|
Currently I feel like the map pool encourages a huge amount of all-in play. Right now, two of the maps (LT and Delta) more conducive to longer tech/macro oriented games hold huge disadvantages when taking your natural against T. A lot of the 2 player maps don't have viable thirds, so two-base all-ins almost seem necessary.
I can understand T's frustration with their reduced harassment options (you pretty much need a starport to harass now), but drops have really gone out of fashion. They're still very viable, but games never get to that point anymore given the popularity of Marine+SCV all-in.
I feel like Blizzard is really struggling with balancing harassment options for T specifically where the harass is effective but doesn't kill the opponent outright. For P, it seems like the Phoenix buff will really help in that respect, but for T, I really can only imagine bringing reaper speed back to rax tech, and requiring a factory for stim might help delay marine all-ins with stim, encouraging T to find other options.
|
On December 12 2010 00:50 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 00:39 oZii wrote:On December 11 2010 07:01 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
First of all, all-ins have been (and will continue to be) part of EVERY strategy game. Big risks will sometimes yield big rewards, and both players need to accept their role within this mindset and play accordingly. The obsession with macro has led to an inordinate amount of hatred for any form aggressive play off one base, regardless of whether or not it's the best way to punish eco-hungry players. People equating expansions and mass unit production with skill are completely off base. The game has shown to be remarkably balanced in the early game with some small, map enabled discrepancies. Leave it be. QFT leave the game be. The OP's arguments are somewhat biased. This thread assumes that everyone doesn't like the current state or that all-ins are seen as bad by everyone. One of his arguments is that all-ins are boring to watch which is simply not the case for alot of people. The amount of all-ins will reduce as people learn to deal with them if people keep asking for changes from blizz then there will continue to be alot of all-ins because people will have to learn the timings again depending ont he change. Starcraft 2 just needs to settle right now and stop being tinkered with. I think 2.0 patch will be one that lasts for a bit. They are really running this through the ringer so just give it time. I still get cannon rushed like many others do and there have been changes to the game plenty. That hasn't gone away. That's been around since broodwar. So I don't really understand the logic in letting things "settle" and it'll go away when the early game isn't the only problem that needs fixing. 
From reading the OP he is referring to all-in timing attacks not specifically cheese. How one can be distinguished from another is personal opinion. So cannon rushing IMO is cheese. Its been around since SC1 just like 6 pool and proxy rax. So thats a different subject. As far as specific all-in timing attacks the variety and frequency will decrease as the game and community evolve. You will see 4 gates and 2 rax rushes when the counter is found they just won't be used as frequency but more of a desperation move or to throw someone off in a Bo3 or Bo5 etc.
|
On December 12 2010 01:12 Cephei wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 01:01 lowercase wrote:On December 11 2010 23:56 HiHiByeBye wrote:On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote:
Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots. Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . . on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable. I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game. and TvZ is the same. The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that? First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push. Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in. One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line. voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days [citation needed] as its standard to expand while attacking. @gotlucky yeah exactly
FIFY.
Every time you build units, aren't you cutting investment in your base..? :S
|
On December 12 2010 01:12 Cephei wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 01:01 lowercase wrote:On December 11 2010 23:56 HiHiByeBye wrote:On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote:
Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots. Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . . on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable. I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game. and TvZ is the same. The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that? First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push. Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in. One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line. voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days as its standard to expand while attacking. @gotlucky yeah exactly
Zealot void is not all-in if he does enough damage but can't break the terran and pulls back retreats.
If we use MC v Jinro the voids would have given MC some breathing room and map control for a enough time to expand.
All-ins aren't bad either they keep the game fresh and not stale. The game is still new so all-ins are more effective right now.
|
On December 12 2010 01:22 lowercase wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 01:12 Cephei wrote:On December 12 2010 01:01 lowercase wrote:On December 11 2010 23:56 HiHiByeBye wrote:On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote:
Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots. Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . . on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable. I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game. and TvZ is the same. The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that? First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push. Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in. One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line. voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days [citation needed] as its standard to expand while attacking. @gotlucky yeah exactly FIFY. Every time you build units, aren't you cutting investment in your base..? :S
Not necessarily. You can build probes and an army at the same time. In the early game, you can't spend 150 minerals on probes and see instant returns because of the queue. If you spend 50 on a probe and 100 on a zealot, by the time the probe has finished you can buy another. Often referred to as "constant probe production."
Cutting probes early can be done in many ways, so I'll just stick to an example: Build 2 gateways and chronoboost out zealots. That's spending 200 minerals every 30 seconds on zealots, when your income might be around 400 minerals per minute. So getting that many zealots out that early would be at the expense of probes.
Zerg players often play differently (maybe you are a zerg player?). Often they build either drones or an army, which is in contrast to the other two races. But Protoss does not have to cut workers in order to build an army.
|
On December 12 2010 01:36 oZii wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 01:12 Cephei wrote:On December 12 2010 01:01 lowercase wrote:On December 11 2010 23:56 HiHiByeBye wrote:On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote:
Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots. Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . . on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable. I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game. and TvZ is the same. The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that? First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push. Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in. One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line. voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days as its standard to expand while attacking. @gotlucky yeah exactly Zealot void is not all-in if he does enough damage but can't break the terran and pulls back retreats. If we use MC v Jinro the voids would have given MC some breathing room and map control for a enough time to expand. All-ins aren't bad either they keep the game fresh and not stale. The game is still new so all-ins are more effective right now.
If you can kill enough it works out you can carry on the game, but the intention is all-in if you are putting everything into that attack to win the game.
|
Did the report button disappear or something? I don;t see it anywhere.... Anyway, I think if it comes to that point, then of course Blizzard will have to step in and re-balance some things, but I don't think that will be the case.
|
OP takes for a fact that people prefer to watch macro games (or at least it seems so dont kill me ;p). I, on the other hand, prefer to watch all-ins and early timing attack with few units.
It's a matter of taste.
Can we add a poll to see how many people are for and against the current state of the game? (regarding all-ins)
|
It was a hypothetical afou. If you want to get a poll on the current state of the game, you could open a thread and I would be more then happy to vote on it <3
|
Queen should not need spawning pool. The end
|
On December 12 2010 02:14 TributeBoxer wrote:
Queen should not need spawning pool. The end
How do you justify that? What would happen to the zerg macro? It would be amazingly strong, even though it was great now.
|
I think the concept of balancing all-Ins is relatively simple. The actual balancing is the hard part.
Balanced all-ins: Can be reasonably defended against with proper scouting and response. Is very effective vs. Unprepared or Eco/teching opponent.
Imbalances all-ins: Can not be reasonably, or possibly, defended against at all regardless of knowledge of the attack coming. Or unable to do so without unfair or inequivalant economic damage to your own economy.
Not really a difficult concept or issue in my opinion. How to actually achieve the above however Is another story.
*edit*. To make more in line with the OP. The state of all-ins is a balance issue not flavor of the game. Because by simple logic if they do not conform to the above the game is in fact broken, and requires little to no skill.
|
just make bigger maps and you'll have solved the problem
|
new maps would help a lot.
steppes of war and delta quadrant are garbage. just like incineration zone, they are bad and need to go. let's get fighting ****ing spirit back and see how games play out then; I bet it would be a LOT different and then we could find out if there is any real credence to this whole "terran late game sucks" thing because we would see pro matches almost always go into the late game.
|
If the game reach the point where all-in is the most effective strategy, then YES Blizzard should do something. However, I think we are still far from that point.
|
As the developers, blizzard is not only allowed, but should be required to move the game to a point where people can enjoy both watching and playing.
So who should be the game development police?
|
On December 12 2010 01:55 gotlucky wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 01:22 lowercase wrote:On December 12 2010 01:12 Cephei wrote:On December 12 2010 01:01 lowercase wrote:On December 11 2010 23:56 HiHiByeBye wrote:On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote:
Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots. Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . . on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable. I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game. and TvZ is the same. The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that? First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push. Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in. One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line. voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days [citation needed] as its standard to expand while attacking. @gotlucky yeah exactly FIFY. Every time you build units, aren't you cutting investment in your base..? :S Not necessarily. You can build probes and an army at the same time. In the early game, you can't spend 150 minerals on probes and see instant returns because of the queue. If you spend 50 on a probe and 100 on a zealot, by the time the probe has finished you can buy another. Often referred to as "constant probe production." Cutting probes early can be done in many ways, so I'll just stick to an example: Build 2 gateways and chronoboost out zealots. That's spending 200 minerals every 30 seconds on zealots, when your income might be around 400 minerals per minute. So getting that many zealots out that early would be at the expense of probes. Zerg players often play differently (maybe you are a zerg player?). Often they build either drones or an army, which is in contrast to the other two races. But Protoss does not have to cut workers in order to build an army.
This is why I specified "cutting investment in your base." I understand the constantly build probes and pylons philosophy. But if you know your opponent is doing this, you can cut probes, build more units, and punish him accordingly. I think it's perfectly legitimate, and in no way an "all in," I don't see what people are complaining about.
I do understand the importance of getting the hatch up quick as a zerg now, but I still think it's punishable by a good rush, and sensibly so.
|
On December 12 2010 03:30 lowercase wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 01:55 gotlucky wrote:On December 12 2010 01:22 lowercase wrote:On December 12 2010 01:12 Cephei wrote:On December 12 2010 01:01 lowercase wrote:On December 11 2010 23:56 HiHiByeBye wrote:On December 11 2010 16:17 whomybuddy wrote:
Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots. Ya toss players has no reason to complain . . . on the other hand toss all ins with void rays and zealot is nearly unstoppable. I just feel like all-in are the only thing that works for terran now because they can bearly compete with protoss mid game and gets dominated late game. and TvZ is the same. The only real advantage terran has is early game. Why not take advantage of that? First off, how is attacking with void rays and zealots an all-in? No probes come off the line, your economy is still fine, it's just a good timing push. Terran does have an early game advantage, I agree. Reaper harass into banshee was a ridiculous build before 1.2 took reapers out of the equation. I often die to a one-base marauder timing push, but I don't complain and call it cheese or an all-in. One-base play is not all-in, people, it's just a strategy! I don't consider it cheese unless you pull your workers off the line. voids rays and zealots is all-in if your cutting probes for zealots and not bothering to expand, and I think the fact you can do that without it being all-in makes the strategy even stronger :S One base play is widely regarded to be all-in these days [citation needed] as its standard to expand while attacking. @gotlucky yeah exactly FIFY. Every time you build units, aren't you cutting investment in your base..? :S Not necessarily. You can build probes and an army at the same time. In the early game, you can't spend 150 minerals on probes and see instant returns because of the queue. If you spend 50 on a probe and 100 on a zealot, by the time the probe has finished you can buy another. Often referred to as "constant probe production." Cutting probes early can be done in many ways, so I'll just stick to an example: Build 2 gateways and chronoboost out zealots. That's spending 200 minerals every 30 seconds on zealots, when your income might be around 400 minerals per minute. So getting that many zealots out that early would be at the expense of probes. Zerg players often play differently (maybe you are a zerg player?). Often they build either drones or an army, which is in contrast to the other two races. But Protoss does not have to cut workers in order to build an army. This is why I specified "cutting investment in your base." I understand the constantly build probes and pylons philosophy. But if you know your opponent is doing this, you can cut probes, build more units, and punish him accordingly. I think it's perfectly legitimate, and in no way an "all in," I don't see what people are complaining about. I do understand the importance of getting the hatch up quick as a zerg now, but I still think it's punishable by a good rush, and sensibly so.
Sorry for the confusion, because I actually agree with what you are saying here. I was mainly responding to your point "Every time you build units, aren't you cutting investment in your base..?"
I had wanted to point out that just because you are building an army does not mean you are necessarily cutting investment in your base - and that is what your question was asking.
Yes, I do think that cutting probes to punish a greedy opponent is a legitimate strategy (I do it when I have greedy opponents). I think any strategy that works is legit. But I also do agree with Cephei when he says that making an army at the expense of long term play (expanding) is an all-in strategy. He also said that he thinks the strategy is better when you don't cut your economy and play for the long term.
Whether or not you think the strategy is stronger as an all-in or as a transition is irrevelevant to his point. He was correctly (IMO) defining it as an all-in when cutting probes.
So, I think we largely agree, but maybe we don't. I'm no longer clear what your point is now  .
Sorry :\
|
On December 12 2010 02:58 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +As the developers, blizzard is not only allowed, but should be required to move the game to a point where people can enjoy both watching and playing. So who should be the game development police?
Theoretically it would be the players, but blizzard can't listen to all of the players because all players have different views, some think marines are too strong, others too weak, some think it's fine.
So basicly blizzard only listens to players when they are unanimous
|
On December 12 2010 04:50 NightHawk929 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 02:58 Djzapz wrote:As the developers, blizzard is not only allowed, but should be required to move the game to a point where people can enjoy both watching and playing. So who should be the game development police? Theoretically it would be the players, but blizzard can't listen to all of the players because all players have different views, some think marines are too strong, others too weak, some think it's fine. So basicly blizzard only listens to players when they are unanimous
lolwut? Who thinks marines are weak?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
