|
My history (tldr, skip to last section)
This is a writeup from me, NamhciR, regarding the economy and cheese in LOTV. I played back in Wings semi-competitively and enjoyed relative success with my off-color play, which was considered very cheesy and timing based.. my mechanics have always been bad compared to the next high level player.. but I feel I was always smarter and had better builds and understanding of the game from a mindset POV.
Anyways, HOTS was a death-knell for me as it was very mechanic intensive and just killed me.. I went from routinely finishing top 16 GM in WOL, to finishing in the middle 100 routinely, they had finally made the mechanical skill more important. I didn't enjoy HOTS as much and majorily played as an off again on again type player who would just ladder and not partake in tournaments, like I did in WOL.
LOTV:
Now we come to Legacy of the Void. This expansion has brought a change to the economy which lowers the amount of minerals and gas in each base and boosts starting workers to 12 from 6. Bases mine out faster because we are mining at a higher volume and have less resources to mine. This creates 2 fundamental changes in gameplay.
1) Cheesy build order win type builds are now even better. A lot of times if you scout at ~ 0:30, you have scouted too late and just lose. For example, playing TOP I did a triple proxy rax reaper build, he did a single rax scout after building the depot into an expansion. By the time he got to my base I already had 2 raxes finished and pumping reapers. He scouted at roughly :30 and already lost to a build order win. He is clearly a better player than me, I have no illusions of this. But the cheese comes way too fast, and on big maps is even better because they will never scout you before it comes unless sending a worker insanely early.
2) We now have to expand faster or lose the game if we cannot inflict game deciding damage with a cheese. As I just stated, we now have cheesy all in 1-2 base play getting stronger, and now we have to expand and hold more bases at the same time. This would be fine, except for the fact that defender's advantage has gotten weaker in the early game as it takes time to set up defenses like Mamacore energy, map presence with overlords, creep spread. All of these defender's advantages from these 2 races did not get sped up much with the new economy, terran has been relatively unharmed in this area but they were hit with a pretty huge bio nerf that I feel has kept their early game in a little bit of check. It is pretty easy to hide a 2 base timing against zerg (as a terran) and whack them right when their 3rd is finishing or becoming a net gain in income.
If econ stays the same:
I feel we need more high ground advantage.. maybe a -50% damage flat nerf for units on lower ground shooting up, and allow them to shoot up without vision like in BW when being attacked. Right now there is very little way to hold some attacks if you can't scout their base. A lot of the maps have double bases in 1, makes it even harder to properly scout while everything is coming 3 minutes faster.
How I think economy SHOULD change:
* 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.
* Total base resources increased back to HOTS levels, but still emphasize expansion. This would be done by making 4/8 Mineral Nodes have 140% Mineral count, while the other 4 have 60%. 1 Gas Geyser would be at 140% and one would be at 60%. - This would emphasize expanding and holding bases for longer. This means retaining map presence for longer at each base but you will still have the same total resources in the long run, This will also cut down on 3 base deathball without actually having to overnerf units (*cough* Colossus *cough*).
tldr
If you are curious, I am currently sitting at rank 12 GM on the LOTV beta as I am posting this with a near 4-1 win ratio. What am I doing every game you ask? 1-2 base all-inning as terran. Economy is way too fast, and the cheese cannot be scouted properly in time. I have several different builds, but by the time you scout me even at the 1 minute mark if I happen to be doing X build instead of Y, you probably lost if not preparing for it.
This isn't meant to be a balance whine that X race is better than Y due to economy, but more a discussion of how the current economy is naturally flawed and will spark more BO wins than we saw in the early games of WOL. If econ stays, I expect this to stay around even after the game is figured out.
|
so... all those people chanting 'cheeze is ded' were wrong?
|
On July 25 2015 06:12 mishimaBeef wrote:
so... all those people chanting 'cheeze is ded' were wrong?
All of the old cheese is dead, but it has been replaced with newer builds. If you are go into TvZ and try to 2 rax, you are going to have a bad time. But there are some liberator timings, and other timings that are really ridiculous now. Also TvP proxy rax is better than it ever was, even with the addition of the adept. Zerg has a lot of tools now with the ultra fast drop speedlings and ultra fast baneling bust that are two different defenses to hold, but the same result. All-ins aren't stronger in terms of actual strength, its the fact that they are harder to scout due to quickness. It's a lot harder to hold a cheese when you have no idea how strong a push that is coming for you is until its too late.
Kind of like scouting a roach push in tvz in hots at midmap vs. at their expansion. If you saw it midmap, you were always dead to a good zerg.. you would take too much damage. Seeing the roaches leave their natural, you had the upper hand if you knew what you were doing. Many of the cheese builds are like scouting that roach opening at mid map now.
|
Hey, I remember you NamhciR, you sell yourself short!
Anyways, it is a very interesting read, but for the moment, it's just that. Actually, it's no different from the random theory crafting I read around here, except that you can bring your GM rank into the equation. What you need to convince people is :
- replays of you cheesing very good players
- screenshots of what an opponent sees while scouting, and how far your cheese already is
Currently, I don't mind that TOP loses because he went for an early expansion, and there needs to be something that punishes greedy play. What I am concerned is that players won't find any build at all that holds early pressure while getting an expansion reasonnably early : in WoL TvZ, you couldn't always 14 CC, the safe build was 1 tax FE. In WoL PvZ you couldn't 1 Gate FE, but in HotS you can. Perhaps in LotV the safe FE opener is just not found yet
If you can "prove" that no FE is possible (like WoL PvP) then this would be a 100% legit and working claim about the game
Edit : I realized I am only focusing on 1 base cheese.
|
This is exactly what I was trying to say recently in the discussions about economy. People are so caught up in negativity saying how strategic options were removed from early game, that they have not tried to exploit all the new timings available.
If you look at the effects the new economy has on current game design as a whole, instead of trying to compare economy type to economy type, it's easy to see that the biggest difference from hots is there are many new opportunities for early game aggression to exploit. The most obvious vulnerabilities are the expansion timings & the weaker defensive options as you are spread thinner. And as you mention here, I suspected that in the long run early game timing attacks that exploit these timings might become too powerful, rather than not powerful enough as most ppl have stated.
With that said, even though I think more aggression is a good thing, I don't think BO wins are ideal. That indicates changes went a little too far. I hope we strike a good balance where BO does not decide games, but also that games are more aggressive and less turtle-y.
|
I actually find holding off cheese in legacy way easier than in hots
|
Pretty much sums up my experience too. Early game scouting is very hard and even early scouts are often too late because you spend so muxh money before the scout arrives.
|
Send scout earlier, problem solved yey.
|
Bisutopia19385 Posts
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.
|
On July 25 2015 07:21 Spyridon wrote:
This is exactly what I was trying to say recently in the discussions about economy. People are so caught up in negativity saying how strategic options were removed from early game, that they have not tried to exploit all the new timings available.
If you look at the effects the new economy has on current game design as a whole, instead of trying to compare economy type to economy type, it's easy to see that the biggest difference from hots is there are many new opportunities for early game aggression to exploit. The most obvious vulnerabilities are the expansion timings & the weaker defensive options as you are spread thinner. And as you mention here, I suspected that in the long run early game timing attacks that exploit these timings might become too powerful, rather than not powerful enough as most ppl have stated.
With that said, even though I think more aggression is a good thing, I don't think BO wins are ideal. That indicates changes went a little too far. I hope we strike a good balance where BO does not decide games, but also that games are more aggressive and less turtle-y.
This is where I am feeling the game right now. There are too many BO wins that are punishing. I can't even imagine a 4 player map which I have them all downchecked as it is impossible to win vs. an early cheese without blind countering them if you don't scout the right direction at start of game. The problem is, after a couple hundred games I feel like the cheeses have only gotten stronger for me and have even been told I am just being blind countered now, which is funny when I do nothing and just get a free win playing normal to somebody who throws up a blind cannon at his ramp (yep, this happened vs. a GM player.. can't recall name atm).
|
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.
|
Canada13422 Posts
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'm with Richman on this one. The starting workers being at 12 is really making scouting more difficult going down to 9 or 10 might be the best way to fix the scouting issue. Slow down the early game just every so slightly.
|
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.
|
No specifics really besides 3 rax reaper beating TOP.
|
Lets see, my last 4 games with vibe are 2-2 and no game lasted more than 10 minutes, he cheesed me once I cheesed him three times. I have played nightend several times with the proxy rax and many others (If you look at top 50, I have played half of them in this ladder season and prior.. this is my conclusion after all of this time). I listed TOP because he is more well known and just way better than me if I am going to be completely honest. The fact is right now you are committing to builds so early that the scouting, in majority of cases, is insufficient to properly influence your BO decision resulting in BO wins/losses.
I am not undershooting the cheese, I am pulling 50%+ of my SCV's when I play as terran under 10 minutes quite often vs. toss and zerg, I would say 90% of my games. And it is succeeding with a high win % against players I have played multiple times, I am not saying the builds are overpowered.. just rather the information in this game is lacking to make proper adjustments.
|
is the info lacking in the game? need more specifics to verify that there is no way to get the info.
also depends how greedy you are playing...
|
OH SHIT SON RICHMAN'S BACK. miss your 11/11 into 2 port banshees rofl.
|
Bisutopia19385 Posts
Do you think it is possible blizzard could fix the scouting situation instead of worker count?
|
I noticed the same... it is easier to All In at 2 or even 1 Base and still win...
It is a lot harder to defender few things or even scout them, something like "Tempest Rush" with the new ability is almost absurd... if you wait to attack because you macro and scout, you can be dead... snowballing the damage let your enemy then expand and continue the pressure all the time...
I think the starting workers should be tonned down to 8-10 (so 9 is good)
|
Guys, I am going to have to strongly disagree here, I think scouting options have only been extremely strengthened, there is really no reason you shouldn't be able to scout something with an increased economy, there really is no working cutting / improved mechanics through effeciently mining minerals properly / macroing, its a 12 worker start that should always guarantee a nice scout, even if you have to just use a scan in an emergency scan as Terran, on a 4 player map...
That is the only case I can think where it may be difficult to scan, Terran has potential universal styles though, Reapers for scouting, tankivacs for scouting and forcing a certain composition, scans(more econ, won't really hurt to use a scan if timing is proper) Zerg is forced into a certain composition (ravengers) to defend against tankivacs, gives Terran the ability to scout, and also force a certain composition, it is better to not even open fast mutas vs Terran at this point because of Liberators.
In conclusion, I think scouting options are only increased in LOTV.
|
On July 25 2015 10:56 BisuDagger wrote:
Do you think it is possible blizzard could fix the scouting situation instead of worker count?
If this turns out to be a real problem, this is the more likely scenario imo. They want to speed up the early game obviously so they could keep that aspect and balance the units around it, rather than give up on one of the goals they have with this expansion.
|
On July 25 2015 11:22 GGzerG wrote:
Guys, I am going to have to strongly disagree here, I think scouting options have only been extremely strengthened, there is really no reason you shouldn't be able to scout something with an increased economy, there really is no working cutting / improved mechanics through effeciently mining minerals properly / macroing, its a 12 worker start that should always guarantee a nice scout, even if you have to just use a scan in an emergency scan as Terran, on a 4 player map...
That is the only case I can think where it may be difficult to scan, Terran has potential universal styles though, Reapers for scouting, tankivacs for scouting and forcing a certain composition, scans(more econ, won't really hurt to use a scan if timing is proper) Zerg is forced into a certain composition (ravengers) to defend against tankivacs, gives Terran the ability to scout, and also force a certain composition, it is better to not even open fast mutas vs Terran at this point because of Liberators.
In conclusion, I think scouting options are only increased in LOTV.
I think we need a showmatch.
Honestly I just need replays... I used to seek out Richman replays during WOL, such ridiculously dirty builds, I loved them.
|
On July 25 2015 11:22 GGzerG wrote:
Guys, I am going to have to strongly disagree here, I think scouting options have only been extremely strengthened, there is really no reason you shouldn't be able to scout something with an increased economy, there really is no working cutting / improved mechanics through effeciently mining minerals properly / macroing, its a 12 worker start that should always guarantee a nice scout, even if you have to just use a scan in an emergency scan as Terran, on a 4 player map...
That is the only case I can think where it may be difficult to scan, Terran has potential universal styles though, Reapers for scouting, tankivacs for scouting and forcing a certain composition, scans(more econ, won't really hurt to use a scan if timing is proper) Zerg is forced into a certain composition (ravengers) to defend against tankivacs, gives Terran the ability to scout, and also force a certain composition, it is better to not even open fast mutas vs Terran at this point because of Liberators.
In conclusion, I think scouting options are only increased in LOTV.
I agree that there is more options.. The argument is that it is too slow, I can literally build a supply depot at like 5 seconds, and send a scv right start of game to proxy a rax. By the time you see this, it may already be too late if you scout at a normal timing. Reaper for scouting is completely irrelevant in mirror, by the time you have 1 reaper, I have 1 with the second one popping in 7-8 seconds. Any terrans who scout with a reaper in a TvT and not an SCV early, will autolose every single game if they are being cheesed by anyone not awful.
In terms of timings and stuff that isn't extremely early, the scouting options are essentially the same as HOTS. A terran blocking his base off against toss won't be dealing with an adept in his base unless prism'd in, they didn't get a boost to scouting. All the timings have shifted forward by like 2 minutes, meaning with nearly the same tools in HOTS you now have less time to scout the all in or timing attack. I didn't get anything new as a terran, or zerg to scout with... Protoss do have a new scouting option in the adept which is definitely good for scouting against P or Z if you really have to go through with it.
In summary, I don't believe the scouting tools have been that enhanced enough from HOTS. Obviously from WOL>HOTS, scouting got much better and as such games went much longer. From my experience the exact opposite is happening from HOTS>LOTV.
Edit:
I also get what you are getting at, that in a timing world with accelerated game you have access to your scouting options faster. I do agree with with this sentiment, but the positioning of the scouting units seems to just be slower in terms of overall flow of the game, and the all ins also come so much faster on top of this.. just coming from me, as probably one of the cheesiest players alongside other guys like Ruff (who is my favorite guy in the world to play TvT against).. I feel it's too quick is all, it's too punishing and sets up for a higher amount of BO wins. I feel like against timings, protoss with adepts may have gotten the biggest buff for scouting as they are one of the higher skill cap ceilings in the game and can scout well.
|
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.
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.
|
so far i've only died to a 1 base ling/bane allin and a hatch + spine rush on bridgehead o .o
|
On July 25 2015 15:12 TT1 wrote:
so far i've only died to a 1 base ling/bane allin and a hatch + spine rush on bridgehead o .o
Argument on paper invalid.
Not enough data.
Showmatch recommended.
|
I've been saying it for years: why can't we just have improved scouting abilities for each race?
For example, other rts games often start you with a dedicated scout unit, or have early game dedicated scouts. In others, game mechanics put you in contact with the enemy really early on so you can adapt over time rather than being so blind all game. As Huk says, information through aggression (but I have less committal aggression in mind than is often possible in sc2 w/o falling way behind).
Heck, even increased vision radius would go a long ways to preventing randomness in our games. More reaction, less chance.
Or even this trifling change: just increased vision radius on the main building? That would have done damage to proxy cheese like gates, rax and cannon rushes that the tear-soaked ground could have a chance to dry a little. More than one quarter second to respond to attacks on your expansions too.
Whatever. Maybe Day9 can save RTS for us?
|
I haven't had any trouble scouting in LOTV. What's wrong with send one of your starting workers immediately for a scout? The impact is much less than if you were to do the same thing in hots. Temporarily being at 11/12ths of your opponents mining rate is not a big sacrifice to know exactly what they're doing.
|
On July 25 2015 16:16 alexanderzero wrote:
I haven't had any trouble scouting in LOTV. What's wrong with send one of your starting workers immediately for a scout? The impact is much less than if you were to do the same thing in hots. Temporarily being at 11/12ths of your opponents mining rate is not a big sacrifice to know exactly what they're doing.
I agree. In HotS, it is common to 9-11 scout at the latest, if you want to scout at all. So, in HotS, you loose MORE of your economy, even in the best case, than in Legacy where you "only" loose 1/12 of your economy by scouting as early as possible. The question would be then, does the scout come early enough to make a difference? Only hundreds of games played will answer that question, I think.
Edit: Although I can see the problem in maps with in-base naturals where the first thing a terran/protoss does is wall the ramp off. Not many ways for a zerg to scout then, since the overlord comes way too late.
|
I agree, i love LOTV because new units for mech (liberator/cyclone) and new units for Zerg (lurker/ravager) but virtually every game i play is vs someone doing a 1 or 2 base all-in. Not that they aren't holdable...but they are way too strong and way too easy to execute.
When something takes an extreme amount of effort to defend versus the extreme low amount of effort it takes to execute...something is wrong.
Just off the top of my head:
-reaper all-ins are ridiculous/unscoutable just make the game random
-tier1 overlord drop is random and makes metagame dictated entirely around this
-roach burrow move tier1 = can get freewin off this even if you suck at SC2
-adept all-ins + any protoss 1 base all-ins are amplified worse in LOTV than they are in HOTS
-mass vanilla marine from Terran off random amount of raxes can sometimes autowin
-anything related to Protoss poor design is now worse/amplified in LOTV
-2 base muta all-ins
-2 base Terran mass rax no 3rd...
Basically...there are some pretty ridiculous low skill+low effort plays in LOTV early game right now that either force you to try and "metagame" entirely around those builds which turns the game into rock paper scissors guessing game, or you autowin/autolose otherwise.
Best example i can think of is the tier1 overlord drop. You either severely prepare for this or you autolose to it. Or the mass reaper all-ins vs any race - you blind prepare for this or autolose. And of course anything Protoss is worse (by worse i mean more frustrating/infuriating to play against) in LOTV due to adepts having more health / shields than blink stalkers + more mobility at tier1 while being cheaper...
So OP has a point...there are too many really low effort cheese/all-ins in LOTV at the moment. But they are only like this because of the 12 worker start where you just choose a build and go with it regardless of what happens because there's no time to scout your opponent's build b4 it is already half way across the map.
I understand blizzard wants "more action" and no stalemate type of gameplay for SC2, which i think everyone would agree is good for the game...but stuff like burrow roach+tier1 overlord drop, tier1 adept...tier 1 super reapers...this stuff needs to go imo =/
|
It's beta... the start has always been cheesy.
People don't know what to scout for or how to react.
It should be easier and less punishing to scout at 0:00. (wasn't it also common in BW to double scout on some 4 player maps?)
|
France15952 Posts
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.
Wait, who exactly here was sending a worker to scout before 12 supply in HotS? You know, it may very well be intended that you send one of those 12 workers to scout right away. As you did in HotS. No "accelerated early game" excuse.
The only valid complain I'm hearing is from zerg players who indeed are denied the opportunity to send their overlord early.
Plus, the game is in beta and units/techs are obviously imbalanced still. Obviously people are going to cheese with them.
|
Well then just 3 Rax Expand every game. Either you hold the cheese with ease or you are able to punish greedy guys with Marhaauders.
Look at WoL Expands. Just because you can basicly get a free Natural in today's meta does not mean that it is the best or most fun thing to do. Maps will also be a very deciding Factor. Let it all sink in, and have faith and fuck 14CC.
|
These are fun times for ZvZ, 12pool proxy hatch double evo mineral block can get pretty silly.
|
On July 25 2015 19:06 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 07:53 GoSuNamhciR wrote: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. Wait, who exactly here was sending a worker to scout before 12 supply in HotS? You know, it may very well be intended that you send one of those 12 workers to scout right away. As you did in HotS. No "accelerated early game" excuse. The only valid complain I'm hearing is from zerg players who indeed are denied the opportunity to send their overlord early.
In ZvT 10scouts to ensure a 2rax scout on 2p maps and have a safe return before the reaper pops was around, in particular whenever 2rax was popular. Also PvZ, especially if you wanted to canonrush on a 4p map you'd send out your scout after the first pylon.
But I fully agree, 12scout is totally feasable. However, one important thing I want to point out is that since resources are much less scarce early it is very easy to fool your opponent you are doing something normal while he is scouting you.
For example, you have enough money to proxy your 2nd or 3rd pylon and also build a pylon in your main base. When talking about 2-3rax reaper builds, you can afford the barracks and the SCV production and get the Orbital once the first SCV finishes, when previously a 2rax reaper would be obvious from seeing a delayed OC. I think Zergs don't really need to pull out of gas either to ensure maximum drone production after getting zergling speed, which makes it harder to scout an allin because tech while droning is also possible (standard?) now. And continued gasmining is not a tell anymore.
So I think early cheese problems are a mixture of learning new timings due to the changed economy, but also a change of scouting tells (or a complete lack thereof, as in a 2-3rax reaper build with proxied raxes that looks exactly the same as a 1rax reaper expand until you realize no CC is started, at which point it is probably too late to react) and also that some newly developed allins may just be stronger than old ones were (has anyone tried something like 2rax proxy marauders TvT yet? Wouldn't that completely fuck up any form of opening that didn't open up with 2rax?)
|
On July 25 2015 10:56 BisuDagger wrote:
Do you think it is possible blizzard could fix the scouting situation instead of worker count?
The 12 worker thread shows 54% in favour of changing the worker count back lower.
Richman or anyone, can you give me a list of all the builds you think are pretty broken because of such a smaller window to scout/react I want to investigate the precise timings you have to respond and what the tells are.
|
Early game allins/cheese are definitely one of the worst aspects of Starcraft and imo has no place in the future of the RTS genre. Sc2 obviously can't get rid of them completely, but LOTV should still attempt to go in the direction of more low risk/low reward in the early game.
Below are a few examples of changes that could help with that.
- They could reveal starting locations on all maps (makes sense giving that we have 12 worker start).
- Increase speed of slow overlords (also makes sense given 12 worker start - this change could go a long with a nerf to overlord drops).
- Make it less costly to be safe vs most cheese/aggressive openings. E.g revert Ebay requirement for turrets.
- Add more countermicro opportunites to early game openings. Like Oracle shouldn't automatically beat 5 marines, but it should depend more on movingshot-based micro instead.
- Add scouting tools to macro mechanics. E.g. I wouldn't mind if Hallucation Phoenix was removed to the Nexus and costed like 60 energy so a protoss player could choose between Chrono Boost and scouting.
- Add a defenders advantage to macromechanics. E.g. terran could spend energy to give bunkers an extra shield.
So actually there are a lots of very efficient ways you can reduce the efficiency of cheese while staying with 12 workers. Also even if worker count was reduced, I would still love to see all of the above changes implemented regardless.
|
On July 25 2015 22:23 Hider wrote:
Early game allins/cheese are definitely one of the worst aspects of Starcraft and imo has no place in the future of the RTS genre.
Can't say I agree with this at all. I feel it is very important to maintain the viability of early game allins/cheese. Luckily (for me), I am pretty sure blizzard has said that they want it to be viable, but not too strong. If no risk for all-in, then why not go NR20 every game?
|
On July 25 2015 22:46 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 22:23 Hider wrote:
Early game allins/cheese are definitely one of the worst aspects of Starcraft and imo has no place in the future of the RTS genre. Can't say I agree with this at all. I feel it is very important to maintain the viability of early game allins/cheese. Luckily (for me), I am pretty sure blizzard has said that they want it to be viable, but not too strong. If no risk for all-in, then why not go NR20 every game?
Because you may get behind from taking damage if you play NR20 against an opponent with a brain?
It's not like you have to proxy 3raxes to do damage, just make a banshee. Go 2base spire. Build some hellions. Do a tank drop. Do a bit of adept pressure. Make a reaper. Bombard some wall with ravagers. Drops some zerglings. Build an oracle. Build some phoenixes. Try to sneak some zerglings in. Drop some widow mines.
The game is fun even in moments in which you cannot outright kill your opponent... Get creative instead of putting everything on one card.
|
On July 25 2015 22:46 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 22:23 Hider wrote:
Early game allins/cheese are definitely one of the worst aspects of Starcraft and imo has no place in the future of the RTS genre. Can't say I agree with this at all. I feel it is very important to maintain the viability of early game allins/cheese. Luckily (for me), I am pretty sure blizzard has said that they want it to be viable, but not too strong. If no risk for all-in, then why not go NR20 every game?
Well I am also saying it's not possible to remove that aspect in a Sc2. But for the future of genre, you'll have a much more difficult time getting casuals and new players to play the game if they lose to build order losses in their first games.
f no risk for all-in, then why not go NR20 every game?
No rush 20 typically implies no aggression until 20 minute mark which isn't what I am getting at. I am instead suggesting that we have more lower risk/lower reward aggression in the early game.
In my opinion the RTS genre isn't dying because there isn't potential it, but its (temporarily) dying because the genre hasn't received enough innovations. I feel like there are two types of RTS game:
1. The easy type of game that focusses on "tactics" rather than mechanics. Typically units move in slowmotion.
2. The hard Sc2-type of game with faster units.
Now where is the game with a lower entrance barrier that isn't being played in slow motion? I have no idea how any investors could think Grey Goo had any potential when the developers didn't even know what micro was. I feel like the scene has suffered from the wrong people being in charge of developing the scene whereas it's been the opposite in the MOBA-genre.
|
France15952 Posts
On July 25 2015 20:35 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 10:56 BisuDagger wrote:
Do you think it is possible blizzard could fix the scouting situation instead of worker count? The 12 worker thread shows 54% in favour of changing the worker count back lower. Richman or anyone, can you give me a list of all the builds you think are pretty broken because of such a smaller window to scout/react I want to investigate the precise timings you have to respond and what the tells are.
Bleh, we don't even know if voters played LotV or not. Hell, there are even pure BW players roaming the SC2 threads just to shit on it the first chance they get. There is this anti-Blizzard mindset among a lot of people (especially those who didn't even get to touch the beta yet, and probably have stopped playing and liking SC2 for months) that will make them say to revert whatever Blizzard's tring to change (and to change whatever Blizzard's keeping, for good measure).
Anyway, only 37% of people want it back to 6, so I'd say the majority is in favor of increasing the worker count (I'm playing on words, here, I know ;D).
|
I really don't see an issue with sending one of your 12 workers or one if the next few to scout. Sounds like people are being lazy and greedy here.
|
On July 25 2015 16:02 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 15:12 TT1 wrote:
so far i've only died to a 1 base ling/bane allin and a hatch + spine rush on bridgehead o .o Argument on paper invalid. Not enough data. Showmatch recommended.
only if i get to play actionjesus
|
Why not just scout with one of your initial workers? That's not too late, is it?
(EDIT: beat out by little-chimp)
|
On July 25 2015 22:46 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 22:23 Hider wrote:
Early game allins/cheese are definitely one of the worst aspects of Starcraft and imo has no place in the future of the RTS genre. Can't say I agree with this at all. I feel it is very important to maintain the viability of early game allins/cheese. Luckily (for me), I am pretty sure blizzard has said that they want it to be viable, but not too strong. If no risk for all-in, then why not go NR20 every game?
I wouldn't say that. Its just that the changes dont give enough time to react even if you could because how accelerated it is and just increase amount of luck factor involved
Luck should be part of rts but you should be able to minimize or mitigate damage with your own stragety. Right now, there isn't enough to do that at all and straight up wins are more common and lost from start
|
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.
|
On July 25 2015 23:59 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 16:02 ETisME wrote:On July 25 2015 15:12 TT1 wrote:
so far i've only died to a 1 base ling/bane allin and a hatch + spine rush on bridgehead o .o Argument on paper invalid. Not enough data. Showmatch recommended. only if i get to play actionjesus
YES PLX! ActionJezuz is gonna find a way to 6 Pool with a 12 worker start!
|
Is Actionjesus still around? Would be cool if he was, I still show his game to some of my mates whenever we need a good laugh  represents a lot of nostalgia for me
|
On July 25 2015 23:01 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 22:46 Cascade wrote:On July 25 2015 22:23 Hider wrote:
Early game allins/cheese are definitely one of the worst aspects of Starcraft and imo has no place in the future of the RTS genre. Can't say I agree with this at all. I feel it is very important to maintain the viability of early game allins/cheese. Luckily (for me), I am pretty sure blizzard has said that they want it to be viable, but not too strong. If no risk for all-in, then why not go NR20 every game? Well I am also saying it's not possible to remove that aspect in a Sc2. But for the future of genre, you'll have a much more difficult time getting casuals and new players to play the game if they lose to build order losses in their first games.
New players are gonna lose no matter what their opponents end up doing. It seems like you're making a lot of assumptions about how people feel in regards to cheese. Most people like cheesing once in a while, and its also fun to watch tournaments that have the occasional cheese mixed in.
|
On July 26 2015 03:09 alexanderzero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 23:01 Hider wrote:On July 25 2015 22:46 Cascade wrote:On July 25 2015 22:23 Hider wrote:
Early game allins/cheese are definitely one of the worst aspects of Starcraft and imo has no place in the future of the RTS genre. Can't say I agree with this at all. I feel it is very important to maintain the viability of early game allins/cheese. Luckily (for me), I am pretty sure blizzard has said that they want it to be viable, but not too strong. If no risk for all-in, then why not go NR20 every game? Well I am also saying it's not possible to remove that aspect in a Sc2. But for the future of genre, you'll have a much more difficult time getting casuals and new players to play the game if they lose to build order losses in their first games. New players are gonna lose no matter what their opponents end up doing. It seems like you're making a lot of assumptions about how people feel in regards to cheese. Most people like cheesing once in a while, and its also fun to watch tournaments that have the occasional cheese mixed in.
It's not about losing but about allowing new players to actually play the game. I had a few IRL friends playing the game, and they quickly stopped after they got stomped in their first few games as they weren't motivated enough to bother reading about build orders and guides online.
Compare that to what happens when you play a MOBA. You build the wrong item and.... you can continue to play the game You don't instalose as you do in Starcraft, which is a major difference in the learning curve. It's not that there are less or more things to learn in Starcraft relaive to MOBA's, but its that the learning curve is a lot more punishing in Starcraft.
Just put your self in a position as a new player and imagine you lose because the enemy had 4 times as many units as you by the 5 minute mark, or imagine a scenario where you lose becasue you can't kill a unit that is cloaked. Is that ever gonna feel like a fun experience?
Compare that to if you played a game where you actually could battle your opponent and attempt to micro your units. Alot of people are gonna find that fun, even if they lose and suck at it. If they don't find it fun, it's unlikely that the RTS genre will ever fit them anyway.
You could then argue that this learning curve is a neccesity for the "depth"/competitive experience but I am the opposite opinion. There is a reason cheese/all ins have a bad reputation in pro games too, and its because - regardless of the level - its boring to play versus and takes relatively little mechanical skills to pull off.
I am pretty sure most people will agree that Starcraft is the most fun when players are on multiple bases with small engagements everywhere on the map.
Most people like cheesing once in a while, and its also fun to watch tournaments that have the occasional cheese mixed in.
The habit of the occational cheese is more likely a consequence of two factors:
1. Lack of diversity in terms of macrostyles in Starcraft
2. Lack of lower risk/lower risk options in early game/early midgame.
In all of the matchups, each race can only really play one style. The units might change in some situations but the playstyle is similarly and the way you micro your units isn't too exciting either.
So if you are looking for some type of diversity, cheesing/doing an allin is an obvious solution to that. How do I know this is an issue of diversity and not because cheese/all ins is awesome in itself? Because if that was the case, then you wouldn't have writen that people enjoyed the occational cheese.
But rather you would see a large perentage of players doing it in all of their games. But when you get tired of doing something more frequently than once in a while, its an indcation that your primary intention was diversity.
Secondly, cheesing/allins can also be seen as a consequence to the race lacking other forms of viable aggressive tools in that state of the game. Honestly I understand protoss player choose to go for allins or cheese because the race is so insanely boring to play in a straight up macro game so the occational cheese/all in is the lessor of two evils.
But having cheese/allins in the game is nothing more than a bandaid fix to these issues. The proper solution is to make it possible for each race in each matchup to play significant different styles while rewarding several tools to be aggressive early in the game that doesn't instakill the opponent if he makes one small error.
|
I don't know man, maybe RTS just isn't for you. Rushing is a quintessential part of RTS games and it always has been.
Compare that to what happens when you play a MOBA. You build the wrong item and.... you can continue to play the game You don't instalose as you do in Starcraft, which is a major difference in the learning curve.
I personally don't care for games where it takes 30 minutes to lose if you suck. It's not more fun to drag out a match against a person or team that is kicking your ass.
Just put your self in a position as a new player and imagine you lose because the enemy had 4 times as many units as you by the 5 minute mark, or imagine a scenario where you lose becasue you can't kill a unit that is cloaked. Is that ever gonna feel like a fun experience?
Everyone here has been in that position before, and were still here. It's being called check-mated. It's a strategy game.
|
On July 25 2015 23:14 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 20:35 Ovid wrote:On July 25 2015 10:56 BisuDagger wrote:
Do you think it is possible blizzard could fix the scouting situation instead of worker count? The 12 worker thread shows 54% in favour of changing the worker count back lower. Richman or anyone, can you give me a list of all the builds you think are pretty broken because of such a smaller window to scout/react I want to investigate the precise timings you have to respond and what the tells are. Bleh, we don't even know if voters played LotV or not. Hell, there are even pure BW players roaming the SC2 threads just to shit on it the first chance they get. There is this anti-Blizzard mindset among a lot of people (especially those who didn't even get to touch the beta yet, and probably have stopped playing and liking SC2 for months) that will make them say to revert whatever Blizzard's tring to change (and to change whatever Blizzard's keeping, for good measure). Anyway, only 37% of people want it back to 6, so I'd say the majority is in favor of increasing the worker count (I'm playing on words, here, I know ;D).
This post is just baseless assumptions to promote your pov.
|
I know that we're getting off topic here, but I think that Cheeses in pro matches are an important part of the strategy of the game. If you're down 2-0 and try a cheese to get back in, that's just part of the risk/reward, right? It's fun to see someone start to come back in a BO7 match because they had the stones to try a 4gate or something nuts.
|
I don't know man, maybe RTS just isn't for you. Rushing is a quintessential part of RTS games and it always has been.
Must be why I played thousands of games of Starcraft and enjoyed a large part part of the game. And actally have specificed what the good parts of the game is and how you could make a future RTS game where you take the best parts from different games (and we could still call that an RTS game).
You haven't given any good reason for why it needs to be that way besides it used to be that way. With that logic we would still be riding horses.
I personally don't care for games where it takes 30 minutes to lose if you suck. It's not more fun to drag out a match against a person or team that is kicking your !@#$%^&*.
I don't think you are doing it intentional but you are strawmanning here as you imply the game has to drag on. Who ever said anything about that? Obviously I would like to see back-and-fourth games rather than games that just take too long too end (where its already decided). Its just that an early game advantage should grant a 60-40 advantage rather than a 90-10 advantage.
Further, a 10-15 minute gamelenght is absolutely fine as long as stuff happens quite fast (no unnesarily long build up phase).
Everyone here has been in that position before, and were still here. It's being called check-mated. It's a strategy game.
Strategy could be about a trillion other things than dying to build orders. If anything I say build order wins is more of a tactic-thing while straetgy is more related to a longer-lasting gameplan.
Your repeating the "it used to be that way and therefore it should be that way"-reasoning.
An rts game isn't defined to be about dying to DTS or oracles because you didn't scout them. That's just an artifical made up definition that makes the playing experience worse.
ut I think that Cheeses in pro matches are an important part of the strategy of the game. If you're down 2-0 and try a cheese to get back in, that's just part of the risk/reward, right? It's fun to see someone start to come back in a BO7 match because they had the stones to try a 4gate or something nuts.
More relevant question, do you have fun playing vs 4-gates or other types of allins/cheese?
|
On July 26 2015 01:24 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Scouting options are way better with the new economy, I have no clue what people are talking about with this.
With the 12 worker start you can more then easily afford to send out a scouting worker immediately, with Zerg it actually times out better if you instantly scout and build a drone, by the time the overlord pops you have 140 minerals and two larvae with a super fast drone scout.
Couple that with a safe non greedy hatch first and I have Zerglings and Queens out in plenty of time to hold most "early aggressions" and the only ones that are dangerous are the dedicated straight up cheese all ins which are just an integral part of an RTS.
|
On July 25 2015 23:01 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 22:46 Cascade wrote:On July 25 2015 22:23 Hider wrote:
Early game allins/cheese are definitely one of the worst aspects of Starcraft and imo has no place in the future of the RTS genre. Can't say I agree with this at all. I feel it is very important to maintain the viability of early game allins/cheese. Luckily (for me), I am pretty sure blizzard has said that they want it to be viable, but not too strong. If no risk for all-in, then why not go NR20 every game? Well I am also saying it's not possible to remove that aspect in a Sc2. But for the future of genre, you'll have a much more difficult time getting casuals and new players to play the game if they lose to build order losses in their first games. No rush 20 typically implies no aggression until 20 minute mark which isn't what I am getting at. I am instead suggesting that we have more lower risk/lower reward aggression in the early game. In my opinion the RTS genre isn't dying because there isn't potential it, but its (temporarily) dying because the genre hasn't received enough innovations. I feel like there are two types of RTS game: 1. The easy type of game that focusses on "tactics" rather than mechanics. Typically units move in slowmotion. 2. The hard Sc2-type of game with faster units. Now where is the game with a lower entrance barrier that isn't being played in slow motion? I have no idea how any investors could think Grey Goo had any potential when the developers didn't even know what micro was. I feel like the scene has suffered from the wrong people being in charge of developing the scene whereas it's been the opposite in the MOBA-genre.
I'm fine with the 40-60 kind of harass early game, but I don't understand why you don't want 90-10 all inns as well. I feel it adds to the excitement both as player and spectator. More options for the players and more different kinds of games for the spectators.
|
On July 26 2015 01:24 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +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.
And that 'unfair advantage' is why we are seeing undeserving randoms winning tournaments left and right and dominating the ladders. Why can't people stop and think for a second before posting?
Remember, it's a zerosum game. If you see an advantage, use it.
On topic both the definition of cheese and the valídity of cheesy tactics changed a lot over the history of the game. A standard opener on Steppes of War didn't exactly look like a standard opener on Deadwing. And ironically a game with both players macroing to 200 food can - even with a 12 worker start - be boring, or let's call it uneventful, for a much much longer time than a game with lots of skirmishes at 40 or 50 supply coming from a six worker start.
Btw for somebody who has not played beta and watched limited streams so far, the OT was a very nice read; cheers.
|
cheese all day every day gets to master but then i was already master in hots so w/e
|
Wait...why not scout at start? That's the first thing I thought of when they first introduced the worker count
|
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.
|
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.
The issue is that you aren't distinguishing between "what is fun to play" and "what is fun to watch". The latter should at most be a secondary objective while the former is the primary goal.
If you go by viewernumbers, you also see high viewer numbers for dumb bugs/clearly broken shit. That can be fun to see, but it doens't mean it has a healthy impact on the game.
The healthy metod is to make sure that small mistakes doesn't prevent an inexperienced player from "actually playing the game".
That means, it comes down to whether you think "actually playing the game" = Reading about builds, studying replays, writing down timings".
Or if you think actually playing the game = Controlling units.
I am obviously convinced that the latter is correct.
You might think some type of mixture where you only are allowed to play the game after having studied builds for a long enough time is the correct solution (kinda what Sc2 does). But while you think that, players will continue to play LOL where they don't have to bother with stuff like that.
Look at part of the reason why Starbow could never be succesful: New players simply couldn't actually play the game because they needed a super tight understanding of actual builds + execution. I don't know a single person who started to play Starbow because he thought learning builds was fun.
No what he was "promised" was less deathball and more positionally based macro games, but all he gets is losses to all-ins/timing attacks.
|
Of course cheese is fun to play, if it wasnt people wouldnt be doing it. What do you think? That cheesers are all so miserable while cheesing and they desperately hope that someone would help them to stop cheese?
I personally enjoy playing against cheese. I love it to be cannon rushed, I win almost everytime that happens and I enjoy it because its fun to me.
|
Of course cheese is fun to play, if it wasnt people wouldnt be doing it. What do you think? That cheesers are all so miserable while cheesing and they desperately hope that someone would help them to stop cheese?
Reread my comments from last couple of pages, it was explained there.
I personally enjoy playing against cheese. I love it to be cannon rushed, I win almost everytime that happens and I enjoy it because its fun to me.
Well you also think Medi's are more fun than Medivacs. I think the former is the most boring unit in the world while the latter actally allows me to micro and multitask. Sounds like we have very different visions.
My vision is that I see opportunites for taking alot of players from the MOBA (and CS i guess?) target group and get them into the RTS genre. So why do people play LOL? Well occationally people will say due to it being a social game, but I think thats mostly a myth becasue the social experience really suck in that game (people rage in soloq and you often time wanna mute).
More likely, because its a game that focusses on player vs player "micro" interactions", and the learning curve is forgiving. I think the RTS genre has a lot to learn from that, and it could be obtained while still being an RTS (and not a MOBA) as you will control multiple units at once.
I honestly don't see any eviedence/reasoning to expect that the target group of enjoying playing versus cheese cheese/build order losses is very high on the other hand. If that was the case, I am sure we would see more custom groups where people just cheesed each other all day because everyone had fun (because if you play ladder you aren't guaranteed to play vs this "fun" playstyle).
Or I guess there would be a another succesful game which copied the satisfaction people got from buildorder wins (though that's obviously kinda hard and I don't really know exactly what is either).
|
You were criticizing me before because I did not give references and now you claim that there are not many people who enjoy it. You dont have any numbers or references on your hand either.
Furthermore, your arguement is ridiculous. The idea behind cheese is that you dont know it is coming, how would anybody possibly join a group to get cheesed on purpose? That defeats the idea.
You just have to realize that not everybody shares your point of view. This is a subjective topic whether you like it or not and no matter how often you repeat yourself, your opinions are never going to be more valid then those of others.
|
You were criticizing me before because I did not give references and now you claim that there are not many people who enjoy it. You dont have any numbers or references on your hand either.
No I analyzed the satisfaction players get from playing MOBA's multiple times before and I also did this in the above post. Further, also referenced to Starbow feedback which I think is very related to this topic (though ofc its low sample size, but you take what you can get).
Your source was a popular youtube series, which I don't think is that relevant for the playing experiene (as I explained previously). But I do think having "wacky"/weird stuff in the game is good, but it shouldn't make the learning curve more unforgiving in the proces.
What I am trying to do is analyze it this way: If my theory is correct, then the gaming industry would look a certain way. If there is a discrepancy between what the world actually looks like and my theory, then obviously the theory should be reevaluated, but I don't see that being the case.
With regards to the "lots of people like playing cheese/versus cheese", if that's true then wouldn't there be a ton of other signs to indicate that? Wouldn't we see more "cheese groups", or more people giving feedback to blizzard that they want to see more cheese? Prior to LOTV we saw alot of people saying they want to have more micro, which is an example of a data source.
I never met anyone who was a consistent cheeser. Most people who cheesed seem to do it for the sake of diversity, and my argument is that that need can be safisfied in a more healthy way. (But perhaps my view is biased here because I've never been below high diamond in Starcraft, so I don't have a lot of bronze-gold buddies.)
I also explained why we are not seeeing a lot of data sources with regards "cheese/all-ins should be removed", because the people who want that are already not playing Starcraft and not vising forums anymore, but playing MOBA's or CS. But that is why I think the Starbow forums provided a very interesting opportunity for insight.
Those were some guys who genuinly wanted Starbow to succeed, but just couldn't get completley into it, but still is interested enough in the project to visit the forums.
I think that's different from how your average CS/LOL guy looks at Sc2. They might try it out for a couple of hours before discovering that the game isn't for them because they die to stupid shit/have no idea what they are doing, and then go back to their original games without giving any feedback in the proces.
You just have to realize that not everybody shares your point of view. This is a subjective topic whether you like it or not and no matter how often you repeat yourself, your opinions are never going to be more valid then those of others.
Hence the reason I wrote this: Sounds like we have very different visions. . That comment doesn't imply that you are wrong in enjoying cheese. However, look at what the original context is. I wrote the following:
If the RTS genre is too survive
So what I am talking about is how the RTS genre can get the most amount of people playing it in the future. The only criteria/definition of an RTS (relative to MOBA) is that you control multiple units at once. Every other gameplay element is up for debate.
When I look at your arguments, I don't see any reasons to expect that having buildorder-wins is a formula for succes (I guess that's what you imply?)
And if you think so, then what is your theory for why Sc2 is less played than LOL? Is it the mechanical barrier? Is it lack of F2P?
To sum up, I think the most significant reasons for its declining playerbase are the following (where 1 is the most significant).
1. The learning barrier is too unforgiving
2. Game is too mechanical demanding (in LOL and CS, the mechanics are more of a skillbap thing whereas in Sc2 its something you need to do all the time).
3. Lack of F2P
4. Bad unit interactions
5. Lack of strategic diversity
|
You might think some type of mixture where you only are allowed to play the game after having studied builds for a long enough time is the correct solution (kinda what Sc2 does). But while you think that, players will continue to play LOL where they don't have to bother with stuff like that.
This is incredibly wrong. A moba needs just as much knowledge as sc2 when you start playing, you could even argue it needs A LOT more of it.
There are item builds, every champ has different skills and in general the laning matchups.
So no, you have to bother with that stuff there too, but just like in sc2 you can learn it while playing the game if you are fine with losing a bunch of games.
If anything it is a myth that mobas have that easy of a learning curve, the only thing which is different is the mechanical requirements are a lot lower.
"Cheese" is also completely relative and thus you cannot remove it from a game, there is even cheese in mobas (even though you obviously cannot lose to it straight up in the first few minutes of a game)
So yes i also think that future rts games (if they wanna be really successful) have to become less mechanical, but this doesn't include to remove "cheese" from the game.
|
@Hider:
You just assume that this way the RTS genre will get more players. You assume that cheese is keeping people away. You assume that less cheese makes RTS games more appealing. And I share neither of these assumptions. I think removing cheese will not bring in any new players but scare away some that are still there.
Cheese is not the reason people dont play SC2. The RTS genre has always been a niche, there are simply some people who dont like it. Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. Each strategical feature implies giving the player choices (without choices you can not be strategic, doh!) but each time you are given choices you need to be able to evaluate them to judge which one is the better choice. This, by nature, requires knowledge and a certain amount of training, or at least strategical thinking.
Removing cheese has no effect on this. (yes, in theory that is less choices, but overall its an insignificant amount that is gained for new players but a significant amount that is lost for those who like cheese)
Also: If you want to make the game more appealing to new players make it less hardcore and more casual. Give us the easy micro / macro button and make F2 + a + mouse click to one A-Move-All-My-Army button. And BAM bunch of new players coming in!
You like that? I dont.
|
. A moba needs just as much knowledge as sc2 when you start playing, you could even argue it needs A LOT more of it.
There are item builds, every champ has different skills and in general the laning matchups.
I already explained this multiple times by now. Requoting myself from page 3.
Compare that to what happens when you play a MOBA. You build the wrong item and.... you can continue to play the game You don't instalose as you do in Starcraft, which is a major difference in the learning curve. It's not that there are less or more things to learn in Starcraft relaive to MOBA's, but its that the learning curve is a lot more punishing in Starcraft.
There is a difference between a forgiving learning curve and an unforgiving learning curve.
|
On July 29 2015 20:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +. A moba needs just as much knowledge as sc2 when you start playing, you could even argue it needs A LOT more of it.
There are item builds, every champ has different skills and in general the laning matchups. Okay, this is the 3rd time I see this today. Reread my posts. I already explained this multiple times by now. Requoting myself from page 3. Show nested quote +Compare that to what happens when you play a MOBA. You build the wrong item and.... you can continue to play the game You don't instalose as you do in Starcraft, which is a major difference in the learning curve. It's not that there are less or more things to learn in Starcraft relaive to MOBA's, but its that the learning curve is a lot more punishing in Starcraft.
You are wrong though
|
On July 29 2015 20:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 20:36 Hider wrote:. A moba needs just as much knowledge as sc2 when you start playing, you could even argue it needs A LOT more of it.
There are item builds, every champ has different skills and in general the laning matchups. Okay, this is the 3rd time I see this today. Reread my posts. I already explained this multiple times by now. Requoting myself from page 3. Compare that to what happens when you play a MOBA. You build the wrong item and.... you can continue to play the game You don't instalose as you do in Starcraft, which is a major difference in the learning curve. It's not that there are less or more things to learn in Starcraft relaive to MOBA's, but its that the learning curve is a lot more punishing in Starcraft. You are wrong though
Tell me how you instadie after you build the wrong items? Instead of just getting 40-60 behind which I suggested was the healthy approach.
The learning curve of Starcraft, would litterally be this in a MOBA.
--> You build item X as your first item, but it should be your second time
--> Opponent build item Z as his first item
--> As a consequence you lose and need to que up again.
|
On July 29 2015 20:39 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 20:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 29 2015 20:36 Hider wrote:. A moba needs just as much knowledge as sc2 when you start playing, you could even argue it needs A LOT more of it.
There are item builds, every champ has different skills and in general the laning matchups. Okay, this is the 3rd time I see this today. Reread my posts. I already explained this multiple times by now. Requoting myself from page 3. Compare that to what happens when you play a MOBA. You build the wrong item and.... you can continue to play the game You don't instalose as you do in Starcraft, which is a major difference in the learning curve. It's not that there are less or more things to learn in Starcraft relaive to MOBA's, but its that the learning curve is a lot more punishing in Starcraft. You are wrong though Really. Tell me how you instadie after you build the wrong items? Instead of just getting 40-60 behind which I suggested was the healthy approach.
If you are new to lol for example and do everything wrong you maybe as a team don't lose the game instantly, but you as a person will instantly get shit on.
That's just as punishing, even when the end result might still be a win.
edit: Yeah i don't agree with your analogy. You assume that in Bronze league there are these sharp timings where you have to play perfectly to hold the cheese or whatever, no this is not the case.
If anything the problem are the mechanics, even a player in bronze will know his hotkeys and thus have better macro than the newbie.
|
but you as a person will instantly get shit on.
That's just as punishing, even when the end result might still be a win.
This doesn't just happen if you are new though, so I wouldn't say that getting trashtalked is a learning curve thing, but rather its something related to the awfull social experience of playing MOBA's.
Also, when you are new you play versus other new players too (like first 10-20 times), and noone there has any idea what they are doing. I don't remember getting shit on really when I learned the game and I had no idea what to do except to buy recommended items.
I don't even rememer any shittalking at all in the very first games, perhaps because I didn't have the overview to look at chat at all, because I was busy learning the game.
What I remember instead was that I could go directly into a player vs. player-interaction where I could cast abilities on my opponent and kill him if I did that well.
Then eventually - after you played maybe 20 games and discovered that you actually find it pretty fun --> Then you start to do a bit more research. E.g. you read up on best items to buy and skillorder for that champ. But even that is nowhere near as complicated and timeconsuming as learning to be able to "play" Starcraft. The problem with Starcraft is that you need to learn before you "play the game" unlike what you do in MOBA's and CS.
edit: Yeah i don't agree with your analogy. You assume that in Bronze league there are these sharp timings where you have to play perfectly to hold the cheese or whatever, no this is not the case.
Saying its about sharp timings in bronze, is somewhat of a strawman. That's what it is in Starbow, but the same concept can be applied here.
To be more specific, the concept is about the easiness of being able to play the game. If you don't know what to do versus a specific build (like a cannon rush) you will basically die (ofc if you have 10 times better mechanic you can hold it off, but we are talking about players with similar mechanica skills).
If everyone thought it was superfun to play vs cannon rushes, then okay, cannon rush would be "playing the game".
But if most people think that the game is fun when you control units and fight other units (comparable to MOBAs where you control heroes and fight other heroes), then the following logic will be true:
The harder you make it for new players to get into scenarios where unit control matters, the more likely they are to just go back to CS or MOBA's.
|
I actually meant that you will die a lot because you bought the wrong items.
Recommended items etc obviously help a lot, but something similar could be done in an rts too i would imagine.
I played three accounts to lvl 30 in lol, i cannot really remember the first time, but the other two times i had a lot of new players in my team/the enemy team who did something wrong cause they didn't know it any better and because of that they died like 5 times in the first 10 mins, a very high percentage of these players left the game then.
So again, i don't think that mobas are less punishing overall. (and dota2 is a lot worse than lol in this regard)
What I remember instead was that I could go directly into a player vs. player-interaction where I could cast abilities on my opponent and kill him if I did that well.
Well yeah that is the fun part of the game, it isn't mechanically hard, you can have little success moments pretty fast.
The same can be said about cheeses though, you can learn a 6 pool pretty fast and do reasonably well in Bronze league i would imagine.
Just as you can buy "easy" guns in csgo and don't have to worry about stopping to shoot and spray control.
I mean overall i agree with you that rts games which are designed like sc2 aren't that fun for most people, they are mechanically hard, the pvp interaction is too low and they tend to snowball too hard.
But looking at a cheese play and say it's any worse than losing to an allin in minute 12, or building a huge deathball and lose in minute 25 after one big fight, i think this is arbitrary at best (even though they surely are people who hate losing in the first few minutes, others love it though)
The problem with Starcraft is that you need to learn before you "play the game" unlike what you do in MOBA's and CS
See this is what i simply cannot agree with. Would it help? Yes. Would it help in csgo/lol/dota2? Yes.
Do i need to study to play in sc2 silver league? No.
I think you exaggerate a lot when it comes to sc2 tbh, the burden of knowledge isn't anyhwere as big as you make it out to be.
Mechanics are by far the most important part => you have to play the game.
That itself could be a problem though.
But if most people think that the game is fun when you control units and fight other units (comparable to MOBAs where you control heroes and fight other heroes), then the following logic will be true:
The harder you make it for new players to get into scenarios where unit control matters, the more likely they are to just go back to CS or MOBA's.
The unit control matters ESPECIALLY in cheese games though. There are obviously build order loses as well, but if you have a somewhat okish buildorder (for that level) unit control is the most important part.
Is the unit control fun at this point? That is an entirely different dicsussion.
But yeah again, i think doing the wrong build is the equivalent to building the wrong items / skilling in a moba for example.
In sc2 you might lose the game and get punished, in a moba you will die a lot and get punished.
Both experiences are bad and both experiences are there cause the burden of knowledge is similar.
But yeah, maybe people overall care too much for winning
|
I actually meant that you will die a lot because you bought the wrong items.
Recommended items etc obviously help a lot, but something similar could be done in an rts too i would imagine.
I played three accounts to lvl 30 in lol, i cannot really remember the first time, but the other two times i had a lot of new players in my team/the enemy team who did something wrong cause they didn't know it any better and because of that they died like 5 times in the first 10 mins, a very high percentage of these players left the game then.
So again, i don't think that mobas are less punishing overall. (and dota2 is a lot worse than lol in this regard)
Yeh so I am not saying you are completely incorrect either. Its not something that is black and white, but it's not hard to follow recommended items. Thus, I hope you can follow me a bit when I say it's easier to "play the game in LOL" than playing the game in Starcraft
(assuming playing the game: unit/champ vs unit/champ "micro" interactions).
Another thing you often see with bronze players today is that they lock them selves inside a base. This is also something that kinda prevents playing the game, and I can understand why people see allins as a solution to avoiding this problem. if you learn one simple build then you know that moving at that time can guarantee you a high win/rate percentage, whereas you have no idea when to move out in a macro game.
On the other hand in a MOBA you see all new and experienced players come out on the map for the "objective" (lasthitting) ASAP, and they can always fall back on the defenders advantage (towers).
i think that's another important part of MOBA's in that "macro games" are "aggressive" and not "turtle focussed" (they are more turtly focussed in compettive games than in casual games, somewhat unlike what it is in Sc2).
Obviously this is only something a future RTS can adress, not something you can change with Sc2.
The unit control matters ESPECIALLY in cheese games though.
So the type of cheese/all-ins I am thinking about is mostly (again if you go back to the original context you see this example) is when player 1 heavily outnumbers player 2 due to having a lot more units. In that case its a matter of numbers and not about micro.
A better example might be an Oracle flying into a mineral line where there are only 4 Marines. No amount of micro can save you here.
But even then, I think you should be able to make micro errors and just be behind (rather than dead). Otherwise the game will feel too frustrating/unforgiving.
In sc2 you might lose the game and get punished, in a moba you will die a lot and get punished.
But while dying in a MOBA you are typically playing the game. You are casting abilities and attempting to dodge neemy abilites (though you probably suck at that). That is the core of what the game is about.
So I think you are a bit confusing "being able to win" with "being able to play the game", because its not about whether you win or not but whether you have fun in the proces. If you have fun dying to an Oracle or a cannon rush, sure, then you would also be "playing the game". But if that's not the case, I think there is a big flaw in the learning curve of Sc2.
I think you exaggerate a lot when it comes to sc2 tbh, the burden of knowledge isn't anyhwere as big as you make it out to be.
Mechanics are by far the most important part => you have to play the game.
The issue I have with the mechanics argument is that (I think) you imagine some type of scenario where a master play does a hopeless build and the bronze player does a really good build that counters the master-league build. But the master-player ofc still easily wins --> Concludes mechanics matter more than knowledge.
However, that's not very relevant for the learning barrier. Most likely you will within your first 10-20 games play against other people with awful mechanics. But if one of these guys has discovered some type of build that counters your build --> You don't get to "play the game".
That's not to say that the mechanical barrier isn't irrelevant either. In fact I think I mentioned previously that the learning barrier was related to both knowledge and stuff like control groups, splisecond micro errors and macro. These concepts should also be made easier if we are to follow my theory that the main attraction of the RTS genre is micro (and a more back and fourth experience).
I am sure you can also imagine some scenarios where Player1 has marines and player 2 has banelings and army size is equal, but its GG after one battle because Player1 couldn't micro his marines properly. In that scenario, you could argue that he was playing the game, but that the mechanics required were too high. However, I think a larger issue here is the lack of defenders advantage so you have nothing to fall back on after making a micro mistake.
|
You just assume that this way the RTS genre will get more players.
No. Reread my posts. I explained multiple times my thought proces leading up to that claim. If you think its wrong, challenge my specific arguments instead.
Also: If you want to make the game more appealing to new players make it less hardcore and more casual. Give us the easy micro / macro button and make F2 + a + mouse click to one A-Move-All-My-Army button. And BAM bunch of new players coming in!
You like that? I dont.
Did it any point occur to you that I want to increase the micro skillcap while reducing the entrance barrier, aka following the easy to learn hard to master concept?
Either you are making intentional strawmans or your ignorant.
Cheese is not the reason people dont play SC2. The RTS genre has always been a niche, there are simply some people who dont like it.
First of, do you seriosuly think my point is that cheese is the main reason people don't play Sc2? Is that really your assesment of all my comments.?
Didn't you see that I even specificed the top 5 reasons right above your post where I said the main reason is the unforgiving learning barrier. If so, what exactly leads you to think that unforgiving learning barrier is just cheese? Wouldn't it had made more sense - if that was the case - for me to just write cheese then?
Secondly, one might also consider that the RTS genre has lots of potential, but that the execution hasn't been good enough.
On the other hand, you seem like someone who isn't attempting to understand the needs of the target group and have no theory on why other genres are more popular. I even asked you for your "theory" (after presenting mine) but you didn't provide any but continued to make random claims followed by a strawman.
Maybe I am wrong in my assesments, but with your attitude its 100% impossible that the genre becomes popular.
|
Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game.
These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre.
|
On July 29 2015 22:01 Hider wrote:I think you have demonstrated you have no idea what I am talking about or your making an intentional strawman. But enjoy your amove Medi'cs in your mod or cannon rush random players on the ladder.
If I want to play a Starcraft I enjoy I can always go back to HOTS and have fun with the high skillcap Maru playstyle. But yeh I am the guy who wants to have more amove.
You are just laughable. You accuse me of using strawman arguments when you do the same thing the next sentence. Do you not realize what you are writing?
On July 29 2015 22:01 Hider wrote:No. Reread my posts. I explained multiple times my thought proces leading up to that claim. If you think its wrong, challenge my specific arguments instead.
I read your post and this is exactly how you sound to me. If this is not what you meant you should try harder to portray it the way you want it to be.
This is what you wrote:
They might try it out for a couple of hours before discovering that the game isn't for them because they die to stupid shit/have no idea what they are doing, and then go back to their original games without giving any feedback in the proces.
(what you say is: Cheese too hard for newbies!)
When I look at your arguments, I don't see any reasons to expect that having buildorder-wins is a formula for succes
(what you say is: Cheese is build-order win!)
To sum up, I think the most significant reasons for its declining playerbase are the following (where 1 is the most significant).
1. The learning barrier is too unforgiving
2. Game is too mechanical demanding (in LOL and CS, the mechanics are more of a skillbap thing whereas in Sc2 its something you need to do all the time).
(What you say is: Cheese too hard because learning how to deal with it / actually dealing with it is too hard!)
|
On July 29 2015 22:14 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre.
So you dont think that starcraft is an RTS? Or do you mean that there are RTS games that do not require any time to learn them? Or what is your point?
|
I Disagree, i reaper expand every game, i send one of my first scvs, by the time it dies or is on its way back the reaper is at there base, if you dont want to sacrafice one of your starting workers for information and you would rather be greedy you desserve to lose, simple as that equation scv - lost mining for information , no information for x minerals, and my reaper is usually there when scv is on way back ,.. and i can react from there
|
On July 29 2015 22:17 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 22:14 Big J wrote:Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre. So you dont think that starcraft is an RTS? Or do you mean that there are RTS games that do not require any time to learn them? Or what is your point?
I mean that just because something applies to starcraft and maybe 5other RTS games you have played it is not something intristic of every possible RTS game. Hence, playing an RTS does not have to require tons of learning time or dedication.
Only the specific RTS game starcraft and certain others that you think about do. But the sentence I quoted is plain garbage as it does not apply to every existing or possible RTS game out there.
|
On July 29 2015 22:21 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 22:17 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 29 2015 22:14 Big J wrote:Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre. So you dont think that starcraft is an RTS? Or do you mean that there are RTS games that do not require any time to learn them? Or what is your point? I mean that just because something applies to starcraft and maybe 5other RTS games you have played it is not something intristic of every possible RTS game. Hence, playing an RTS does not have to require tons of learning time or dedication. Only the specific RTS game starcraft and certain others that you think about do. But the sentence I quoted is plain garbage as it does not apply to every existing or possible RTS game out there.
In the post you quoted I have explained my statement with the following paragraph (which you have left out):
Each strategical feature implies giving the player choices (without choices you can not be strategic, doh!) but each time you are given choices you need to be able to evaluate them to judge which one is the better choice. This, by nature, requires knowledge and a certain amount of training, or at least strategical thinking.
So what exactly do you disagree with?
a) a real-time-strategy game means that players can make strategical choices
b) when you have a choice you need to be able to judge which choice is better
c) being able to judge possible choices requires knowledge and some experience
d) aquiring knowledge and experience needs time
because if you dont disagree with any of the above points my conclusion of:
=> Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication
is valid.
|
On July 29 2015 22:30 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 22:21 Big J wrote:On July 29 2015 22:17 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 29 2015 22:14 Big J wrote:Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre. So you dont think that starcraft is an RTS? Or do you mean that there are RTS games that do not require any time to learn them? Or what is your point? I mean that just because something applies to starcraft and maybe 5other RTS games you have played it is not something intristic of every possible RTS game. Hence, playing an RTS does not have to require tons of learning time or dedication. Only the specific RTS game starcraft and certain others that you think about do. But the sentence I quoted is plain garbage as it does not apply to every existing or possible RTS game out there. In the post you quoted I have explained my statement with the following paragraph (which you have left out): Show nested quote + Each strategical feature implies giving the player choices (without choices you can not be strategic, doh!) but each time you are given choices you need to be able to evaluate them to judge which one is the better choice. This, by nature, requires knowledge and a certain amount of training, or at least strategical thinking. So what exactly do you disagree with? a) a real-time- strategy game means that players can make strategical choices b) when you have a choice you need to be able to judge which choice is better c) being able to judge possible choices requires knowledge and some experience d) aquiring knowledge and experience needs time because if you dont disagree with any of the above points my conclusion of: => Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication is valid.
Every game that isn't decided by 100% luck is a strategy game by nature and the strategies have to be learned. Your comment implies that the strategies in an RTS game have to be hard to be understood in some form (or otherwise your comment makes no sense at all, since as I pointed out every game that goes beyond luck is a strategy game by nature and then your argument would apply to all games and every game would be a niche game, which isn't the case).
I disagree. Strategies don't have to be hard to understand. Not in general (the simplest example would be to make an RTS game with the least amount of strategy possible, which would be like a choice between two units that you can only always have one off). And also not for beginners in a complex game.
|
So what exactly do you disagree with?
a) a real-time-strategy game means that players can make strategical choices
b) when you have a choice you need to be able to judge which choice is better
c) being able to judge possible choices requires knowledge and some experience
d) aquiring knowledge and experience needs time
because if you dont disagree with any of the above points my conclusion of:
=> Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication
is valid.
You are talking about something else. Big J is basically saying that the learning curve doesn't have to be very high/steep/unforgiving in an RTS, and you are talking about how it should require alot of time to master an RTS.
A less steep learning curve doesn't imply a game that is easier to master strategically nor mechanically.
A less steep learning curve with a lot of strategic depth could be this.
- You have a choice between A, B, and C.
- In some situations A is better, in other situations B or C.
- Regardless of what you pick, you will never be at a huge disadvanatage, but it will only be a small penalty.
- The optimal decision depends on a lot of variables and changes from situation to situation. That implies that you cannot follow any simple rulebook in order to determine best cause of action.
The above scenario has depth because it will require a lot of thought and analysis to determine whether to pick A, B and C and there is a reward for picking the right one. However, the wrong pick doesn't prevent a new player from participarting at the other phases of the game.
Further, if the game continues you can have multiple of these types of decisions. A real master of strategic depth is someone that consistently gets the right answer. On the other hand, cheese/all-ins is more about being right that one time which increases variance (and thereby luck).
The problem with Sc2 is that many of the decisions you take are very obvious. It feels to me that there is more strategic depth in competitive LOL as there are many variables to take into account (the teamaspect adds a lot of dimensions). But when you play soloq, there is almost no strategy at all. It's all about "micro" (which luckily is what the majority of the more casual target group wants).
Starcraft on the other hand forces a lot of stuff down on casuals. You need to macro, micro, strategy, build order, scouting etc. all at once, while I would like to see the future of the RTS-genre focus more on micro as the primary objective and strategy as the secondary objective.
|
You hardly see cheese anymore so I welcome more cheese options. Actually, Protoss has a lot of cheese builds and are pretty much invulnerable to early cheese, I think Blizzard should look at that more.
|
On July 29 2015 22:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 22:30 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 29 2015 22:21 Big J wrote:On July 29 2015 22:17 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 29 2015 22:14 Big J wrote:Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre. So you dont think that starcraft is an RTS? Or do you mean that there are RTS games that do not require any time to learn them? Or what is your point? I mean that just because something applies to starcraft and maybe 5other RTS games you have played it is not something intristic of every possible RTS game. Hence, playing an RTS does not have to require tons of learning time or dedication. Only the specific RTS game starcraft and certain others that you think about do. But the sentence I quoted is plain garbage as it does not apply to every existing or possible RTS game out there. In the post you quoted I have explained my statement with the following paragraph (which you have left out): Each strategical feature implies giving the player choices (without choices you can not be strategic, doh!) but each time you are given choices you need to be able to evaluate them to judge which one is the better choice. This, by nature, requires knowledge and a certain amount of training, or at least strategical thinking. So what exactly do you disagree with? a) a real-time- strategy game means that players can make strategical choices b) when you have a choice you need to be able to judge which choice is better c) being able to judge possible choices requires knowledge and some experience d) aquiring knowledge and experience needs time because if you dont disagree with any of the above points my conclusion of: => Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication is valid. Every game that isn't decided by 100% luck is a strategy game by nature and the strategies have to be learned. Your comment implies that the strategies in an RTS game have to be hard to be understood in some form (or otherwise your comment makes no sense at all, since as I pointed out every game that goes beyond luck is a strategy game by nature and then your argument would apply to all games and every game would be a niche game, which isn't the case). I disagree. Strategies don't have to be hard to understand. Not in general (the simplest example would be to make an RTS game with the least amount of strategy possible, which would be like a choice between two units that you can only always have one off). And also not for beginners in a complex game.
Thats not true. There is plenty of games that are not strategy games, for example rhythm games, or dexterity based games. Absolutely no strategy and no luck involved.
Furthermore, even games that require strategic thinking are not automatically RTS games. RTS is not equal to strategy game. Thats why the R and the T is there in the name.
And perhaps its true that you could make an RTS with only 2 units, no highground advantage, no resources, no positional play, no other kinds of micro or macro play and you might end up with an RTS thats super easy to learn and super beginner friendly. But that is a very unrealistic case thats never going to happen.
@Hider:
I agree with everything you say, but how is that relevant to whether cheese is good or bad?
|
On July 30 2015 00:38 RoomOfMush wrote:
Thats not true. There is plenty of games that are not strategy games, for example rhythm games, or dexterity based games. Absolutely no strategy and no luck involved.
True, there are games that are as simple as "there is only one way to move and the one who moves like that the best wins". I guess I would have to specify the argument to games with a direct player interaction of some kind.
Furthermore, even games that require strategic thinking are not automatically RTS games. RTS is not equal to strategy game. Thats why the R and the T is there in the name.
And I didn't say so. I explicitely said that having strategy applies to any game not based upon random interactions (which you are right is not 100% correct, see above), not just RTS games.
And perhaps its true that you could make an RTS with only 2 units, no highground advantage, no resources, no positional play, no other kinds of micro or macro play and you might end up with an RTS thats super easy to learn and super beginner friendly. But that is a very unrealistic case thats never going to happen.
I gave an example. You can have all of those elements and still have the strategy be easy to understand in my opinion. Great examples of very easy to understand RTS games are tug-of-war games. Take Desert Strike: it has economy, it has tech up, it has composition building, it has positional advantages and you can even micromanage certain units to a small degree. But to play it on a basic level some basic knowledge about units and the economy are enough. It is superbeginnerfriendly - and Desert Strike is still far more complex than it needs to be, because there are so many units that are plain noob-traps and offer no strategic depth anyways.
|
Hard to say if cheese is OP. Certain builds may be OP. Otherwise the opening just has more chance in it, and is more volatile. More mindgames. Less perfectly uniform, redundant macro openers. Look at the game of Poker. ... At some point, despite all skill, sc2 reduces to gambling. Players like to think their superior skills can escape all chance... to some degree yes. But ultimately risk is always there, looming at the end of your skillcap. I like there being alot of risk in a game. There's actually an artform to mindgames, when you start going map by map and getting into series and player personality / mass mentalities. Also... the opening was getting very boring for this game.
I play Z. I'm thinking of ZvZ. There is the spine rush which destroys hatch 1st, especially on terraform and bridgestone. Used to it was more holdable. But this change doesn't bother me. If I played Toss I'd probably be disturbed in general. I can only speak as a Z and say I like where the game is with 'cheese'.
|
@Hider:
I agree with everything you say, but how is that relevant to whether cheese is good or bad?
The point is that an RTS isn't defined by having a high learning barrier. It's just a consequence of how some gamedevelopers have designed certain RTS games. You can look at Dota-Wc3 to Heroes of the Storm as an example of how Blizzard have made a MOBA game much easier too learn (unfortunately they also made it easier to master, but that's a consequece of how they designed heroes which is somewhat unrelated to learning barrier).
If the RTS genre is to survive it is neccasary that gamedevelopers find ways to make the game easier to learn. Learning here = The amount of time you need to invest in order to be able to "play the game". You can still suck at the game, but if you can go right into the fun parts of the game without alot of preparation, the genre will have a much better probability of doing well.
The reason why cheese and allins raises the learning barrier is due two components:
1. Most people aren't having fun vs. Adepts-allins, Oracle allins, followed by cannon rush, DT's, Void Ray all in, 4gate.. At least that's my theory and I presented my reasoning for it in the previous posts.
2. As a consequence, they need to spend a lot of time learning how to defend that in order to "actually play the game" --> Higher learning barrier.
Skillcap is more about how good you can get at the "actual game". I define the actual game of an RTS to related to micro, multitasking and (some sort of) strategic decisions.
|
All-ins are not cheese. Cheese is generally a bad tactic that only works because your enemy doesnt know how to deal with it. Even if you dont scout cheese you can still beat it usually. A 6-pool or cannon rush, for example, is not very strong. Somewhat good players should not lose to this.
Proxy oracles and mass adept in LotV is not cheese by my book, its just OP and not fun.
I agree that all-ins and super powerful harassment builds should be weakened somehow. Perhaps a stronger defense of some kind could help deal with this. Maybe better highground advantage.
But cheese should stay in the game.
|
All-ins are not cheese. Cheese is generally a bad tactic that only works because your enemy doesnt know how to deal with it.
I agree with your definition of cheese, but it doens't imply that it cannot be an allineither. All-ins are defined by either outright winning the game or losing the game if they go wrong. Alot of cheese that either gives you a 95-5 lead or 5-95 disadvanatage is an allin.
Like if you do proxy gates, your are allining simultaneously (your betting your life on this build working out).
If on the other hand a specific cheese just gives you a 60-40/40-60 lead/disadvantage its clearly not an allin, but just a low-risk form of cheese.
I am obviously not against the latter form of cheese. It's kinda what I talk about when I say low risk/low reward aggression/harass.
|
nonsense, the way i position my hand in a rhythm game is part of the strategy
|
All-ins and/or cheese... or let's call them rush openers... should be designed in such a way that they punish heavily the most greedy builds. Against a safe opener, rush should lead to a fair but non-symmetric fight with no clear winner (unless, of course, someone does an obvious mistake).
To give you my most favorite example from the DH (Double Harvesting) showmatch: Scarlett vs PiliPili match 3. Scarlett went 10-poolgas but did almost no damage due to a proper defense. However, she was able to delay an expansion while expanding herself. At 6:30 she had a small supply advantage, and 15% income advantage.
That is kind of balance of cheese we should be aiming for! But it is hard... very hard to achieve. It is fragile, often depending on tiny things, maps, etc....
In LotV we perceive a "contraction of time" for resource gathering: you start with more workers, you get a lot of resources early game. However, your scouting speed, building construction and teching is not faster accordingly. This breakes a balance of money-vs-construction-time. Too many minerals, not enough time...
This is something we encountered in old DH10 mod, and remained somewhat problematic in DH9. Seems LotV is facing the exact same problems we hit when testing DH. Except that the community identified it as a potential problem early and we tried to do something about that (e.g. by going DH10->DH9). LotV on the other hand... let's just hope we will still see some changes in this department.
LotV contraction of time for resource gathering also remains in later time for different reason, increasing the result contrast even further... but that's a story for another topic...
|
On July 25 2015 23:59 TT1 wrote:
only if i get to play actionjesus
This can be arranged, better practice your macro!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
