|
On December 11 2010 07:32 toadstool wrote:
Some people are getting too greedy with their expansions, and if some players do get their expansions up and running under 10 minutes there's no way they're going to be stopped.
I think players are going to have to fine tune their builds a bit more, and have better sense of when a player is preparing to go all- in.
in SC:BW it was not uncommon to have your natural taken within 5minutes of the start and your 3rd around 10-11 minutes into the game
|
Just because Blizzard has been hesitant to apply major balance changes in the past few months, doesn't mean that they can't. I think the general consensus at Blizzard is that everything is "ok" or at least well enough to not warrant immediate hot-fixes.
The all-in Foxer style has been only active since the last two weeks of GSL2, and that's what, 4 weeks ago now?
It's unfortunate that GSL3 has seen little change when it comes to this strategy, and to a certain degree it IS worrisome, but give it at least another GSL to see what becomes of it, in my opinion.
|
yes, defending is crucial. i come from warcraft three and what does every human player do after securing an expansion? begins to mass towers. if you watch gsl the zergs that fight off cheese the best are generally the ones with better spine crawler placement. i have a strong feeling a lot of the people complaining about all ins are zergs that are going for overly economic game plans.
i'm just gonna say it overtly, i think most of the people complaining the loudest about all ins are replay copying scrubs who watch reps of hatch first pros stomping people that are paralyzed with fear by someone with slightly stronger micro and miss timing windows and get rolled over. people see that and think wow thats how i win and they get outraged when it gets countered. furthermore its become so commonplace now that people are blind building against it and racking up huge free wins cuz folks, u just plain aren't doin it right. and yes i know idra and other pros complain about it but although i know the pros are very insightful they are still human and biased and lets not forget everone has fits of petulance and sneers at their opponents and their style of play, i play lots of games, not just computer RTS, and it is a common trend.
simply put, if you're going for macro games, expect them to last an hour. not 35 minutes, a long slogging hour. but you're a superior player like you always say you are it, it should work out, right?
i will concede static defense may be a _little_ bit weak and small maps should have more easily defended naturals, but people just wanna press the easy button and drone up with 2 zerglings for 6 minutes and it doesn't work that way.
|
If the game were ever to reach that point, Blizzard would likely fix the issue by adjusting the map pool to include larger maps with longer rush distances.
Blizzard doesn't have any moral responsibility to "fix the game". However, Blizzard has high standards for its games (which is why the brand is so popular), as well as high hopes of establishing a robust foundation in esports. If their game degenerates that badly, rest assured it will be changed.
|
blizzard listened with reapers when they were too strong. list goes on, lets trust on them with this too. i personally dont think its out of hand but when it does, i'm sure blizzard will do something about it.
|
Hypothetically if the only viable strategy was all in, yes Blizzard should fix it. However, it is not at that point. First of all, people need to stop confusing aggressive play with all in's. All in's implies your economy is sacrificed so much for the attack that if it fails, it is unrecoverable. Yet all these rushes and early game attacks yield at an expansion at the same time and people still call them all ins.
|
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.
most intelligent post ive read so far..
by continuously changing the game your not giving enough time for players to find counters to these all-in strats.. for eg idra and ret stated that 14hatch was the best counter for scv marine all in.. but they have only tested methods for what 1 week? 1 month? im sure given time there will be other players who will think of crazy counters
|
Easy i would just stop playing the game. Theres very little Blizzard can do about ALL-IN if you try to balance something that has to do with an ALL IN you are going to affect the "Normal" strategies. Really its up to the players to learn to counter the all in.
|
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.
You are mostly right, but I think that many of these strategies are hated on because the risk is not nearly as big as the reward.
|
expanding doesn't seems like a big problem to me but probably the get 30 workers for your natural along the 30 in your main is a problem. Not really mine effectiv and if the enemy keeps on going for more army, there is a superp all in timing given. The 400 mins are not the big issue but the 1k mins that are put into workers and supply stuff are. Also mostly the expansions are up before the production buildings are there in bw there was mostly the production already complete before the expansion. Maybe people will figure out how to have a good eco to not be outmacroed and still be able to hold up all in pushs.
As it goes for my games i would like all ins against me (fund to hold em up), but since i play terran everyone stays silently in their base and get the evil aoe stuff atm + 200/200 . So i mostly have to win before that or buy a better computer but no money hehe. But since i am only platin i guess its the best way to win against terrans, since micro is non existant at that level.
|
Laming is just another word for skill. Grubby said something really similar to that a few years ago. He's right. Besides i prefer watching mid game micro intense all-ins as opposed to macro fests.
|
In this particular scenario, you can have your cake and eat it. Blizzard can keep their hands off the game balance and let the game play out on its own while still encouraging more entertaining playstyles.
How?
Maps. You can cycle maps. One season can have a bunch of all-in maps, one season can have a bunch of huge macro maps, one season can have a mix, one season can be all Blood Bath, one season can be all God's Garden.
After a while, you're gauranteed to see what kind of maps people prefer and what kind of maps the game benefits from the most. All without messing with "balance" and promoting player development while still keeping the game entertaining.
EDIT: Watch out! It's the God damn Batman!
|
On December 11 2010 06:50 Megaman wrote:
I feel like Blizzard should make all the maps bigger, like the size of the 4on4 maps. If I'm thrown into a small 10 by 10 foot field to play soccer in, of course I will try to all-in because I barely have room to move around. If I'm placed in a bigger soccer field, I am more likely to try developed and procedural strategies.
So, yes, I think Blizzard should up the map sizes to clear up this issue.
the soccer analogy is not a good one. i just finished coaching my son's U-7 (under 7) soccer team, and the fields are made intentionally extremely small, and the sides short 4v4, in order to encourage faster game play, more crowded conditions and more individual touches on the ball. the system was designed by the dutch, and is implemented in just about every single U-11 or lower league in average or above average clubs.
maybe the map design was on purpose, to encourage early attacking play, but with some of the macro mechanics, these all-ins are too powerful, and not enough pain when they don't work out (especially terran and MULEs)
It is a very very tricky balance issue. Fast attacking skirmish game? Or simcity and big armies? It looks like Blizzard chose the former, and people are taking advantage of it with the extra macro mechanics.
|
After 1 GSL?
People are reacting way too quickly. I think that we will see things completely change when the GSL regular season comes along, not to mention naturally at the ladder level.
Maps. You can cycle maps. One season can have a bunch of all-in maps, one season can haver a bunch of huge macro maps, one season can have a mix, one season can be all Blood Bath, one season can be all God's Garden.
After a while, you're gauranteed to see what kind of maps people prefer and what kind of maps the game benefits from the most. All without messing with "balance" and promoting player development while still keeping the game entertaining.
Yeah, maps are a much easier way to tweak the game without being completely reactionary every time people decide to QQ (which is every time a game is played). Changing maps is much quicker and much more painless than changing mechanics.
|
I get the argument that having SCII be the most "entertaining" it can be will lead to the most popularity of the game with both players and spectators, but ultimately I don't think the game has a glaring imbalance that will make all-ins the only winning strategies. If that were the case it would come more from the lack of knowledge and experience in the players, not the game (i.e. not Blizzard's responsibility).
Hopefully as the general skill level rises and people become more familiar with the game they will find answers to the current "unbeatable" all-in strategies and people will know better than to try them anymore. I think it is fair to say it would be harder to all-in somebody in SCII if they knew the game they way Flash/Jaedong understand SC:BW.
Besides, the point of the game is to win and the name "all-in" says it all: you take the risk for the chance at the reward. If you take an example from another sport it makes more sense. In Baseball you can steal bases. This isn't SUPER OP IMBA just because he got an advantage, the runner takes the risk of being thrown out (having his all-in countered) and so the attitude is "yes, you can try and steal a base if you want but if you mess up you will negate your walk/hit". Think of all-inning in a tournament like stealing home plate... it is super risky but you can win the game with the run you score. Yeah, we would like to see the World Series won by the team with a solid bullpen and consistent hitters. That doesn’t mean stolen bases, hit batters, and bad strike calls don’t have an equal affect on who wins.
|
Last time I checked all-ins against a FE build were just as effective in BW as they are now. It's the risk you take and when I lose because of a decision to FE I only blame myself. I don't support cheese or all-ins for that matter but at the same time why should people who use these builds have to except that people don't want them to attack for 10 min. If you FE you have the lead already even if you make almost no workers for that expo, thats the difference between then and now. So much emphasis is placed on pumping drones or w/e for you'r expo and saturating it as fast as possible and yet the opponent is 4 gate rushing. Not smart, and not their fault; scout whats going on and then adjust to that.
Some of the cheese builds are pretty hard to hold, ill admit but if you hold an all-in Marine/SCV rush you won.
|
On December 11 2010 06:51 Pixel. wrote:
think bigger maps/ Nerf Mule/inject larve/chorno boost
User was warned for this post
What was this guy warned for? I think he does bring up a good point about mule nerfing. As we've seen several times in the GSL, a terran player can drop a mule and send all of his SCVs with a few marines to the opponent's base while still getting decent income.
|
On December 11 2010 06:52 0neder wrote:
Macro Mechanics mean that you can get maxed off of two base and I think it messes up the game and would only be fixed by bigger maps...maybe.
I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit and I do believe macro mechanics have the potential to be one of the root causes of all ins being so powerful and pros like Idra thinking that they are here to stay. The current Macro mechanics allow you to get a surge of units very very quickly from almost nothing which creates pockets/timings where you can hit the enemy and win. Scaling back these mechanics might allow the game to settle down a bit while still retaining the possibility of the all ins.
I do hope bigger maps are implemented into the map pool purely so the game can have more than just the current medium to balance by. We don't know if it will change much but there is potential for other faults being seen. I just think blizzard are limiting themselves far too much by just looking at smallish to medium maps while balancing. The game should be balanced across the spectrum while allowing variety.
All that aside. A lot of what people perceive as imbalance is merely one player making a mistake or being outplayed. I'm more worried about design than actual balance.
|
Blizzard has previously stated that they don't want to take cheese out of the game, but they monitor closely which cheeses are too strong. Yes terran all-ins suck really really hard, but blizzard in general is pretty fair when it comes to balance.
|
On December 11 2010 08:47 Chronoboosted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 06:51 Pixel. wrote:
think bigger maps/ Nerf Mule/inject larve/chorno boost
User was warned for this post What was this guy warned for? I think he does bring up a good point about mule nerfing. As we've seen several times in the GSL, a terran player can drop a mule and send all of his SCVs with a few marines to the opponent's base while still getting decent income.
He posted a one liner with no reasoning whatsoever to backup his opinion. Pretty worthless post if you ask me, definitely merits a warning.
I really hope that if the game degenerated into a pure all-in fest that Blizzard would take the initiative and do something about it. I really don't think we are near enough to that to really start discussing it though, the game still has a lot of room for growth and change right now, especially with just a few small balance changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
