|
On December 11 2010 14:09 dizzy101 wrote:
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.
I don't think people are talking about 4 base "all ins" but 1 base rushing in SCVs and marines etc e.g. 3-4 min all ins.
|
I would say that no, they do not have a responsibility to change it. As much as people here think they have the right to have the game the way they want it, that's not the case. While I feel Blizzard definitely SHOULD change it if it become that way, they are not compelled in any way to do so.
|
Terran all-in can definitely stop with force shield the ramp so that the marines can't micro around the zealots.
|
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.
can a mod please frame this on the front page?
|
Doing a fast expansion without knowing what your enemy does is executing a build order blindly. Doing a build order blindly and then bit*hing that you lost if counterproductive.
Do you really expect to win no matter what your enemy does? All-ins are very "counterable".
|
I would have to say that the easiest (if not the best) way to reduce (NOT REMOVE) early game "All-ins" would be to increase map size, this would make "All-ins" riskier but also more unexpected, which is the major advantage to "All-ins"
They are and will forever be viable strategies (especially in ladder).
More on topic however.
Blizzard has the right and indeed the obligation to make the game both fun for the players and as an ESPORT fun for the viewers. Although by constantly changing units and upgrades, they arent giving the players time to adjust and figure out how to beat the current trends.
Which is why changing the map pool to include large maps, should help. This means that no units are effectively changed and yet new strategies will need to be developed as older trends become less and less effective.
just my 2 minerals worth.
|
|
|
As a long time reader (way longer than my 2007 join date) i have often wondered, does it occur to the many "balance the game based on what pro's do" fanatics here that BW for the vast majority of its major balancing, was never really balanced using this pro approach?
Maybe that's why SC2 is quite dull as many have pointed out - Blizzard clearly place huge emphasis on the pro scene and what high level players say, both now and during development. Look where it has led us.....
I think using the "pro balance" method is going to lead eventually to every game, regardless of race, playing out like a ZVZ or TVT at pro level...which will increase the whining on here to damn near internet destroying levels
Where it has gotten us is because of the pro balance and big money at stake, everyone better get used to all-ins and short games no matter the matchup because that's where we're going to end up. It's no different to boxing or MMA - the contestants want that fight over in 5 seconds flat if it is at all possible, it's what they train for and quite often what they achieve (maybe not quite 5 secs), and the spectators have to deal with it.
Of course we could just 1v1 on massive maps thereby forcing the game straight to a high tier expansion + macro war where the audience get their 20+ mins of game by default.
|
I would like to know how you can possibly nerf all in strats without breaking balance in another way.
Because it seems like people want the game to be a macro game where whoever reaches 200/200 will win, otherwise if you attack earlier you're going to fall behind and lose.
All in strats can't be nerfed unless you change other things, fact.
|
i really like ICCUPS maps tbh. Their games last longer (except for the gold beside the base which terran can fly too LOL) and they are BIG!! Too much cheese and imbalance things in Blizzard maps :/
|
I am going to throw my cap in with the people who say the game needs larger maps. I don't think there is any thing wrong with all-ins, and agree with the people who say it is part of the game, but the majority of Blizzard maps heavily favor 1- or 2-base all-ins. And as far as this goes, I think Blizz DOES have a responsibility on this point. They need a larger, more diverse map pool. This is such a crucial, integral part of their game, and if they continue designing and using maps which punish expanding and favor all-ins, the game will not develop to its full potential.
They seem to be totally ignoring the issue, tho. I am so desperate for new maps. T_T
|
I want to see the map pool include much larger maps, with easily defended chokes. I also want to see the return of the 1/3 hit rate while firing against units with the high ground. Also, scouting needs to be made easier. No build should be unscoutable. Also somehow balance the 2 rax. I think these things would go a long way towards limiting the strength of rush strategies without harming the balance of the game.
|
On December 11 2010 06:58 storm44 wrote:
I don't think its a balance issue as much as it a map issue. Makes the maps bigger and makes all in's more riskier. Maps are so ridiculously small right now.
The size of maps isn't really an issue. Unless you want to remove rushing from the game or turn it into a cheesefest instead.
In my opinion if the maps are so huge that when you send a unit to his base, he's already made two units during that time, makes the game rather boring. We don't wanna turn SC2 into "macro macro macro, battle, win" type of game.
The reason Terran marine+scv all-in is so good is obviously because marines are a ranged unit while zerglings and zealots are melee. Send the scvs to take the damage and marines deal the damage from the back. How about marines start with spears and a factory upgrade gives them range? :D
Or a more serious solution would be to delay orbital. Factory requirement for orbital?
|
On December 11 2010 06:41 goldenwitch wrote:
[b]
- A game of all ins is not very entertaining to watch.
- It takes much less skill to just put all your eggs in one basket in the early game and pray you win. As a result the skill ceiling is lower, requiring less real skill to reach the "top".
- 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.
Why are allins not entertaining to watch? I personally do not mind to watch an allin, as long as it is not every game. Allins are a part of every strategy game, and it is something you should practice doing, as well as practice defending because of that.
GSL spoiler
+ Show Spoiler + For example that Terran dude that allins every game (cannot think of his name), I LOLLED so hard when he got roflstomped by FD. FD was sooooo much better than the guy, so the skillceiling may be lower for allins, when a better person gets past the allin skill ceiling he will be able to roflstomp someone like him.. at least with a little bit of practice
What do you suggest Blizzard does to ' fix' allins? Nerf all the early game units, or nerf scv's/probes/drones? that will never happen, so allins will always exist. What would this game be without the early game threats of allins? I do not like to watch games where both players macro insanely hard to get 200/200 and attack into eachother. Small micro battles are more entertaining to watch IMO.
Blizzard cannot make the game enjoyable to watch for everyone because people have different taste.
|
I personally think cheese builds are a nice break of pace and keep you on your toes. Watching players cheese each other can be fun. On the ladder (EU one), I haven't seen that much cheese in diamond and even if there are a few lame openings, it's still part of the game. Korean players seem to be very enthusiastic about these all-in pushes and especially in the GSL. People do this in order to get the prize money, and the sum is quite attractive. That's why they abuse the game mechanics. Dreamhack showed us some AMAZING macro games and I don't think that all-ins are that popular in EU (mb NA as well). It's not like every game is an all-in cheese.
What I mean by this point is that all-ins are not game breaking. The only issue we have right now is the GSL, which is full of cheesers and I don't think players such as (GSL 3 spoiler) + Show Spoiler +Rain, to be in the final.
|
What I find ironic is that the same people who whine about all in's also complain about having to watch TvT's, which is arguably the matchup most prone to macro play (though it certainly has aggressive builds/all ins available.)
Also, as mentioned earlier, people are calling short rush games all in's... the definition of an all in is putting all your chips in: aka damaging your economy so bad that if your attack does not succeed, then you lose the game. Attacking EARLY is not an all in; ultimately about 10% of games are all in as a very generous estimate. That hardly constitutes the hypothesis that all games will soon be all in.
|
I think the problem is in the no cliff dynamic its hard to defend with less units now.
|
The thing with cheese is, in its current state, it is very hard to defend unless you're expecting it pre-game. However if your anti-cheese is spotted, they simply don't attack and you've wasted a shit ton of resources on static defense or currently useless units while they laugh at you and expand. It's a balance thing that can't really be fixed... except maybe by bigger maps. StarCraft has always been a game of information. If I have the correct information in-game, I should be able to win given that I'm the better player. If I spot an all in coming the moment it leaves, I should be able to put up enough defense to crush it (be it units or static defense). The main problem is that you NEVER have enough time to complete those things before the rush gets there. And you can't decrease the build time on ANY of these because that would make cheese that much more powerful considering anti-cheese is essentially cheese.
|
Yes, blizzard has a responsibility to make the game enjoyable as a spectator sport and as a game.
- A game of all ins is not very entertaining to watch.
dont agree with the second part.
While for most good diamond players all ins might be boring to watch, i dont think that is the case for the average spectator who is maybe gold lvl or dont even play ladder at all
early game all ins are the most entertaining to watch for the audience
remember how the crowd goes cheering and oooh ahhhh when they see someone put a pool down at 6 at gsl
The game is exiting and fast, and its over fast also but thats not a problem for the audience because the next game starts right after
Long games also can be nice to watch occasionally ( i remember seeing an awesome and verry long game in gsl played by socke) but still think that the average public enjoys short games more then long games
|
if the maps didnt have retarded close distances we wouldnt see this problem ;/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/DnMpP.jpg)
