|
Canada11327 Posts
@Spyridon
You are framing this all as though it is some kind of balance complaint. It stands to reason that if Zerg is changed then the other races would have to change accordingly. It wouldn't be a change in a vacuum.
But getting rid of free spammable units wouldn't make Zerg more Terran-like. If anything, it might force Blizzard to change Tier 1/ 1.5 Zerg units to be more swarmy. (Whatever happened to a 1 supply Zerg unit?) And Broodlings are doing exactly what lategame cracklings ought to be doing in my opinion.
|
On February 04 2013 15:10 Falling wrote:
@Spyridon. If turrets really have become as spammable as broodlings and infested terran, than I would/will argue against it just as much. I don't particularly care who has the spammable free units that block pathing. This is not racial balance to me. All I care is there is too many things hindering micro during the battle. (And perhaps terrible, terrible damage is another cause- but that's a separate issue. Regardless, critical mass that one shots units is not in opposition to my point. It stands to reason that if a unit doesn't exist anymore one can't micro it. That has nothing to do with pre-critical mass.)
Pre-battle split micro is great. I love it. It exists in most RTS'. But micro during the battle is just as important rather than having controlability come to a grinding halt due to spammable stuns, slows, and free units.
You don't make as many turrets as IT of course, but a turret does the job of 3 IT's of HP, and blocks far more area, lasts far longer, for only double the cost. And making more than 1-2 Ravens is super useful nowdays with how strong their missiles are.
You don't really need critical mass to one shot units either, 1-2 missiles will take out the entire Zerg army, 3+ makes it nearly impossible to dodge, even without Terran using positional or micro advantages.. It's not like Swarm Hosts where you need 10-12+ to even be useful, you don't even need as many as how many Infestors you typically need for a battle.
The reason I believe it's relevant is because it's an ability that is designed to be used while hindering your opponents micro, and Ravens just happen to have an ability that's a free unit that hinders movement. It wasn't that useful before, but with the new missile mechanics, it's immensely useful. Meaning Terran is now a culprit of all these complaints just as much as Zerg and Protoss.
Really, give the Ravens a good testing, and you will see how silly this whole topic is, being focused on Zerg, free units, blocking space, and being able to do damage while blocking space. In a few months time if things aren't rebalanced, you will see people coming up with complaints about Terran doing this, not Zerg or Protoss. Not that I think it's an issue since each race has their strengths... but if you guys think the current iteration of Zergs bad... Just try it out.
|
Canada11327 Posts
That is not an argument against. That simply means the problem has spread to Terran as well. I and others are opposed to its current predominance regardless of who happens to have it. If a balance patch came out and Protoss' Collosi lasers instead shot out maniac probes like the Broodlords I would see that as expanding the problem not fixing it.
(The critical mass comment had to do with the Muta vs Thor micro comparisn )
|
On February 04 2013 15:32 Falling wrote:
That is not an argument against. That simply means the problem has spread to Terran as well. I and others are opposed to its current predominance regardless of who happens to have it. If a balance patch came out and Protoss' Collosi lasers instead shot out maniac probes like the Broodlords I would see that as expanding the problem not fixing it.
(The critical mass comment had to do with the Muta vs Thor micro comparisn )
It's an argument against this topic, which is for some reason focused on Zerg, yet noone who is complaining has mentioned a problem with Terran.
|
Canada11327 Posts
"It exists somewhere else" isn't an argument against something. It simply is an argument to include it in discussion which I think is fair enough. But it doesn't counter any argument that sees free units as fundamentally problematic to game design if it dominates the gameplay too much. It just adds to the argument that the problem is widespread.
|
On February 04 2013 14:55 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 14:38 Rabiator wrote:On February 04 2013 14:32 Spyridon wrote:
all three races having their forms of free units as protection Which one is the "Terran free unit"? Please dont bother with "autoturret", because it simply costs too much to be useable. Its twice the energy of an Infested Terran AND the unit is more expensive than an Infestor AND it has less useful other abilities. Thus the Raven isnt mass-produced as the Infestor is and cant be mass produced as Zerg can because Terrans only get one out for every Starport with Tech Lab - which cost a lot of gas to build in the first place - every cycle, which is MUCH slower than "1 for every larvae I have". Twice the energy, but 3x the hp, no 4-5 second spawn time with the eggs that they can be destroyed, much larger area blocked by it, and lasts for over 6x the duration, meaning energy for energy they block paths far better, and Ravens cost only 50 more gas than an Infestor. Yeah its a little more cost, but they block a path far better as well with the same amounts of energy so the extra cost is earned. Ravens are much more common, and much stronger, in HotS than they were in WoL, and will help you immensely in both TvZ and TvP (unsure about TvT). And the Missile is an incredibly strong ability, your insane to say it has less useful other abilities. Just goes to show you haven't taken advantage of them in HotS yet, which may be why you have so many complaints about them. Because your missiles do both control space and a huge amount of damage, which is even stronger than pre-nerf Fungal used to be, and has an incredible amount of synergy with Ravens other abilities. BTW, as I suggested before, try an unranked game making 5-6 Ravens with your army, flank your opponent with them, shift queue a line of 5-6 turrets behind your opponent, sandwiching them between your enemy and the turrets/army, and use the rest on missiles on different targets. Watch how it goes. Until you see this in action, you really shouldn't be complaining about free units OR space control. Also, just drop 5-6 turrets alone in ur base, and try to walk through them, and watch how much room each covers and how well they block paths.
1. The "missile" a) has been nerfed to a single-target ability and that is bad and b) again costs more than the "other Zerg ability".
2. You "kindly" forgot to include the RANGE in your comparisons of Infested Terran and Autoturret ...
- Infested Terran: Range 9
- Autoturret: Range 3
Ravens have to endanger themselves when casting the turret and that isnt what Infestors have to do and there are hardly ever games where 20 Ravens are going to be the tactic of choice.
The duration doesnt matter because you only need those units for a maximum of 30 seconds AND the autoturret has the drawback of not being mobile, which can block your own units in while the Infested Terrans can move out of the way for your own stuff. Lets also not forget that you can cast the Infested Terran while burrowed ...
On February 04 2013 15:32 Falling wrote:
That is not an argument against. That simply means the problem has spread to Terran as well. I and others are opposed to its current predominance regardless of who happens to have it. If a balance patch came out and Protoss' Collosi lasers instead shot out maniac probes like the Broodlords I would see that as expanding the problem not fixing it.
(The critical mass comment had to do with the Muta vs Thor micro comparisn )
This is exactly the point ... spammable junk is terrible and if Spyridon's argument were true that Terrans could use autoturrets the same way Zerg use Infested Terrans then they need to be gotten rid of / changed as well.
On February 04 2013 15:44 Falling wrote:
"It exists somewhere else" isn't an argument against something. It simply is an argument to include it in discussion which I think is fair enough. But it doesn't counter any argument that sees free units as fundamentally problematic to game design if it dominates the gameplay too much. It just adds to the argument that the problem is widespread.
Yep ... someone else shooting people with a gun / someone else cheating his customers with bad stock dealings / someone else sleeping with someone else's wife isnt a good excuse to do it yourself.
----
Please, Spyridon, talk about the ISSUE of free units being able to block stuff instead of pointing out that all races can do it. Why are free units a GOOD thing?
|
Broadly speaking, free units undermine the importance of economy. In many situations, having infestors for example is actually equivalent to having a better economy. Perhaps it's an energy cap issue (i.e. amount of free units). I think this is the biggest issue in SC2. A Zerg down to one mining base but with 10 infestors is actually much better off than the other two races with one mining base.
Perhaps this is my personal experience, but I'd economy (i.e. minerals and gas spent) to define the state/value of a player in a game, +/- 30% max. The variance is affected by things like unit composition, micro, positioning, etc.
Anti-micro spells, and more generally the "one-player" aspects of the game (i.e. creep spread granting permanent vision) are really bad for the game, but that's another issue...
|
On February 04 2013 16:08 Rabiator wrote:
1. The "missile" a) has been nerfed to a single-target ability and that is bad and b) again costs more than the "other Zerg ability".
Wow.... That shows how out of touch you are with this whole situation. It was nerfed to a single target abiltiy in the past, but since about a month ago it was rebuffed, so that it still targets a specific unit rather than an area, but again does AoE damage. This makes it far harder to avoid, because yeah in low numbers you can pull that single unit away from the rest of your army, but if you have 3+ missiles coming out and only 5 seconds to all of them away, it's not going to happen. Especially with a Zerg army where the units are smaller and harder to point out, even harder with Terrans using positional advantage and blocking the Zergs path.
Refer to patch 11 notes....
Or better yet... TRY IT FOR YOURSELF. It's always immensely frustrating when dealing with people on forums who argue something, yet won't even take the time to try things for themselves. All you did is prove that your out of touch with what you are trying to talk about, and that you will argue things before you even attempt them. Yet you expect people to believe you know what you are talking about?
Oh and by the way, it costs the same amount of energy as Fungal....
2. You "kindly" forgot to include the RANGE in your comparisons of Infested Terran and Autoturret ...
- Infested Terran: Range 9
- Autoturret: Range 3
Ravens have to endanger themselves when casting the turret and that isnt what Infestors have to do and there are hardly ever games where 20 Ravens are going to be the tactic of choice.
You can do it easily with 5-6 Ravens, no need for 20, and range isn't an issue.
Once again try the tactic for yourself! Don't argue something you have never even attempted!
This is exactly the point ... spammable junk is terrible and if Spyridon's argument were true that Terrans could use autoturrets the same way Zerg use Infested Terrans then they need to be gotten rid of / changed as well.
Nice to see you can admit that, but it's a shame to see you spend so much more time arguing something you don't really know about, when you could test it in less time than it took to write this post.
Please, Spyridon, talk about the ISSUE of free units being able to block stuff instead of pointing out that all races can do it. Why are free units a GOOD thing?
As I've stated probably a dozen times now, in the context of the current balance, they are the only Zerg units intended to be both economical and a siege unit. Blocking stuff isn't even the top priority for them, absorbing a few shots is the key for Zerg players, as their space control mechanic involves the weaker units taking the fire since all the other units are not economical. Without that, they would have to redesign the units for the entire race from all being non economical, or add some other form of "defensive/tanking" and "siege" units. Whether anyone likes it or not, the races iteration in SC2 is designed around them taking hits, not blocking paths.
That's precisely why it's so ridiculous that the primary complaints are about them blocking paths, when the Terran free units are the free units designed for being strong at blocking paths, not Zergs. If you don't think that's a good mechanic, this topic should be called "Terrans and free units". Because trying to say the problem with Zergs units is that they block paths is a blatant misunderstanding of how the units and race are used.
|
Swarm hosts are like Siege tanks that have 40 range. It's really, really stupid from a design standpoint, balanced or not. Whatever, I guess Dustin Browder thinks it's Zergy™.
I can just see Dustin and Dayvie sitting at the computer with Swarm Hosts and Brood Lords geekin out, "d0000d there r so many units its AWESOMEEE!!!!!!11111"
|
I have found one and only one thing that consistently deals with swarm hosts when I play Terran.
RAVENS
Seriously people, stop being pussies, build ravens out of 2 starports ASAP, I have found the new HSM to be good against pretty much... everything, lol. Go blow some shit up and vent that rage 
|
On February 05 2013 05:19 hangarninetysix wrote:
Swarm hosts are like Siege tanks that have 40 range. It's really, really stupid from a design standpoint, balanced or not. Whatever, I guess Dustin Browder thinks it's Zergy™.
I can just see Dustin and Dayvie sitting at the computer with Swarm Hosts and Brood Lords geekin out, "d0000d there r so many units its AWESOMEEE!!!!!!11111"
I can tell you right now that if you can kill siege tank shells before they land on the clump of marines, people would find siege tanks the worse units in the game.
|
On February 04 2013 17:38 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +Please, Spyridon, talk about the ISSUE of free units being able to block stuff instead of pointing out that all races can do it. Why are free units a GOOD thing? As I've stated probably a dozen times now, in the context of the current balance, they are the only Zerg units intended to be both economical and a siege unit. Blocking stuff isn't even the top priority for them, absorbing a few shots is the key for Zerg players, as their space control mechanic involves the weaker units taking the fire since all the other units are not economical. Without that, they would have to redesign the units for the entire race from all being non economical, or add some other form of "defensive/tanking" and "siege" units. Whether anyone likes it or not, the races iteration in SC2 is designed around them taking hits, not blocking paths. That's precisely why it's so ridiculous that the primary complaints are about them blocking paths, when the Terran free units are the free units designed for being strong at blocking paths, not Zergs. If you don't think that's a good mechanic, this topic should be called "Terrans and free units". Because trying to say the problem with Zergs units is that they block paths is a blatant misunderstanding of how the units and race are used.
Yet again you are "arguing" about in the whinging kids mode "but Terran stuff is stronger" ... which it isnt, because Ravens are harder to mass than either Infestors or Broodlords.
The point is that this "free unit generation" seems the become the "Zerg trick" more and more and while whatever you say about it being necessary is probably true that doesnt make it good. Necessary <> good!
Lets explaine the problem of "battlefield shaping abilities" again. This is NOT the same as SIEGE units (and I dont know why you bring that up all the time).
Lets imagine you are playing a game of football and you are clearly in the better team. Would you think it is a "fair deal" when the opposing team can rather suddenly build long walls to block your way while you cant? How about a race, where you are faster but the other runner can throw sticks between your legs to "deny your skill"?
DENIAL OF SKILL SUCKS! You should win with greater skill and not by being able to negate the skill of your opponent. Thats why Forcefield and Fungal are terrible and why massive numbers of free units are terrible. If these things are "necessary" they need to be changed, but I suspect Browder doesnt really care in the same way he doesnt *really* want to get rid of the deathball ... which many people hate with a passion.
----
Yep, I missed that Raven de-nerfing, but the single target version was total junk and showed how much they have "no clue". In the "new incarnation" the Seeker Missile has still become rather boring and I prefered the cooler "slow and beeping" one. Although you say "you dont need 20 Ravens" that isnt entirely true, because you "need" 20 Infestors (a high number anyways) to always have enough energy to be able to cast your spells ... one of the Infestors will have the energy for a Fungal or two and most of them will have the energy for the dirt cheap Infested Terran. With just 3 Ravens you could do it ONCE, but would have to wait minutes to be able to do it again. That isnt what I would call "viable".
|
On February 05 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 17:38 Spyridon wrote:Please, Spyridon, talk about the ISSUE of free units being able to block stuff instead of pointing out that all races can do it. Why are free units a GOOD thing? As I've stated probably a dozen times now, in the context of the current balance, they are the only Zerg units intended to be both economical and a siege unit. Blocking stuff isn't even the top priority for them, absorbing a few shots is the key for Zerg players, as their space control mechanic involves the weaker units taking the fire since all the other units are not economical. Without that, they would have to redesign the units for the entire race from all being non economical, or add some other form of "defensive/tanking" and "siege" units. Whether anyone likes it or not, the races iteration in SC2 is designed around them taking hits, not blocking paths. That's precisely why it's so ridiculous that the primary complaints are about them blocking paths, when the Terran free units are the free units designed for being strong at blocking paths, not Zergs. If you don't think that's a good mechanic, this topic should be called "Terrans and free units". Because trying to say the problem with Zergs units is that they block paths is a blatant misunderstanding of how the units and race are used. Yet again you are "arguing" about in the whinging kids mode "but Terran stuff is stronger" ... which it isnt, because Ravens are harder to mass than either Infestors or Broodlords. The point is that this "free unit generation" seems the become the "Zerg trick" more and more and while whatever you say about it being necessary is probably true that doesnt make it good. Necessary <> good! Lets explaine the problem of "battlefield shaping abilities" again. This is NOT the same as SIEGE units (and I dont know why you bring that up all the time). Lets imagine you are playing a game of football and you are clearly in the better team. Would you think it is a "fair deal" when the opposing team can rather suddenly build long walls to block your way while you cant? How about a race, where you are faster but the other runner can throw sticks between your legs to "deny your skill"? DENIAL OF SKILL SUCKS! You should win with greater skill and not by being able to negate the skill of your opponent. Thats why Forcefield and Fungal are terrible and why massive numbers of free units are terrible. If these things are "necessary" they need to be changed, but I suspect Browder doesnt really care in the same way he doesnt *really* want to get rid of the deathball ... which many people hate with a passion. ---- Yep, I missed that Raven de-nerfing, but the single target version was total junk and showed how much they have "no clue". In the "new incarnation" the Seeker Missile has still become rather boring and I prefered the cooler "slow and beeping" one. Although you say "you dont need 20 Ravens" that isnt entirely true, because you "need" 20 Infestors (a high number anyways) to always have enough energy to be able to cast your spells ... one of the Infestors will have the energy for a Fungal or two and most of them will have the energy for the dirt cheap Infested Terran. With just 3 Ravens you could do it ONCE, but would have to wait minutes to be able to do it again. That isnt what I would call "viable".
Bad analogy--because it'd be even less fun if the other team could just shoot your runner dead.
They both create the same effect--one more forgiving than the other.
Run in range of a tank/lurker/reaver/colossus/storm/etc... line, you lose most/part of your army as you retreat. But you save some number of troops.
Run in range of an infestor/broodlord/SH/Sentry etc... line, you get most/part of your army trapped as you retreat. But you save some number of troops.
They're exactly the same although executed properly. The difference? Sexiness.
Tanks/Reavers/lurkers blow up/shred the enemy in blood and glory as you retreat the survivors saving them from doom. That looks and sounds cool.
vs
Green stuff lands on some of your troops and we get to watch them stand around for 30 seconds or so and they suddenly die. Or, white bubbles form on the map, units glitch out as their trapped by forcefields spazzaming like retards as they get shot helplessly by stalkers. Yeah, it's about as exciting watching it as it is reading a description of it.
Explosions, cool. Watching units stand around slowly losing hitpoints, not cool.
Neither one is all that different from the other--but one definitely feels and looks more annoying than the other. This isn't really "skill denial" since those units are as dead as when they run into a reaver shot. But watching them fritz out helpless as they lose hitpoints feels frustrating and looks silly.
And yes, Zerg is getting free units as its gimmick, and yes, it technically makes sense--but damn does it look boring to watch 
|
On February 05 2013 15:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:And yes, Zerg is getting free units as its gimmick, and yes, it technically makes sense--but damn does it look boring to watch
Tell that to PLAGUUUUUUU.
Not to say that Fungal is in any way the same, but Plague was red goo that never actually killed things and people got plenty hyped for that (and please, don't let this start some BW>SC2 crap). "Excitement" can be half-attributed to the casters.
|
why do you guys still argue that it takes no skill to use these battle field shaping abilities? have you ever tried to hit good FF while your army was engaging at the same time, or to set up a flank, let everything run it at the same time and hit good fungals? its maybe boring to watch, but it takes hell of a lot of skill to actually hit those abilities correctely
and why do you think those abilities take away your skill? have you ever watched a pro game match? ppl try to bate FF and fungals to burn through the energy of sentrys and infestors. i'd say it takes quite a bit of skill to do that. it is just another kind of skill. it's not that "set up a flank and rush in" typ of skill but skill nonetheless.
|
On February 05 2013 16:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 15:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:And yes, Zerg is getting free units as its gimmick, and yes, it technically makes sense--but damn does it look boring to watch Tell that to PLAGUUUUUUU. Not to say that Fungal is in any way the same, but Plague was red goo that never actually killed things and people got plenty hyped for that (and please, don't let this start some BW>SC2 crap). "Excitement" can be half-attributed to the casters.
Actually, plaguu by itself is boring. But the defiler as a unit is interesting because it is dynamic.
It eats lings so it can cast overcosted spells that don't kill things on their own. Plagu weakens big units so your army finishes it off. Plague gimps their army so your army finishes them off.
Fungal is the shotgun that wins. Why make non-infestors when it cuts into you fungals? If plague was just a 300 damage spell people would hate it. But its a spell that creates combat. It encourages it. Hence it is exciting.
|
On February 05 2013 16:06 looken wrote:
why do you guys still argue that it takes no skill to use these battle field shaping abilities? have you ever tried to hit good FF while your army was engaging at the same time, or to set up a flank, let everything run it at the same time and hit good fungals? its maybe boring to watch, but it takes hell of a lot of skill to actually hit those abilities correctely
and why do you think those abilities take away your skill? have you ever watched a pro game match? ppl try to bate FF and fungals to burn through the energy of sentrys and infestors. i'd say it takes quite a bit of skill to do that. it is just another kind of skill. it's not that "set up a flank and rush in" typ of skill but skill nonetheless.
The thing about Forcefield is that it limits mapmakers by making choke points too powerful. Sure you can siege up on them, but that doesnt make them 100% impassable; Forcefield does. Yes, there are ways to crush that Forcefield, but when exactly are Zergs getting Ultralisks? About an age later than Protoss get Forcefield. Thors arent the pinnacle of mobility either, so they arent really a "counter" to Forcefields. Its also not about your skill but rather the opportunity to screw up the skill of your opponent. Skill denial is bad if you have an asymmetric system like Starcraft. It was bad in WoW PvP and should be considered just as terrible here in SC2.
On February 05 2013 15:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On February 04 2013 17:38 Spyridon wrote:Please, Spyridon, talk about the ISSUE of free units being able to block stuff instead of pointing out that all races can do it. Why are free units a GOOD thing? As I've stated probably a dozen times now, in the context of the current balance, they are the only Zerg units intended to be both economical and a siege unit. Blocking stuff isn't even the top priority for them, absorbing a few shots is the key for Zerg players, as their space control mechanic involves the weaker units taking the fire since all the other units are not economical. Without that, they would have to redesign the units for the entire race from all being non economical, or add some other form of "defensive/tanking" and "siege" units. Whether anyone likes it or not, the races iteration in SC2 is designed around them taking hits, not blocking paths. That's precisely why it's so ridiculous that the primary complaints are about them blocking paths, when the Terran free units are the free units designed for being strong at blocking paths, not Zergs. If you don't think that's a good mechanic, this topic should be called "Terrans and free units". Because trying to say the problem with Zergs units is that they block paths is a blatant misunderstanding of how the units and race are used. Yet again you are "arguing" about in the whinging kids mode "but Terran stuff is stronger" ... which it isnt, because Ravens are harder to mass than either Infestors or Broodlords. The point is that this "free unit generation" seems the become the "Zerg trick" more and more and while whatever you say about it being necessary is probably true that doesnt make it good. Necessary <> good! Lets explaine the problem of "battlefield shaping abilities" again. This is NOT the same as SIEGE units (and I dont know why you bring that up all the time). Lets imagine you are playing a game of football and you are clearly in the better team. Would you think it is a "fair deal" when the opposing team can rather suddenly build long walls to block your way while you cant? How about a race, where you are faster but the other runner can throw sticks between your legs to "deny your skill"? DENIAL OF SKILL SUCKS! You should win with greater skill and not by being able to negate the skill of your opponent. Thats why Forcefield and Fungal are terrible and why massive numbers of free units are terrible. If these things are "necessary" they need to be changed, but I suspect Browder doesnt really care in the same way he doesnt *really* want to get rid of the deathball ... which many people hate with a passion. ---- Yep, I missed that Raven de-nerfing, but the single target version was total junk and showed how much they have "no clue". In the "new incarnation" the Seeker Missile has still become rather boring and I prefered the cooler "slow and beeping" one. Although you say "you dont need 20 Ravens" that isnt entirely true, because you "need" 20 Infestors (a high number anyways) to always have enough energy to be able to cast your spells ... one of the Infestors will have the energy for a Fungal or two and most of them will have the energy for the dirt cheap Infested Terran. With just 3 Ravens you could do it ONCE, but would have to wait minutes to be able to do it again. That isnt what I would call "viable". Bad analogy--because it'd be even less fun if the other team could just shoot your runner dead. They both create the same effect--one more forgiving than the other. Run in range of a tank/lurker/reaver/colossus/storm/etc... line, you lose most/part of your army as you retreat. But you save some number of troops. Run in range of an infestor/broodlord/SH/Sentry etc... line, you get most/part of your army trapped as you retreat. But you save some number of troops. They're exactly the same although executed properly. The difference? Sexiness. Tanks/Reavers/lurkers blow up/shred the enemy in blood and glory as you retreat the survivors saving them from doom. That looks and sounds cool. vs Green stuff lands on some of your troops and we get to watch them stand around for 30 seconds or so and they suddenly die. Or, white bubbles form on the map, units glitch out as their trapped by forcefields spazzaming like retards as they get shot helplessly by stalkers. Yeah, it's about as exciting watching it as it is reading a description of it. Explosions, cool. Watching units stand around slowly losing hitpoints, not cool. Neither one is all that different from the other--but one definitely feels and looks more annoying than the other. This isn't really "skill denial" since those units are as dead as when they run into a reaver shot. But watching them fritz out helpless as they lose hitpoints feels frustrating and looks silly. And yes, Zerg is getting free units as its gimmick, and yes, it technically makes sense--but damn does it look boring to watch
The analogies were given to show how terrible a "denial of skill" type of play is when it is done in an unequal setting. Shooting the "other player" is something which both sides can do (with different kinds of guns and such) and its all about the denial part, which enables the worse player to screw the better player.
A game of "american football" or "Rugby" is ok only because both teams are allowed the same amount of dirty tricks, but what happens if you pitch a rugby team against a regular football (soccer) team and each would have to abide by their normal rules? That would be kinda terrible and a bad rugby team would probably wipe the floor with any football team.
Denial of skill abilities just waste time and the game needs to be adjusted to enable Protoss to fight without Forcefield (they cant really atm) and Zerg to fight without their massive numbers of free units. Broodlings could be changed to last longer and the rate of fire of a Broodlord could be adjusted to that and you simply wouldnt have that self-replenishing wall of free units anymore (roughly 1 Broodling for every Broodlord is ok, but not 3 at the same time); Infested Terrans could be "lobbed as the egg but pop right upon landing" for 50 energy for example and this would cut the number of ITs in half. There are ways to make Zergs free units work without a complete redesign, but the big wall of free units is a terrible idea.
|
On February 05 2013 18:04 Rabiator wrote:
Infested Terrans could be "lobbed as the egg but pop right upon landing" for 50 energy for example and this would cut the number of ITs in half. There are ways to make Zergs free units work without a complete redesign, but the big wall of free units is a terrible idea.
Note that you are still ignoring the fact that the auto turrets cost 50 energy, and block as much room as 3 infested terrans, at higher health. (Actually, they block more room than 3 infested terrans, almost as much as a 3x3 block of IT's)
You keep targeting Zergs free units, which aren't even designed for, or good at, making a "wall". Zergs units are best at absorbing a single attack and do a little damage if you don't target them, NOT making a wall. How come you have absolutely nothing to say about Terrans free units, you know... the ones that are designed for making a wall?
If you had such a problem with free units that block paths, you would be targeting your own race. Which goes to show that you are just biased, and most likely still didn't even try Ravens for yourself, or else you would know the race that could make a "wall of free units" best is Terran.
BTW, your Rugby example is a bad one too, because you describe it as if the "dirty tricks" are the only factor. When in reality, Terran vs a Forcefield is more like one team is allowed to have weapons, and the other team is allowed to set up barricades to block your path. They each have their own dirty tricks.
I honestly question if you even play HotS. Because Broodlords and Infestors aren't even ideal anymore, especially in ZvT. Plus the fact that you aren't even aware of how Ravens Seeker Missile has changed, and seem to be completely unwilling to attempt one of the strongest new compositions.... Do you even play HotS?
|
On February 05 2013 18:04 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 16:06 looken wrote:
why do you guys still argue that it takes no skill to use these battle field shaping abilities? have you ever tried to hit good FF while your army was engaging at the same time, or to set up a flank, let everything run it at the same time and hit good fungals? its maybe boring to watch, but it takes hell of a lot of skill to actually hit those abilities correctely
and why do you think those abilities take away your skill? have you ever watched a pro game match? ppl try to bate FF and fungals to burn through the energy of sentrys and infestors. i'd say it takes quite a bit of skill to do that. it is just another kind of skill. it's not that "set up a flank and rush in" typ of skill but skill nonetheless. The thing about Forcefield is that it limits mapmakers by making choke points too powerful. Sure you can siege up on them, but that doesnt make them 100% impassable; Forcefield does. Yes, there are ways to crush that Forcefield, but when exactly are Zergs getting Ultralisks? About an age later than Protoss get Forcefield. Thors arent the pinnacle of mobility either, so they arent really a "counter" to Forcefields. Its also not about your skill but rather the opportunity to screw up the skill of your opponent. Skill denial is bad if you have an asymmetric system like Starcraft. It was bad in WoW PvP and should be considered just as terrible here in SC2. [...]
it does not? O_o well i mean yeah you can engage and lose all your stuff for nothing, but the same argument can be made for FF and fungal. the skill is to know HOW you have to engage that situation is it not? it denies a-moving into an army, i give you that, but then again, a-moving doesent require that much skill now, does it?
why do you compare sc2 to WoW? RTS vs MMORPG..? next thing is a comparison with CS or what?
btw, as in sc2 you were able to force your opponent to use his stuns and snares insituations he did not actually want to use them in WoW. that was what separated a good PvPer from an excellent PvPer...
|
On February 05 2013 18:36 looken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 18:04 Rabiator wrote:On February 05 2013 16:06 looken wrote:
why do you guys still argue that it takes no skill to use these battle field shaping abilities? have you ever tried to hit good FF while your army was engaging at the same time, or to set up a flank, let everything run it at the same time and hit good fungals? its maybe boring to watch, but it takes hell of a lot of skill to actually hit those abilities correctely
and why do you think those abilities take away your skill? have you ever watched a pro game match? ppl try to bate FF and fungals to burn through the energy of sentrys and infestors. i'd say it takes quite a bit of skill to do that. it is just another kind of skill. it's not that "set up a flank and rush in" typ of skill but skill nonetheless. The thing about Forcefield is that it limits mapmakers by making choke points too powerful. Sure you can siege up on them, but that doesnt make them 100% impassable; Forcefield does. Yes, there are ways to crush that Forcefield, but when exactly are Zergs getting Ultralisks? About an age later than Protoss get Forcefield. Thors arent the pinnacle of mobility either, so they arent really a "counter" to Forcefields. Its also not about your skill but rather the opportunity to screw up the skill of your opponent. Skill denial is bad if you have an asymmetric system like Starcraft. It was bad in WoW PvP and should be considered just as terrible here in SC2. [...] it does not? O_o well i mean yeah you can engage and lose all your stuff for nothing, but the same argument can be made for FF and fungal. the skill is to know HOW you have to engage that situation is it not? it denies a-moving into an army, i give you that, but then again, a-moving doesent require that much skill now, does it? why do you compare sc2 to WoW? RTS vs MMORPG..? next thing is a comparison with CS or what? btw, as in sc2 you were able to force your opponent to use his stuns and snares insituations he did not actually want to use them in WoW. that was what separated a good PvPer from an excellent PvPer...
He is merely unable to properly explain what he's experiencing. He thinks that the reason he dislikes forcefields and Fungals is because it "takes away micro" moreso than killing units take away micro. The reason he thinks this is because when siege tanks and spidermines kill units--it looks like a legitimate and fair way to "take away micro" while (since you can still see them) forcefields and fungals are unfair ways to take away micro.
Now (in my opinion) he is right that it looks boring/unfair to watch units die to forcefield blocks. It *looks* ridiculous to watch a clump of 15 vikings die to fungals as they helpless float there losing hitpoints. It doesn't matter that when fungals hit they deal less damage than a siege tank shot--at least a siege tank shot looks like a fair way to deal 35-50 damage while fungal looks like a cheesy way to deal 30-40 damage. He's right on that--he's simply wrong on the *why* it is so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
