|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On December 11 2010 13:13 Slardar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Couldn't have said it better myself. You never saw these worker conga line all-ins in BW (rarely). At this rate the game needs a serious overhaul and redesign. Its not enjoyable to watch at all, nor is it really fun to play.
We did though. It was called "DMZ" and it was removed very very quickly 
|
Players who always do All-In's are gona get a bad reputation from the players,,,,
"O look at this player X, chances are he's gona all-in."
|
i'm considering going back to BW now 
|
I think everyone knows I'm going to come in and blame maps. Which are the problem. The tiniest screw up and it's gg. "Oh I went 13 gate PvZ on Steppes and he 6/7 Pooled? gg.... It's at the point where I 10 gate on all maps (besides Shakuras) just in case the opponent 6/7 pool's, I'm not totally dead....
It's not like cheese will not exist on different maps, it will just be much more of a risk....
|
Then again, there is this small possibility it is because of the concept of the game. Blizzard designed it to be action from the get-go compared to BW where players had a longer time before their army really kicked in to roll the enemy.
|
On December 11 2010 13:08 DuneBug wrote:
I know it's getting old, but at least one glaring issue is the maps.
I usually don't say that. Like I don't think balance issues are a map problem, there are obvious balance issues that exist on every map. Nor do I want every map to be the same damn thing as lost temple w/o cliffs.
But i don't really think the maps are blizzard's fault. I don't know why tournaments aren't using redone ICCup maps by this point, if not making their own maps. Blizzard even recommended (and planned) that they would make their own maps.
It's not just the maps though.
Maps like Shakuras are still very much all-in/Committal despite being large and defendable maps.
For each match-up there's something different that makes players want to play all-in-ish. Here's my take on why match-ups devolve into all-ins from the player's mentality (Zerg match ups only as I don't understand PvT)...
ZvZ: Not all-in yay matchup. Games are just short by the highly aggressive nature, but that's fine.
ZvP: Roulette to an extent! If the Protoss opens Forge first the game is almost always going to be all-in or immediately decided. Either the Protoss gets their cannons to block the natural and wins, or they get stopped and are vulnerable to an all-in. If the Protoss opens an expand then the zerg is all-in because 2 base to 2 base the zerg is way behind and grabbing a 3rd is a risky option because of things like void rays, dts, or a 6 gate push. If the Protoss opens without an expand they then can lean on the warpgates to create incredibly strong pushes that are very difficult to stop. This encourages both the Protoss to all-in and the Zerg to all-in before the Protoss does. Neither player wants to take this late game, the Protoss is worried about Zerg macro and the Zerg knows he can't defeat 200/200 Protoss balls.
ZvT: The Terran player is afraid of zerg macro and the difficulty of expand. Speed banelings (or banelings in general) pose a very serious threat that can quickly turn the game against the Terran. Any bio gameplan is vulnerable to getting overrun by the banelings. Lategame the 200/200 Zerg army with tier 3 compositions is very potent against Terran making Terrans worried about playing for late game. The zerg on the other hand knows that Terran can turtle fairly well behind turrets/marines and that in a war of attrition the superior cost effectiveness of staple and situational Terran units like the marine, tank, medivac, and raven can cause the Zerg to eventually fall behind even if they 'win' every fight. Likewise the transition to broodlords or ultras is always tough and tend to have a lot of risks and even tier 3 Zerg compositions still end to leave heavily on ling/bling/muta. So midgame baneling busts or other strategies appeal as a safer choice to the zerg that has gained an advantage or decent economy going into the midgame.
As for why all-ins are effective more so than why players tend towards them...
ZvP: Other than warp-gates or great supporting/game ending units like the void ray, immortal, or DTs Protoss can open themselves up to all-ins because they can set themselves up very well to do so. Early on Protoss can trade gas without many minerals (sentries) to ensure safety vs all but all-ins and use the extra minerals to setup for strong pushes. At the same time if the Protoss goes for a more tech or eco opening their gas & minerals appear to be strained and they are unable to effectively get both the general protection of sentries and a defensive force (zealots/sentries) quickly enough and they open up a window of opportunity for the zerg. Likewise the ease of expo blocking tends to put zerg in a situation vs eco builds where they're behind economically with a tough shot at catching up, but have the potential to quickly field a lot of units to overwhelm the temporarily vulnerable Protoss.
ZvT: In this match up Zerg lacks the ability early to trade gas for protection. The only options they have out the gate are lings and crawlers. Mules provide the connection to put it all together. The mules allow for an early temporary boost to stay even with the Zerg's income while they get the faster rax to stay even with production. The follow up mules allow for the Terran to keep up a reasonable amount of production while the zerg has to pull all workers to defend. Meanwhile spine crawlers take long to build and are only moderately effective given their slow attack rate and 5hp of overkill. On the zerg side mid/late banelings just offer a superior chance to bust any Terran that shows any signs of weakness and can be made enmass completely out of surprise. A Zerg with muta/ling may suddenly cut muta production and morph a potentially game ending amount of banelings. The temptation/pay-off for such aggression is often too sweet to pass up. Likewise the Zerg is encouraged to do this because their ling defenses will lose effectiveness over time as marines grow in numbers and gain more medivacs and tanks start being massed.
Anyways my point is that I don't think it's just the maps. A lot of the game design and balance encourages all-in plays over more long term strategies. Maybe some or a lot of this will change as players figure stuff out, we will have to see.
|
It's dumb to see how effective workers fight and draw fire, it makes SCV's + Marines so powerful (not to mention MULEs cover the lost pretty well). I think this really encourages all-ins for Terrans especially when Terran have no melee units so they synergize with SCV's so well. Fighting with drones or probes just interrupt spaces that should be occupied by zealots or zerglings and decrease the overall DPS. And to think that SCV's used to have 60hp.
|
allins are fine if players can't go attack really early with all of their scvs and still come out ahead if their push is stopped just because they have magical super scvs that fall from the sky.
|
On December 11 2010 14:00 universalwill wrote:
allins are fine if players can't go attack really early with all of their scvs and still come out ahead if their push is stopped just because they have magical super scvs that fall from the sky.
That's not even really true considering that Protoss arguably have the strongest pressure/'all-in' attacks out of any race. It's way way way harder as Z to deal with the Protoss all-ins than it is the Terran ones, meanwhile TvP it's the Protoss that gets the stronger all-ins.
Often times 2 Rax is a joke compared to the Protoss options.
|
Problem with SC2 right now is every race has some unbeatable(or extremely hard to stop when players are at the same level) BO or timing attack. And as we know from Broodwar, nothing can be unbeatable, once something is unbeatable the whole e-sport thing is finished.
For Terran, its bunker rush and allin. For Protoss its 1 base timing and late game ultimate ball. For Zerg its mega-macro mode late game.
SC2 at this stage need some damn good balance patch and a overhaul on the next expansion. The Mule, the warpgate tech, the larva inject I think these 3 things needs a re-design.
Some unit needs a complete re-design as well such as Marauder for terran, Baneling for zerg and Sentry for Protoss. These 3 units are cool but sometime, its very easy for them to break the game. Marauder for being good at almost everything that walk. Sentry for instanly send a defending player to there death. Baneling for completely turning a battle of TvZ around even the terran dodge most of them.
Personally, I can't see any improvement now through balance patches. We still will see allin Terran, late game monster Zerg and timing god Protoss. All I hope is somehow Blizzard will do something to lesser these things, and get there job done right in the expansion.
|
On December 11 2010 14:00 universalwill wrote:
allins are fine if players can't go attack really early with all of their scvs and still come out ahead if their push is stopped just because they have magical super scvs that fall from the sky.
Please dont turn this thread into another flame war. We have enough of that.
|
On December 11 2010 14:03 Caphe wrote:
Problem with SC2 right now seems to be, every race has some unbeatable(or extremely hard to beat when players are at the same level) BO or timing attack. And as we know from Broodwar, nothing can be unbeatable, once something is unbeatable the whole e-sport thing is finished.
For Terra, its bunker rush and allin. For Protoss its 1 base timing and late game ultimate ball. For Zerg its mega-macro mode late game.
SC2 at this stage need some damn good balance patch and a overhaul on the next expansion. The Mule, the warpgate tech, the larva inject I think these 3 things needs a re-design.
Some unit needs a complete re-design as well such as Marauder for terran, Baneling for zerg and Sentry for Protoss. These 3 units are cool but sometime, its very easy for them to break the game. Marauder for being good at almost everything that walk. Sentry for instanly send a defending player to there death. Baneling for completely turning a battle of TvZ around even the terran dodge most of them.
Personally, I can't see any improvement now through balance patches. We still will see allin Terran, late game monster Zerg and timing god Protoss. All I hope is somehow Blizzard will do something to lesser these things, and get there job done right in the expansion.
I don't think the units necessarily need a re-design, re-balancing would work fine. If Sentries couldn't stockpile as many FFs or did less ranged damage and Banelings didn't do as much damage to buildings or had the same speed on creep, but slightly slower off, then it'd balance out more for those units*. Likewise adjusting things like the max # of larva/hatchery could help a ton in keeping zerg from being dominate late game. You don't always need to think big to make a big change on how the game plays.
*I'm not actually recommending these changes or anything, they're just supposed to be examples.
|
What made fruitdealer so epic in season 1? He held off all those All Ins that people did against him that was considered "imba". Same goes for Nestea in season 2. There will always be a hero that can stop those things and show and prove them selves to be a superior player and that is the way things should be.
|
All-ins are essential to the game. You can go all in from 1 base. You can go all in from 2 bases. You can go all in from 3 or from 4. Part of the game's appeal is the song-and-dance of 'how little defense can you get away with while being as greedy as possible without being punished with an all in'. Removing all-ins would make the game boring.
|
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.
This.
|
I'm on the hands off side at least for a while. I think that even in situations where people will swear up and down there is no solution, a solution does usually creep up. Certainly it will be a problem if months from now the same all-ins are winning at the same rate. I think that would show it's time to make a change because the issue just isn't solvable.
|
Op, you're really silly.
All-ins will always be a part of the game. They HAVE to be; because they are the strategic option that one uses to GREAT effect against players who open with economic builds.
Imagine a game where you can't go 'all-in' (and to do this, you'd have to have it so SCVs can't attack). What happens then? You've just denied many many players their strongest counter to early hatch/nexus/CC.
Even then, it's not as easy as nerfing mining units. Because then, zerg 6 pool would become extremely effective etc.
No, balancing against 'all-ins' is as stupid as asking Blizzard to balance against economic builds. Because both are part and parcel of strategic games.
Both always have to be options. They are in real wars, they are in Starcraft 1 and Broodwar, and they need to be in Starcraft 2, unless you plan on continuing to play what will become an extremely dull and boring game.
|
WARNING: Wall of text inbound
None of the match-ups are understood yet. Terran players are doing bio-centric plays in all three, while only TvT really sees mech play. Koreans are shifting away from banshees now and more toward 2 rax (in almost every game.) Time is needed to determine whether anything needs balancing. I'd say some of the underused units need some buffs, but otherwise, nothing significant really needs changing.
GSL Spoiler follows:
+ Show Spoiler +Looking at Jinro's play, we see that he beat other players reasonably, yet himself got owned by MC. The skill differences even among pros are huge right now, and so because the match ups are not understood well by most players, differences in skill result in one-sided games. For example, MC's PvT is nearly unstoppable right now, IMO because Terrans are playing too much bio vs toss. Sentries are basically the antibio with force field; you can't repair a forcefielded bunker, and a split army gets destroyed by stalkers, even if the split isn't complete, but just temporary. This was obvious when MC was able to expand with 3 gates and still completely destroy Jinro's units.
ZvZ is understood decently well by most high tier players, I think. Nestea and Fruitdealer seem to understand ZvZ pretty well, and I think Nestea right now is unbeatable ZvZ. TvT is understood I think by some players, but TvT styles are inconsistent, and we haven't seen anyone truly dominant in that match up. PvP is not often seen right now because of the rarity of Protoss, and I think that's another matchup that is not understood well. Macro games will come into play I think when people realize the power of forge first. In PvP right now, 4 gates, blink stalker builds, and DT rushes seem to dominate.
Right now MC dominates PvT, and I think he has the best PvT for the current set of builds. I think PvT and TvP will evolve as Terran players start playing differently. Right now, robo tech for protoss is completely unnecessary in PvT, except against banshee builds. Even so, P players can pull off gateway rushes that beat 1/1/1. Mech is also untouched in this matchup, from recent trends. IMO Terran players rely too much on their bio, even against high templar/colossus. Marauders are great, but a big ball of them becomes redundant when you're getting stormed, force fielded, and lasered. There is no clear player who is strong TvP. In fact, I don't think any current Terran understands TvP even close to well.
TvZ and ZvT are probably the most evolved mixed matchups, but the midgame is still evolving really fast. Zerg players are learning to deal with 2 rax play, and once most zergs are patient and able to hold off 2 rax I think we'll see even more development in TvZ. Right now it feels like Z players get an auto-win if they can hold their third, probably because Terran players are not used to macro play against Zergs past two base.
PvZ is a little weird right now, but I think with some time they'll evolve further. Right now we're seeing a trend toward stargate builds with a later robo, since mobile detection in PvZ is really unnecessary unless laired Roaches are out. Chargelots are very undervalued right now, as is the forge. HTs and DTs are also quite undervalued vs Zerg, I think. If Protoss can learn to fast expand safely behind a forge, I think +1 chargelot into phoenix/DT or mass gateway high templar can be effective in PvZ. On the other side of the aisle, I think Z players just need to learn to deal with massed colossus. Muta play is strong against P, and sniping sentries and colossus is a must. I think spire into a hydra tech switch could be strong, especially if it's done off three bases. As toss players start going stargate, I think it's going to be necessary for Zerg players to respond in kind with spire/hydra builds.
If a patch were to change anything, I think it would be best to buff accessibility of underused units. Examples:
Protoss:
Decrease cost of fleet beacon to 200/200.
Decrease buildtime of carriers from 120 seconds to 105 seconds.
Decrease Phoenix buildtime by 5 seconds (not as drastic as PTR)
Zerg:
Decrease spine crawler build time from 50 seconds to 40 seconds
Change burrow to hatchery tech
Decrease overlord drop research to 110 seconds from 130 seconds
Terran:
Add a function to the reaper speed upgrade that allows them to be built out of reactored barracks
Combine the cloak and energy upgrade for ghosts
Decrease Raven cost to 100 minerals, 175 gas
TL;DR IMO, none of the matchups are understood well right now. We need time to learn nuances and proper builds in each of the matchups. GSL, with so little turnaround time, is focused on survival and temporary brilliance as opposed to consistency. Next year will probably be better for the evolution of the game, but so far we've gone very far already.
User was warned for this post
|
If you want to slow all ins static defenses need to be stronger. Maybe remove engineering bay req for PF or allow switch from OC to PF. Make spines stronger. Toss needs something too that can't be moved to opponents base but still defends.
User was warned for this post
|
Make spines build much faster and maybe be morphable like the good old creep colony/switchable into spore/spine modes and the allins will die out. Terran and toss can Wallin, bunker or Cannon so they don't need any increased defence.
Though protoss seems a bit vulnerable early on.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
