after relase at the very least to for the early game option to settle (through player build development, maps and patches) in a place where cheeses are viable but not overpowered. And third, I'd love random to get a little buff. Surely you are not going to claim that random is OP?  Still very much doubt we will see randoms in major tournaments though. + Show Spoiler +Fourth: I do like the idea of shifting resources between gases, so that one holds more than the other. It'd push people to expand even more when the first runs out (not sure that is needed, but well...) and it'd make old bases retain some value for longer, allowing more spots with scvs/refineries to be harassed, spreading turtlers even thinner.
I don't know if BisuDagger will, but I'll certainly claim random is OP. Literally, mathematically, at the start of a game between two equally-skilled players, one player's chances are better than the other's if he knows his opponent's race while his opponent doesn't know his. The advantage isn't always small, either – it gets a little ridiculous when, say, a Protoss is going to have an oracle in my mineral line by 5:00 and I didn't even know he was Protoss for half that time. Usually people argue that the random advantage is offset by the disadvantage of having to learn 9 matchups – but usually you don't even really have to learn most of those matchups, at least for the early game, because random advantage saves you from any race-specific cheese so you don't really have to learn some complicated build order to stay alive. Not to mention it seems like most random players just learn some pretty simple cheese for most matchups, so it doesn't really wind up being that much work.
I couldn't tell you why there aren't any randoms in tournaments. I would suspect it has something to do with tournament rules, e.g. tournaments requiring that your opponent know your race. Otherwise there's plenty of players with good enough off-races that it would easily be worth it to have the opponent not know their race.
|
This thread is really funny. Like every third post is someone noting that you can just scout right away and be completely fine, while the rest of the "scouting is impossible" guys are blatantly ignoring it.
|
More options for the players and more different kinds of games for the spectators.
I think there are better ways to accomplish diversity though. But I can undersand how cheese/all-ins feels like a neccesity when the only alternative is to play a specific macrostyle.
What I would like to see is a much more varied forms of macroplaystyles where you can opt to play mobile, immobile, microbased, multitaskbased and mix in all different types of compositions. I would like to see that for each race and if that's accomplished along with early aggression tools (60-40 not 90-10), I don't think anyone would complain about all-ins being much weaker.
|
On July 26 2015 18:44 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +More options for the players and more different kinds of games for the spectators. I think there are better ways to accomplish diversity though. But I can undersand how cheese/all-ins feels like a neccesity when the only alternative is to play a specific macrostyle. What I would like to see is a much more varied forms of macroplaystyles where you can opt to play mobile, immobile, microbased, multitaskbased and mix in all different types of compositions. I would like to see that for each race and if that's accomplished along with early aggression tools (60-40 not 90-10), I don't think anyone would complain about all-ins being much weaker.
Who said cheese is necessary? It's just a nice spice added to the game.
Anyway, everyone wants diversity in macro styles, but I don't see why that would require all ins to be removed. I mean, shouldn't the aim be to allow everything between 90-10 to 50-50 as viable openers, AND have a diverse late game?
|
On July 26 2015 18:14 opisska wrote:
This thread is really funny. Like every third post is someone noting that you can just scout right away and be completely fine, while the rest of the "scouting is impossible" guys are blatantly ignoring it.
Scouting right away is only fast enuf on 2 player maps or if u get lucky on a 4 player map. This is my only complaint about the game so far, I actually love the mid and late game balance between the races.. I think its a lot of fun, and no stale units like ravens and swarm hosts from HOTS. Scouting is the only problem I have on this game, sure if they want to make small-medium maps only then its fine, but once you get into large maps it becomes a problem, a very serious problem imo.
|
9 workers could still get the game off to a fast start without offsetting early game pace. If we started with 150 minerals instead of 50, players could be off to just as fast of a start as now in LotV.. but they'd have a choice of what to do right away, and it wouldn't negatively affect early game builds.
|
On July 26 2015 18:14 opisska wrote:
This thread is really funny. Like every third post is someone noting that you can just scout right away and be completely fine, while the rest of the "scouting is impossible" guys are blatantly ignoring it.
4 player map scouting is just pure luck even with earliest possible scout. 2 player map scouting is maybe okay
|
Cheeses are a lot easier to stop in LotV than HotS from my own experience. The faster and better economy allows you to get natural base up a lot quicker which allows you to have more units when your opponent attacks.
Scout, don't be greedy and you will be fine.
|
Solution: Scout earlier on certain maps, or scout the proxy location specifically. You are at 12 workers. A 30 second scout = ~ 1:50 min scout HOTS?. Not sure the exact time but it's not really that early. Against random I send out 0:00 scout on many maps, i.e. ruins of seras. I am Zerg not Terran but even so
|
On July 26 2015 20:01 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2015 18:44 Hider wrote:More options for the players and more different kinds of games for the spectators. I think there are better ways to accomplish diversity though. But I can undersand how cheese/all-ins feels like a neccesity when the only alternative is to play a specific macrostyle. What I would like to see is a much more varied forms of macroplaystyles where you can opt to play mobile, immobile, microbased, multitaskbased and mix in all different types of compositions. I would like to see that for each race and if that's accomplished along with early aggression tools (60-40 not 90-10), I don't think anyone would complain about all-ins being much weaker. Who said cheese is necessary? It's just a nice spice added to the game. Anyway, everyone wants diversity in macro styles, but I don't see why that would require all ins to be removed. I mean, shouldn't the aim be to allow everything between 90-10 to 50-50 as viable openers, AND have a diverse late game?
As I wrote before cheese and allins significantly increases the learning barrier when playing Starcraft. I think its much more important that you focus the game arund controlling units rather than studying builds.
For more experienced players, cheese is still less fun than playing an actual macrogame. If the only reason people cheese/do all-ins is to do something new/different, then this need will be filled more diversity in macroopenings.
Therefore if its removed, the playing experience for new and more experienced players will improve.
|
I don't quite understand how you wanna remove allins tbh.
As long as you don't touch the absolute basic concept of starcraft i don't see how "removing allins" is possible at all.
You will always be able to abuse certain units if you decide to max army instead of tech/economy.
Sure, you could add a massive "defenders advantage" like mobas do, but then you don't play starcraft anymore, this is something completely different at this point.
|
On July 28 2015 22:13 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2015 20:01 Cascade wrote:On July 26 2015 18:44 Hider wrote:More options for the players and more different kinds of games for the spectators. I think there are better ways to accomplish diversity though. But I can undersand how cheese/all-ins feels like a neccesity when the only alternative is to play a specific macrostyle. What I would like to see is a much more varied forms of macroplaystyles where you can opt to play mobile, immobile, microbased, multitaskbased and mix in all different types of compositions. I would like to see that for each race and if that's accomplished along with early aggression tools (60-40 not 90-10), I don't think anyone would complain about all-ins being much weaker. Who said cheese is necessary? It's just a nice spice added to the game. Anyway, everyone wants diversity in macro styles, but I don't see why that would require all ins to be removed. I mean, shouldn't the aim be to allow everything between 90-10 to 50-50 as viable openers, AND have a diverse late game? As I wrote before cheese and allins significantly increases the learning barrier when playing Starcraft. I think its much more important that you focus the game arund controlling units rather than studying builds. For more experienced players, cheese is still less fun than playing an actual macrogame. If the only reason people cheese/do all-ins is to do something new/different, then this need will be filled more diversity in macroopenings. Therefore if its removed, the playing experience for new and more experienced players will improve.
Sorry, don't agree with the first point.
- Cheese allows new players to win games easier. If every game had to go to three base macro, it'll be a lot harder to get into for new players. When playing with my friends, and we get run over in three macro games by better players, it is nice to be able to decide to go for a cheese or all in. Having no choice but to continue to play macro games would definitely discourage us.
Regarding cheese is less fun for experienced players. Is that really true? For some it'll be true (hello idra), but I get the impression others like their cheese. I would guess that only macro games would be boring for most except the most hard core anti cheese players, but it would be interesting to hear more opinions on that. I think I can guess where you stand on the matter.
Anyway, you still speak about diverse macro games as if they are mutually exclusive with cheese, which frankly makes no sense for me. Why can't we have both?
|
On July 26 2015 06:47 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2015 01:24 [PkF] Wire wrote:On July 25 2015 08:15 GoSuNamhciR wrote:
Also of note, Random is insanely powerful in LOTV. Much more than it used to be due to the acceleration of game, Balloon will be pleased. One day, random will display the race on which the dice rolled (for instance : random - zerg instead of just random). And that day will be such a blissful day. Atm random just enjoys an unfair advantage. random will always have an advantage if you treat random as the possibility of 3 races instead of random. And the "random" players that don't announce their race if asked and only play rushes would just play the strongest known do or die strat if random advantage doesn't work anymore. Which would most likely be even more annoying.
If random was anything near OP, pros would play random, but they don't (ok TLO & Gumiho tried some years ago ...).
Practicing 9 matchups instead of 3 is hard.
|
To me, cheese is too strong mainly due to new units and ability, and a little bit to the half mineral patch change, which force you to expand unsafely.
|
Why not just send 1 worker instandly?
|
On July 29 2015 04:29 Chilling5pr33 wrote:
Why not just send 1 worker instandly?
Yeah, everyone (including me) keep posting this.
Apparently it is not early enough on 4 player maps he said.
But I don't see how lower number of workers at start would solve the problem that you sometimes scout wrong way when you don't know where your opponent spawns. I get the impression that the OP is actually annoyed 4 player maps with random spawns? I am still struggling to make any sense of the fundamental point in this thread. :/
|
On July 28 2015 22:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I don't quite understand how you wanna remove allins tbh.
As long as you don't touch the absolute basic concept of starcraft i don't see how "removing allins" is possible at all.
You will always be able to abuse certain units if you decide to max army instead of tech/economy.
Sure, you could add a massive "defenders advantage" like mobas do, but then you don't play starcraft anymore, this is something completely different at this point.
Go back to page2, where I in two different posts stated that I don't suggest to remove it from Sc2, but I am talking about the future of the RTS genre. For LOTV I would just suggest multiple small-scale (band-aid) fixes.
Cheese allows new players to win games easier. If every game had to go to three base macro, it'll be a lot harder to get into for new players
And it also allows them to lose the gamer faster. Player1 win and get some type of satisfication, and player2 losses and gets less satisfaction. Your argument doesn't imply that the utility of winning outweights the dissatisfaction of losing to cheese.
However, as someone who was new to Starcraft once, I think I can understand what you mean though. You probably want to it to be possible for new players to do easy-to-execute builds. I remember doing a 1base all in every game for the first 30-50 Sc2 games too.
But that doesn't imply that cheeses/all-ins is the only (or best) solution. Instead, I think that both the mechanical and knowledge barrier must be reduced in the future, Other RTS games have actually reduced the mechanical learning barrier, but at the same time the unit control in those games just suck.
The point is that if its easier to macro, manage control groups/hotkeys etc., then even new players will feel like they can play a macrogame without being overwhelmed at the same time.
Instead, the focus should be on what type of gameplay creates a fun experience for both experienced and new players. Is it (a) Build order losses or games or (b) a game where unit control and strategy (not short-term tactics) determine the winner?
I have previously mentioned that I actually can have some sort of satisfaction/fun if I lose in a actionpacked macro game (though obviously I prefer winning), but losing to cheese is on the other hand a ton more frustrating.
If you remember Starbow, they actually had a pretty decent playerbase around 1-2 months ago with up to 300 players having played the game in the last week and over 1500 games played on a weekly basis. That's enough for your average diamond players to consistently find a game within 2 minutes.
So there had to be some type of core "flaw" with the game for why players stopped playing it, and on the forum, new players were asked to give their feedback.
You can read some of the feedback yourself(http://starbowmod.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4), but what I take away is that alot of posters said the learning curve was too unforgiving. I think this is a prime example because while BW/Starbow is branded to be more back-and-fourth the early game is even more build-order tight than in Sc2.
Below are some examples of feedback:
Some other feedback from others is that while games do usually not end in a big battle it can be very unforgiving in the begining stages of the game. If I play tvp and I dont play "correctly" I just die to dragoons with range, if I play tvz and get surprised by mutalisks without turrets the chances are great my marines will just get picked off and if you fall behind against mutas there is no coming back, you are dead. There was a similar example earlier made with lurkers in pvz made earlier.
Thirdly, there is too much information needed to start playing. Game is unforgiving and small mistake at the beginning can make you lose. You need to know build orders, key bindings, timings, potential threats, etc. It stops both sc2 veterans (as they need to learn everything from scratch) as well as newcomers (as they can always play hots or hearthstone and have game with similar depth yet with little to no complexity compared to starbow).
I think one of the things that keeps newer people away is that learning even the current meta takes so much time and effort. When I was learning something like ZvT I would lose to the first normal timing attack Terran has. I learn how to get through that part, then the next attack kills me. I learn how to deal with that and the next attack kills me because I wasn't able to tech fast enough or do enough damage with my mutas. The meta is so intricate and filled with so many timing windows that can outright kill you that it's pretty unforgiving for newer players. But knowing the meta alone isn't enough, you have to be able to execute each part of the meta with sufficient skill to be able to move on to the next. I've never gotten to late game ZvT and maybe one late game ZvP because either I or the other player falters in one of the earlier timing windows which ends the game. IMO the late game is where players will have the most fun as they are more free to do different tactics with a wider array of units at their disposal.
So why aren't many people in TL saying that they dislike learning new builds/cheese/all-ins?? It's because they are not in the target group of having quit-the game and considering coming back. They already play HOTS, they already know builds and they are prepared to take a few beating in adapting to LOTV.
However, if you already quit the game and think about playing LOTV once again, the learning costs are much more real.
Right now LOTV is looking like a great game for the guy who already plays HOTS and is interested/willing to learn new stuff , but that's about it.
|
Cheese is an important part of this game. Why? Because its fun. People LIKE it.
There are dedicated streamers and youtube channels were all they do is cheese or watch others cheese and commentate. Why? Because its fun.
People love them some cheese. They like to see somebody "break" the game with unconventional strategies like cannon rushes. There are people who want the game to be all about that.
My opinion is that cheese should be preserved and kept in the game, but it should be made so, that you only lose against it if you dont know how it works. Pro players should not be losing to cheese because they know how to deal with it. Still, it should not be removed because its damn fun for the casual players.
|
Cheese is an important part of this game. Why? Because its fun. People LIKE it.
There are dedicated streamers and youtube channels were all they do is cheese or watch others cheese and commentate. Why? Because its fun.
People love them some cheese. They like to see somebody "break" the game with unconventional strategies like cannon rushes. There are people who want the game to be all about that.
Data/numbers/sources? Are you also implying that fun = fun to watch? Instead of fun = fun to play? (which is what really matters).
Are you also taking into account whether its just fun to watch becasue diversity is increased?
My opinion is that cheese should be preserved and kept in the game, but it should be made so, that you only lose against it if you dont know how it works.
Do you mean if you don't scout it? Because otherwise you would never see it in higher level of play.
Anyway, the main issue isn't that players shouldn't be allowed to do wacky/weird stuff that takes the opponent by surprise. But rather the issue is when it creates a dynamic where if you make a small mistake --> You instadie.
Cheese as in "I might get a 60-40" advantage because he isn't expecting this --> It's absolutely fine.
|
On July 29 2015 19:30 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Cheese is an important part of this game. Why? Because its fun. People LIKE it.
There are dedicated streamers and youtube channels were all they do is cheese or watch others cheese and commentate. Why? Because its fun. This isn't how you make an analysis or analyze data. Show nested quote +People love them some cheese. They like to see somebody "break" the game with unconventional strategies like cannon rushes. There are people who want the game to be all about that. Data/numbers/sources? And you don't even seperate between playing and watching.
Of course this is how you analyse this situation. We are talking about entertainment and whether certain aspects of entertainment should stay or not. The only reason why something should be removed is because there is nobody who is entertained.
Sources? Just look for the LagTV guys with their When Cheese Fails / Will Cheese Fail series. Or the stramer Ketroc who goes mass Raven all the time. Or Cheese only tournaments (with prize money!), etc etc.
There is obviously some subset of the SC2 community who enjoys cheese and thus it better stay in the game or we turn more people away from the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
