| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MHT
Sweden1026 Posts
On December 12 2010 05:05 Vandal_heart wrote: lolwut? Who thinks marines are weak? It all depends on what stage of the game you are in, in mid-late game marines are pretty weak. But you can't really label them as anything in general. | ||
|
yosata
Netherlands60 Posts
If not, Blizzard should fix it. | ||
|
NightHawk929
79 Posts
On December 12 2010 05:05 Vandal_heart wrote: lolwut? Who thinks marines are weak? I'm just using marines as an example, point is a lot of people have a lot of different opinions about everything. If you want a more accurate example, when i was back in the lower leagues, i got QQ'd a lot about terrans being OP, alternativly, (now this was months ago) I thought terran was UP because i didn't know how to properly deal with a muta harrass There are only a few areas where opinions actually become unanimous, like when blizzard wanted to terrestrially limiting FG, almost everyone, even non-zerg players was against it. | ||
|
BanelingXD
130 Posts
SCII has smaller maps with lots of tight spaces and tight camera angles that can't be changed. Want to make the game play better? Use HUGE maps with long rush distances and allow the user to zoom the camera out. Better maps = better play. | ||
|
lowercase
Canada1047 Posts
On December 12 2010 04:47 gotlucky wrote: 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 :\ Yes, we agree mostly. But! I don't consider one-base play an all-in. You are just sacrificing your long-term likelihood of winning. Since comebacks are so rare in SC2, well.... maybe it is a bit "all-in" ish. I don't consider it a true all-in unless you're prepared to GG if your attack gets fended of. | ||
|
Cephei
United Kingdom79 Posts
Yes, we agree mostly. But! I don't consider one-base play an all-in. You are just sacrificing your long-term likelihood of winning. Since comebacks are so rare in SC2, well.... maybe it is a bit "all-in" ish. I don't consider it a true all-in unless you're prepared to GG if your attack gets fended of. Sacrificing you long-term chances is basically the definition of all-in. | ||
|
lowercase
Canada1047 Posts
On December 12 2010 05:53 Cephei wrote: Sacrificing you long-term chances is basically the definition of all-in. I quit this thread. | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
I know it's not good to bring back the randomness of BW by not having all shots hit on high ground, but 1 extra range seems logical and would give a bit back to defenders advantage on the cliff. Of course, this doesn't affect melee units at all, but they're not the ones that are being punished by cliff problems in the first place. I do think that once the maps start to have: 1. farther nats/mains from each other -- helps negate some of the working rushing + units farther to travel except P with warp gates 2. more closed nats The game will start shifting more heavily to macro. However, toss can still go with cheese early because of warp gates. I wouldn't mind seeing warp gates moved to twilight council for example, and pushing queens and orbital command back to after lair and after factory respectively. That would start to push back the super early production for units which makes all in-ing so powerful. | ||
|
johngalt90
United States357 Posts
| ||
|
Cephei
United Kingdom79 Posts
| ||
|
Lucius2
Germany548 Posts
On December 12 2010 07:08 Cephei wrote: Sorry but the map pool is fine, every map is capable of and has produced some of the best games between pro's. L2P the maps or quit the game. ye if there would be 10 million games, even bloodbath could produce epic games... most of the 2 player maps are just too small, macro play almost impossible, because its all in every single time. i think the 4 players maps are far better. if you would strech DQ a bit, so its larger overall, it would be amazing aswell. | ||
|
413X
Sweden203 Posts
| ||
|
WarSong
Canada126 Posts
On December 12 2010 07:08 Cephei wrote: Sorry but the map pool is fine, every map is capable of and has produced some of the best games between pro's. L2P the maps or quit the game. so, every ladder game or GSL tournament ever played in sc2 has been on the current map pool that blizzard made, which almost everyone agrees that they're much too small, so saying that some of the best games between pros have been on the current ladder maps is like saying that some of the best chess matches have been played on a chessboard. duh? maybe chess would be better played on the surface of the sun but all we have are chessboards. the point isn't that good games can be played on the current maps, it's that the current maps facilitate bad games. yes, it's entirely possible to counter the lol-all-in-every-single-game terran attack on steppes of war, and then go on to have a bloody massacre of a fight while you claw with tooth and nail for victory, but should you HAVE to worry about the entire terran base and their relatives attacking you like white trash texans at 4minutes into the game? while they keep their economy going with lolmules while (if you're zerg) you pull everything you have to survive? sorry, but your argument is brainless and incorrect. l2think. | ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
On December 12 2010 07:08 Cephei wrote: Sorry but the map pool is fine, every map is capable of and has produced some of the best games between pro's. L2P the maps or quit the game. lol what? Or you could make maps that arent HORRIBLE and unbalanced. The games are good despite the maps. | ||
|
Cephei
United Kingdom79 Posts
The maps aren't horrible, you just can't play them. Warsong, saying everyone agrees the maps are too small is as brainless a statement as what you make out mine to be, not everyone agrees, you mean you agree and a few dozen on this thread also agree. Also 'lolmules' don't last very long, and also it means the terran economy has been trash anyway up until the point they use them, which means zerg will have built enough of an economic advantage to pull everything off and keep himself alive. The fact that zerg are heavily favoured against terran late game is the reason they get abused so much in the early game, if you want to stop the all-in's then lets nerf your late game macro thanks. 413X, all-in's are only as powerful as the opposing player is bad at scouting it, if all-in's are scouted they can be stopped, if they aren't or scouted too late they are rarely able to stop it. Like I've said on another thread, the game isn't made for spectator purposes, it's made for gameplay, sorry but the thought of having to play every game +30 minutes is a pretty terrible one. The maps are fine and make interesting games, all-ins or not. Suggesting a total new map pool is a dumb idea. | ||
|
ThePieRate
United States263 Posts
| ||
|
ducis
Canada96 Posts
| ||
|
Cephei
United Kingdom79 Posts
On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote: I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd. It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game. | ||
|
my0s
United States193 Posts
On December 12 2010 08:27 Cephei wrote: It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game. I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments. IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps. | ||
|
TeWy
France714 Posts
On December 12 2010 08:25 ducis wrote: As the game gets more polished and understood, all ins will get less popular Any evidences of that ? Why would any Terran want to go into the late-game against Zerg where he basically get outmacroed unless he is better than the Zerg in which case he could also have all-ined and end the game 15 minutes before ? Macro got popular in SC1 because each race had a fair shot at winning games in the lategame and also to defeat any timing-pushes preventing them from getting there. As these conditions have not yet proofed to be fullfilled in Starcraft 2, there is no reason to believe that the game is meant to be plaid like that (in its current balance state at least). It made me laugh when I heard Artosis claiming several times that Jinro plaid Terran as it is meant to be plaid and then see him getting destroid 4 times in a row because of the huge holes in his macro strategy. The optimal strategy is not necessarily macro-orientated. Forget everything you know about Starcraft 1 when talking about STARCRAFT 2 None of the SC2 MU look like their SC1 relatives. IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps. 2 Zergs talking about the balance of ZvT, impartial views ftw. Idra is easily the most biased and hated SC1 PGMer of all-time, so I wouldn't take his word for it. For instance, in the Beta Idra switched from Protoss to Zerg because Zerg relies less on micro/timing pushes and has better macro thus suit more his playstyle, yet now that he's an accomplished Zerg player he would deny any macro advantages over Protoss. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
GSL
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Team League
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
OSC
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
