EPTBlizzard and the All-In - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
| ||
mati
Argentina114 Posts
On December 11 2010 07:16 lowercase wrote: I made a thread about this a while ago and it died. I wasn't necessarily thinking about cheese, I was thinking of complete play styles. My concern was that we weren't seeing any Protoss builds other than Colossus/Stalker, and 'Toss was getting hammered on the ladders and in competition. This GSL though, we have seen 3 protoss in the final 8, despite having only 12 in the round of 64! And, I was thrilled to notice, no-one is relying on colossus/stalker anymore. I am just thrilled this GSL, despite the lack of many really epic series (except Clide/Leenock). I believe Blizzard has a duty to patch the game not only for balance, but for interest. Expansions also serve this purpose. But I really think we need to look at the history of Brood War, and see how it changed over time once it was in its "final" patched form. The "Bisu build" forge FE revolutionized PvZ, even as that match was stagnating. In SC2, we have MarineKing showcasing the power of those basic units, as well as HongUn and MC showing us how to incorporate stargates into Protoss play, without simply void-ray rushing (these builds are much more sophisticated than any gold-level play like that). Fruitdealer in GSL 1 showed us how to deal with reaper harass and cliff drops - even before reapers and medivacs got nerfed. One thing I think Blizz could really do to "revitalize" the game is to make top-tier tech actually worthwhile. For battlecruisers, carriers, and... whatever top tier stuff zerg has they never use (most zergs do end up using all their units in the long run anyway... maybe they need more units) to be actually useful, there needs to be a real benefit to tech to it - that is, the advantage of teching to a certain mineral/gas value of high tech units must be greater than an equivalent mineral/gas value of lower tech units, or there is no point in getting them. See how terran goes mass bio, with maybe a few thors or tanks, despite zerg and protoss both having good anti-bio options (antibiotics?), e.g.: colossi, HTs, banelings. There also needs to be better static defenses for all three races. If we want epic games, and epic generally means long, there has to be more options for defense. Narrow chokes and high-ground advantage are one, but a very slight buff to defensive structures would be nice, plus a build-time increase to deter the offensive use of them! Anyway, I digress, Just quoting to state that i agree with everything you said sir! Blizzard will do whatever they need to do to make this game a epic legend like BW was, because thats means LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of money for them, so you can bet they will keep working to make the game as entretained (or whatever is typer, sry for my crappy english) possible... BUT!!, by the other hand, we cannot just expect to sit while someone else does all the works for us... The development of strategies, ideas, excecutions, etc is also very very important, and is crucial for us to get more and more cool epic games. Renember fruidealer on GSL1... When zerg was the laugh race that nobody hope to win anything at all... Yes we can blame blizzard for the all ins, but we first must blame the players... Both the one who made the attack, and the one who doesnt seem to know how to defend | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
Not because repeated all-ins are not fun to watch, not because they're one-dimensional and strategically shallow, not because they're bad for esports, but because if it ever gets to that point, then there is something wrong on a fundamental balance level with the game and as its creator, Blizzard has an obligation to fix it. It would be the same thing if every Z 6pooled, or every P cannon rushed, or whatever. If things ever get to a point where everyone is using the same strategy to win, then clearly something is wrong with the game. Either that strategy is too strong, or other strategies are too weak. I personally believe SCV all-ins are too strong compared to the all-ins of other races because T can freely trade workers and come out ahead due to MULEs, and because marines and SCVs synergize better than any combination of other races' units + workers. | ||
|
BritishBeef
United Kingdom372 Posts
I am all for blizzard leaving this game for a long peroid of time if you thinkabout it logically some would argue that starcraft 1 isn't balanced and that it was done due to the maps... Even now we are having a evolution in the pvz in starcraft 1 10+ years after it was released.. But i do think its a bit bullshit how i can get roflstomped by a lower player because i haven't played 20000 games against 2rax and if you miss a bunker game over. | ||
|
Toxiferous
United States388 Posts
Standardized play will eventually work out the kinks, or at the very least its too soon to tell if it wont | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On December 11 2010 06:43 Jermstuddog wrote: How about the fact that all-in play makes 90% of their game unnecessary. As good designers, Blizzard should want their entire game to be viable. This is a good way to put it. Blizzard would want all-ins to be possible, but risky. I'm sure they would want more macro-oriented (or as macro-oriented as you can get with sc2...) play to be viable and probably the norm, however. | ||
|
HalfAmazing
Netherlands402 Posts
| ||
|
Hypatio
549 Posts
Also, I think it is pretty stupid that there is virtually no situation wherein which gateway builds (no warpgate research) are universally unviable past 5 minutes. | ||
|
goldenwitch
United States338 Posts
On December 11 2010 07:41 Toxiferous wrote: The game will balance out itself, seeing solid play like Jinros TvZ in GSL was just a taste of whats to come, I think Standardized play will eventually work out the kinks, or at the very least its too soon to tell if it wont I think that's a bad example because ... + Show Spoiler + Jinro proceeded to lose in several fast games to one and two base pushes by mc. Most of those pushes weren't even all in and jinro had an almost impossible time defending them. | ||
|
FreedomPeacer
Canada67 Posts
| ||
|
Bond(i2)
Canada926 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Hypatio
549 Posts
| ||
|
HalfAmazing
Netherlands402 Posts
| ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
I think the way the macro mechanics are designed is mostly to blame, as it allow players to be sloppy but still catch up on worker production (Or just drop a MULE or two to compensate for the lack of SCV). Another problem is that certain rushes or all-ins ends the game rather than simply doing damage. This potential should be kept to a minimum. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
us.insurgency
United States330 Posts
| ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
cheese/all-ins should be equally viable on all three races and able to defeat extremely greedy economical openings | ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
the risk of an all in should be that if a person scouts it in time or just blindly expects it, the person should be able to defend and crush the all in. with an all in like the 2 rax marine/SCV all in that simply isn't the case right now and its outcome is more of a coinflip situation. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On December 11 2010 07:56 Bond(i2) wrote: I feel like 100% accuracy vs units on cliffs really take the defenders advantage away. Maybe if they reverted it back o the way it was in bw we'd see less agression. User was warned for this post i agree. i still find that awkward. lowering accuracy for shooting up a cliff and hitting units hiding behind doodad should be implemented. one question, how are people defining all-in? i'm assuming this is becoming a popular topic in regards to mc vs jinro. from what i've seen, i did not see a game with an all-in strategy. rain vs hongun yes. | ||
|
JTouche
United States239 Posts
| ||
| ||
