EPTInstant classic line by Ryung, now I like him even more.
Imba GG
[Code S] Semi-Finals 2012 GSL Season 5 - Page 187
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
Instant classic line by Ryung, now I like him even more. Imba GG | ||
|
Qwerty85
Croatia5536 Posts
| ||
|
Salient
United States876 Posts
| ||
|
Sc2Null
United States3754 Posts
When terran is winning: all is well When protoss is winning: force-fields --- The loudest people are always the complainers. | ||
|
Aquila-
516 Posts
| ||
|
Mlex
Canada324 Posts
Oh my, Kennigit having a lot of fun on Reddit. =) | ||
|
Warpath
Canada1242 Posts
On December 02 2012 01:24 Sc2Null wrote: When terran is winning: all is well wat | ||
|
AxionSteel
United States7754 Posts
On December 02 2012 01:24 Sc2Null wrote: When zerg is winning: imbalanced When terran is winning: all is well When protoss is winning: force-fields --- The loudest people are always the complainers. It is ok by me, as Terran is actually fun to watch | ||
|
calQL8r
Japan64 Posts
On December 02 2012 01:44 AxionSteel wrote: It is ok by me, as Terran is actually fun to watch Maybe it's because I'm new to sc2 and don't know shit but I find vortex vs infestor broodlord fun to watch because of the suspense idk I came from LOL. | ||
|
renkin
France249 Posts
On December 02 2012 01:44 AxionSteel wrote: It is ok by me, as Terran is actually fun to watch Sometimes I feel that the changes are only resquested for this purpose : the need of entertainment. Just because people are sick of watching Zergs win, like they were sick when they watch Jack trying to save his kidnaped daughter for another season, again. When you think about esport as a entertainment program, anything that can shift the meta game catch and keep the audience because the rules have changed. Balance patchs are the only real way that every non-profesionnal player can influence their entertainment so people "whine"... but maybe all they want is a new scenario, and it really scares me when a pro player rejoin them in this protest. | ||
|
Gesarjack
Switzerland117 Posts
On December 02 2012 01:24 Sc2Null wrote: When zerg is winning: imbalanced When terran is winning: all is well When protoss is winning: force-fields --- The loudest people are always the complainers. I love how you managed to balance whine about force fields in a post where you set yourself as anti-whiner. | ||
|
Noc-
Finland850 Posts
*Sigh* | ||
|
MattBarry
United States4006 Posts
On December 02 2012 02:20 Noc- wrote: Oh cmon another ZvZ finals? *Sigh* Second one ever. The last one was over a year ago. LosirA vs Nestea wasn even that bad | ||
|
Rollora
2450 Posts
On December 02 2012 02:20 Noc- wrote: Oh cmon another ZvZ finals? *Sigh* yes another : ---- doesn't matter if you open with a 6, 8 or 10 Pool or hatchfirst, after holding both are almost equal and then following things happen: More zergling aggression banelings roaches infestors the guy with more infestors and more fungals/Inf Terrans wins. I was bored by TvT finals, but ZvZ or PvP is even worse (cause of the mirrorbuilds) and because in TvT it feels like the player with the better multitasking and microing wins, not the one with more colossi or infestors. However, I would have wished for another TvZ finals but since RO16 were 8 Zergs already I saw that one coming. But in fact this (how it actually is: zvz finals) is better for the "nerv the terrans" whine, because if it was a TvZ finals, every Zerg would have cried: how was that possible to have again a TvZ finals after 50% of the players played Zerg. On December 01 2012 22:35 WigglingSquid wrote: Are there EHQ vods somewhere on GomTV? Funny thing: the IPL rebroadcast was in 720+ On December 02 2012 00:44 Dougalis wrote: game 2(i think) was also fucking brilliant  just saying, the engaagments in that match where probably some of the best ive ever seen in sc2 , fucking brilliant series. when mma picked up his tanks and dropped them on the infestors i think i nearly wet my pants, still have those games on my hdd , watch them every now and then Hope u mean Game 3, cause game 2 was AFAIR the failed Proxy Rax on Cloud Kingdom, Game 3 was good, after the 2 Rax-> Bunkerrush/(pressure?)->expanding-> being far ahead, ending up close | ||
|
Noc-
Finland850 Posts
On December 02 2012 02:28 MattBarry wrote: Second one ever. The last one was over a year ago. LosirA vs Nestea wasn even that bad Ops, confused tournaments. Was thinking last GSL was ZvZ Life vs. some zerg, but it was Mvp...doh. I think I confused it to MLG Fall Championship finals Life - Leenock. And it feels like I've been watching soooo much ZvZ lately. | ||
|
Chronos.
United States805 Posts
Oh well, I was rooting for Ryung all the way, he's a cool Terran to watch. Now I like him even more =p | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27414 Posts
On December 02 2012 00:27 budar wrote: I'm not sure if I was referring to your post, but in any case, this post you wrote now I consider very reasonable. However, if you consider your points from a slightly different point of view, you'll easily see that Protoss design plays just as big a role in these issues. For example, all of FF, warpgate and Colossi contribute to why gateway units (zealots and stalkers) can't really fight against any army on reasonable terms. 1. They rely on FFs basically cutting off half the opponents army at which point gateway units stack up well against the other half. 2. Warpgate allows insane offensive production at certain points of a game that basically eliminates the defender's advantage which is a crucial aspect of balancing economy and units for Zerg. This means that Zerg either crushes the attack if they see it coming in time, or they straight up die because it's basically impossible to "gain momentum" while defending a warpgate attack. 3. Colossi provide such insane (and uninteresting) AoE that warpgate units turn into meat shields. Colossi don't support the army (like a Reaver does for example), they *are* the army. For proof of that, see any TvP battle in which the Colossi are killed of quickly. All these things are just the tip of the iceberg that is the design problems of SC2. As anyone who actually thinks about these things from a maximally unbiased point of view understands, it's extremely complex. For what it's worth, I personally think Brood War has design problems as well (for one, most spells are extremely "overpowered"), but they turned out to create an insanely interesting game because of extreme mechanical difficulty and extreme dedication of the players who figured things out. That's actually the thing that annoys me the most. All of these SC2 LR threads turn into balance whines so quickly while the balance is fairly good considering how complex the "balancing act" is. Anyway, the point I quoted above I agree with 100%. As a matter of fact, I've considered both Larva inject and MULE very problematic additions to the game from the get-go, while I though chronoboost might have some potential to be interesting. However, chronoboost turned out to be completely uninteresting and has pretty obvious uses, mostly in developing your economy/build in the early game and getting upgrades later on. MULE and Larva inject have actually proven to be problematic, but it has taken a lot longer for Larva inject to "become a problem" because it is so much harder to use than either MULE or chronoboost. The MULE problem has been masked by many Terran nerfs, but that's actually a potential reason why Terran is struggling nowadays. Ah, beautiful post. Our underlying thinking is the same, so there's a good debate to be had. For example, I play Protoss, but that's not always immediately apparent from my posts. I don't either know what race you play, or can make a reasonable guess of it. That's because the way you're posting, actually reflects your attempts to be 'maximally unbiased'. You may have biases, as I do in certain unconscious ways, but you're not letting it ruin your posts. When I talk about Protoss having design issues, I feel they're there. However, both conceptually, and in application terms, these problems have been visible for ages. I agree that every matchup's flaws are dictated by the interaction between design flaws that exist in in each of the races, so when I talk about people blaming Protoss design for PvZ flaws, wrongly, I'm not saying they are wrong. I agree with them, but it's not a recent phenomenon, it's a long-standing one. The other aspect, Zerg design flaws, is only being made apparently relatively recently, and it's not due to this 'Patchzerg' interpretation - That Zergs are only doing well because of balance patches enabling them to. There's deeper complexity to it, which I think you touch upon I'll actually reference your specific examples with reference to what I'm talking about, the idea that Protoss design flaws were realised ages ago. 1. MC's legendary sentry pushes illustrated this problem with the race design, a hell of a long time ago. His pushes were pretty sick in execution, but the actual pitfalls of balancing the race around the sentry were illustrated beyond theorycrafting. You could see it! The other side of that coin, namely that Protoss being balanced around the sentry is the downside that you mention. They have weaker stock units, if the sentry is not about. This is harder to illustrate than the sentry's offensive ability, but you can. It's more looking at what Protoss players aren't doing, namely doing pressure builds with a good chunk of their army gateway, outside of specific timings, and why. It's because, without the sentry, you can't harass/pressure cost efficiently at all. Protoss gateway comps are too reliant on the sentry to make them cost-efficient to risk doing non-commital pressure. They also don't have retreat potential, being slower than Zerg units, so without the possibility of forcefielding, you risk losing everything when you're trying this. You see this problem being illustrated by the methods that Protoss players use to exert non-committal pressure. Either, they do something like a Zealot timing with +1, or they'll do some Stargate pressure, or they'll do a Stargate + Zealot pressure. Why does this approach actually validate my point about non-committal pressure? Because Protoss are trying to find a way to pressure, but without the risk of losing their entire army. The issue is retreat potential, and it being difficult to exert non-committal pressure with your main army, because it's too risky to do so. Thus, Protoss either pressure with units that they can afford to lose, even potentially doing no damage in the process and not be massively behind (Zealot timings), or they pressure with units that can retreat (Stargate pressures). The mothership core, and recall is something that may allow the kind of use of the army I'd like to see, although I think it kind of skews the risk-reward balance too far. Protoss as it is, have far too MUCH risk in using a big chunk of their gas army to do pokes with. However, if in HoTS the MSC allows a recall for every time the proverbial shit has hit the fan, it's making the risk, insufficient. 2. There were those of us who felt warpgate was flawed purely from theorycrafting, and those who were made aware of it by seeing it in action. MC's another innovator here, in the period where he was actually using the flaw you describe in his plays. Stuff like 4 gate PvP or a Nexus into 6/7 gate in other matches were demonstrations as to why cutting defenders advantage/reinforcement time was bad, and also why the ability of Protoss to frontload production in combination with this is bad. If a 6/7 gate without warpgate was being employed for example, the mere requirement for reinforcements to cross the map would weaken those kind of timings, even if the production was the same. I also hate warpgate, because it's not a choice. There's no tradeoff, or strategical decision to be made. It's obligatory because there's no advantage to not do it. I don't mind the idea of researching warpgate, or it existing necessarily, but I don't understand why its a researchable ability. It's better than naked gateways in close to every way, so either make gateways BE warpgates, or create a tradeoff. For example, an idea I had to create more 'macro' for Protoss, while making warpgate worse (comparatively, without even nerfing it) is to allow gateways to outproduce warpgates, but only if you chrono them well. This enables a player with sick macro to actually use it to his advantage more, in the same way a Zerg is rewarded for injecting properly. I feel this is an elegant (incomplete)solution, that deals with the issues of warpgate by fitting two criteria. It's actually doable, without redesigning warpgates. I think they need redesigned, but that would be a fucking NIGHTMARE to do at this time, and I don't envy Blizz if they ever actually try to do it, so I was thinking of ways to create a tradeoff to make warpgate worse, but indirectly. It also rewards players who have good macro mechanics, and enables them to differentiate themselves from their peers. There's a reason that you rarely, if ever hear a commentator say a Protoss player has 'sick macro' in the same way they do for other races. It's not because they don't, MC is one player known for playing his offraces at a Korean GM level, so it would stand to reason he can macro. It's because, beyond mere competence (which all Korean Protoss pros will have), having good macro doesn't scale as well in terms of the benefit gained, as it does with Z/T. 3. I do agree that the Collosus is uninteresting, and in the case of TvP, I don't really like the viking countering it and that dynamic. However, I don't think it is fundamentally flawed in the same way the other concepts are. It could be better, granted, but it's not terrible. PvT has a nice dynamic feel to it, at the very highest level, it's my personal favourite non-mirror matchup of late actually. I prefer Templar play to Collosus play, but the mere presence of the Collosus is part why Templar play is viable, assuming no other changes occurred this is illustrated if you straight-up took out the Collosi. Without the potential of Collosi, Terrans would be able to just hard counter Templar play pre-emptively. I was also applying my idea of indirect nerfs to it. The idea that we should try to find ways to fix a unit like that, without necessarily redesigning more fundamental parts of the game. For example, the deathball and how the collosi fits in can be, not fixed, but alleviated by even small changes. This wouldn't at all address the actual existence or functionality of deathballs, but it would address at least one of the reasons why death balls annoy people The reason, players get pissed off, is often due to assymetric difficulty, or at least the perception of it. The idea that the other guy is just A-moving, while you're working your ass off. Too often this specific annoyance isn't talked about, with reference to fixing things. Consider, making the Collosus really slow. Consider, I don't know, giving Zealots back Zealot legs from BW instead of charge, making them a lot faster in terms of passive movespeed. Now you've created a situation, where, without touching ANYTHING else, you have a deathball that is harder to control because it has to be repositioned to fit together in a 'deathball'. Thus, good Protoss players get an advantage over bad Protoss players (where previously they could both A-move) and say, Terrans get less pissed off because if they see a competently controlled deathball rolling them over, at least they know that the opponent controlled it well. The latter point, more divergent movespeeds is something that I'm mystified is not discussed more. Every time I post these ideas, I haven't even gotten any feedback on the fundamental ideas. It's a way to address part of the deathball syndrome, without fundamentally redesigning stuff like unit clumping, pathing, or changing certain units. The fundamental stuff, I would like redesigned sometimes, but my changes allow Blizz to alleviate certain grievances, without having to put in a ton of effort in redesigning the pathing, or the game engine, or the 'big, hard' stuff. TLers, a Wombat plea  If these ideas are bad or flawed, please reply and discuss why you think they are so, would be greatly appreciated | ||
|
Ammanas
Slovakia2166 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
MooMooMugi
United States10531 Posts
| ||
|
rrwrwx
United States247 Posts
| ||
| ||
