EPTSeriously though, Blizzard is going to need to figure something out. I like the idea of making stalkers better, because I think that it would encourge more micro in all of the matchups.
[SC2B] A Shot In The Dark - Page 4
| Forum Index > News |
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
Seriously though, Blizzard is going to need to figure something out. I like the idea of making stalkers better, because I think that it would encourge more micro in all of the matchups. | ||
|
lossofmercy
United States29 Posts
| ||
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
| ||
|
MaestroSC
United States2073 Posts
On March 10 2010 00:09 Yammiez wrote: I'm still in the new-er golden league where the PvP isn't yet tainted with the crazy warp gate rush. I would pull strategies i remember from watching the streams from TL to go stalkers then colossus and what not, but as fun as this warp gate strat is, it'll sure get boring in a couple of days. PvP is he new ZvZ? Also. Amazing Read! I love TL for stuff like this. I liked ZvZ and on the contrary am bored to death by this warpgate rush. ZvZ was more a game of micro and had the possibility of lasting more then 5-7 minutes. PvP is just currently the most boring game to watch, i cant imagine a crowd cheering "woo! look at those 4 zealots fight!!" -_-" | ||
|
crate
United States2474 Posts
Of course, I don't really know what "worker auto-targeting" means. If it means your zealots a-moved near a mineral line attack workers even when the workers aren't attacking back while a zealot is, that seems a bit ridiculous to me and I would agree it should change. If it auto-targets drones before zerglings that seems weird to me too because the zerglings are the better target in terms of winning the battle. But if my understanding is correct then I think this is an improvement, not a problem. I fully agree about high ground mechanics being broken and about PvP being a really dumb matchup though. | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
its an exciting matchup where a unit counts as much as in zvz. leave it be. didnt bother reading the other stuff. | ||
|
son1dow
Lithuania322 Posts
| ||
|
Jyxz
United States117 Posts
On March 10 2010 00:14 luckybeni2 wrote: The problem of the warp rush is in the matchup pvp Also Zerg is probably over powered. | ||
|
Jyxz
United States117 Posts
On March 10 2010 05:47 enzym wrote: warpgates are fine in pvp. theres absolutely no reason why you should be able to tech while the other player is zealot rushing you. theres no imbalance either, since its mirror matchup. you can just 3warpgate next to your nex and dont take any damage, but if you win the micro encounter you can kill his pylons. its an exciting matchup where a unit counts as much as in zvz. leave it be. didnt bother reading the other stuff. Actually you are 100% wrong, because of the auto focus workers if you do the same strat in your own base you just lost the game. Trust me I've tried. Edit: I think that they should certainly do a minor advantage for being on a hill, however I think the reason they haven't is because there are many maps you are not on a hill which would result in making those maps unbalanced: correct me if I am wrong. | ||
|
Vasoline73
United States7817 Posts
How many times have you watched a SCBW match and shouted "omg come on how lucky can you get?! He totally got jewed by fighting from the low ground!! how lame!!" Seriously, I've never seen high ground "luck" appear broken in BW. If you attack up hill and lose, it's not luck, you're just dumb for fighting a battle from the low ground without taking into account high ground advantage. Low ground has a disadvantage in battle, it just makes sense. How does damage reduction make sense? Does a bullet hurt 30% less if you get shot from low ground IRL? If you get hit, it doesn't matter if it's from low or high ground, the damage is the same. Low ground miss % makes more sense strategically because IRL that is the disadvantage of low ground. High ground has better vision and an easier time picking out targets... low ground has more problems to deal with and thus has a lower % of hitting their targets. And before anyone with 18 posts says "hurp durp are warp gates and aliens IRL? nothing has to be realistic", I'm just saying strategically the game is much more interesting if low ground has a miss % instead of a set damage reduction. The game is deeper and battles will plays out more as it should, where high ground is just one aspect of "advantage" in an encounter. A set damage reduction is really shallow and like Chill alluded to once, makes the game easier to fully comprehend. Attacking from the low ground should be a risk. When you know "ok im fighting with 30% damage reduction but I know how much stuff he has with my obs so I know I'll win the fight regardless of the ramp and wall in" it's not a question anymore. Attacking from the low ground should be a choice.. by making the damage reduced you take away that choice because people will always know when it's right to engage from the low ground and when it's wrong. Which is boring and shallow IMO. And less realistic in a battle. TLDR: Miss % is going to make the game deeper and more interesting than a flat damage reduction from the low ground | ||
|
Smurfz
United States327 Posts
I'd prefer damage % decrease over chance to miss. Honestly I'd be fine with either though. Better than the current cliff mechanics either way. | ||
|
InToTheWannaB
United States4770 Posts
| ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
 ) | ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
| ||
|
tehSchoolBus
United States2 Posts
But I think that the only thing that needs to actually be changed at this point is spellcasting. By allowing players to spellcast where they cannot see (but obviously within the spellcaster unit's range) you would open up opportunities to address the no LOS w/cliffs problem. Terran would be able to launch nukes on cliff units, as well as EMPs against toss to make units easier to clean up real fast after being scanned. Protoss would be able to use psionic storm. Zerg would be able to spawn infested terran on the cliff with infestors, giving temporary LOS. After this, then we could see how players make tactical changes to deal with these situations. So far I like how things work though. As day[9] says, SC2 is really about being on the offensive and is brutal to those who do not take advantage of everything they can. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
| ||
|
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
| ||
|
Bosko
United States155 Posts
It's like high ground is terrible and amazing at the same time. It doesn't sound right but when I'm playing I feel the same way. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
Personally, I think that both %miss and damage reduction are great ideas... new mechanics for a new game after all. | ||
|
Rucky
United States717 Posts
100% hits with vision affects three components of the game. Don't get confused, don't mix them up, don't think just because it seems probable on one means it should be implemented. There's CHOKES, CLIFFS and HIGHGROUNDS! Chokes and Cliffs already provide advantages so the 100% hit doesn't hurt the defenders advantage of those locations as much. For highground battles, with 100% hit, the whole component of the game disappears. Positioning of highground is no longer advantageous for w/e reasons (attacking, defending, holding key spots) The entire map would be flat and that will lead to boring games of stronger army attacking weaker army. There's no high ground to retreat to. This might be why people see the trend of the game is that way. The person with stronger larger army should not always win. They should gain map control and that leads on and on to other tangents. Main thing is it all starts with the positional advantage of highground. | ||
| ||
