On March 06 2011 12:00 FrostyTreats wrote: Dont over look the amulet upgrade. it is a serious fucking issue. If anyone here has played tvp at a high level they will tell u once the game gets to 3 base toss with HT's.... your hopes of being aggressive to that toss are now gone. There is literally almost no way to be aggressive vs HT into the late game and things just start to stagnate.. its not good for gameplay. and im glad it was removed....It's too strong vs bio...
One point to you sir:
Don't stay on Tier 1 unit seriously, learn how to play. By the time he has HT's which Tier 3 unit and it takes forever to make it useful. Get some Tier 3 unit man, don't stick to MMM.
So should he mass thors or BCs? Medivacs are a tier 2 or 3 unit, depending on how you define it. This is why the tier "system" is a stupid way of looking at it. You continue to build zealots/stalkers all game just as you build marines and marauders, and supplement them with HT/medivacs.
On March 05 2011 20:51 Shikyo wrote: It's because SC2 gameplay was much more flawed when it went to beta, and even live. Some concepts just were really poorly thought-out and hence they needed to change a lot of stuff. Like the alpha Roaches and the early Reapers... how could they even put them in the game in the first place?
SCBW had a lot of imba stuff but every race had them so they balanced each other out... And I think there's a pretty significant luck factor as well in that the game became as good as it is. I guess the biggest change was spawning pool cost.
WOL is far better on day one that SC1 was. Starcraft, at release, was actually really, really, REALLY poorly balanced. While we tend to think of BW as the big macro game, the standard Z opening for a very long time was the 4pool, because the spawning pool cost 150 minerals.
Indeed, look at these balance changes in patch 1.04
Terran: Wraith: Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas. Increased cooldown rate of ground attack. Increased air to air damage to 20. Dropship: Increased speed slightly. Science Vessel: Decreased cost to 100 minerals, 225 gas. Increased acceleration Increased overall damage of Irradiate Increased sight radius Battlecruiser: Increased starting armor to 3 Increased Yamato Cannon damage to 260 Goliath: Increased ground damage to 12 Increased effectiveness of weapon upgrade on ground to air weapon system Nuke: Nuclear Missiles build faster ComSat: Decreased energy cost to 50 Starport: Decrease cost of Starport to 150 minerals, 100 gas Decreased add-on cost of Control Tower to 50 minerals, 50 gas Decreased build time
Protoss: Archon: Increased acceleration Dragoon: Decreased cost to 125 minerals, 50 gas Decreased build time Increased range upgrade (Singularity Charge) by 1 High Templar: Decreased energy cost of Hallucination to 100 Scout: Increased Air to Air damage to 28 Decreased starting armor to 0 Increased shields to 100 and hit points to 150 Increased cooldown rate of ground attack Carrier: Changed build cost to 350 minerals, and 250 gas Increased hit points of Carrier to 300 Increased starting armor of Carrier to 4 Increased Interceptor shields and hitpoints to 40 Increased Interceptor damage to 6 Decreased Interceptor cost to 25 Arbiter: Decreased cost to 100 minerals, 350 gas Shuttle: Increased build time Reaver: Increased build time Templar Archives: Increased cost to 150 minerals, 200 gas. Citadel of Adun: Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas. Stargate: Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 150 gas Decreased build time Robotics Facility: Increased build time Robotics Support Bay: Increased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas Observatory: Decreased cost to 50 minerals, 100 gas Forge: Decreased cost to 150 minerals Photon Cannon: Decreased build time Fleet Beacon: Decreased cost of "Increased Carrier capacity" upgrade to 100 minerals, 100 gas Decreased research time of "Increased Carrier capacity" upgrade Shield Battery: Increased starting energy to 100 Increased effective range of “Recharge Shields” ability
Zerg: Overlord: Increased speed bonus for "Pneumatized Carapace" upgrade Decreased research time of "Ventral Sacs" upgrade Scourge: Increase hit points to 25 Hydralisk: Increased build time Queen: Increased range of Broodling by 1 Increase energy cost of Parasite to 75 Decreased Parasite casting range to 12 Defiler: Increased cost to 50 minerals, 150 gas Hatchery: Decreased the speed at which the Hatchery/Lair/Hive spawn new larva Decreased build cost to 300 minerals Increased build time Sunken Colony: Decreased cost of Sunken Colony upgrade to 50 minerals Decreased build time Increased attack rate of Sunken Colony Increased damage to 40 Spore Colony: Decreased build time Changed damage type to normal Greater Spire: Increased build time
And that was patch 1.04! Brood War is considered to have gotten good in patch 1.08. i.e., another four of these.
The other problem was that while BW did have a lot of imba stuff that all balanced out, it wasn't like everyone knew how to deal with it all right away. They went to websites like, well, like teamliquid.net, and they cried and cried and cried about how Protoss or Zerg or Terran was imba. We didn't have the concept of "Web shows" like Imbalanced! back then, but trust me, BW wasn't accepted as balanced for a very, very, very long time. Hell, just imagine what would happen if Starcraft came out today. The forums would be filled with people complaining that Dark Swarm or Irradiate or this that and the other was imba, and no one would play the goddamn game.
On March 06 2011 12:40 randplaty wrote: BW was a much less ambitious project. BW had "core" units that did decently well against all units. Terran had goliaths and marines. Zerg had hydras and Toss had goons.
SC2 introduced bonuses for "armored" or "light." In a sense Blizzard introduced more imbalance in the specific units in order to create a more dynamic game. There are a lot more hard counters. Every unit has a hard counter. This is VERY different from BW. Hydras are owned by collossus. Stalkers are owned by marauders. This just did not happen to hydras and goonz in BW.
BW's size system did the exact same thing as light and armored, except it was much more rigid in how it affected every unit.
On March 05 2011 22:50 Rabiator wrote: Starcraft 2 and its abilities are much more volatile compared to BW. Back then you had no MBS or even unlimited unit selection and the unit movement AI was terrible. You lost a huge amount of efficiency to that complicated control. Thus it wasnt really that necessary to take out any ability in BW because none of them were able to remove an entire army like the "Archon toilet" is able in SC2.
If you want to blame anything then blame the "unlimited unit selection" and the macro mechanics which make the game much faster compared to BW. Sure they were also put in by Blizzard, but the dev team has to live with them now and a complete redesign on the macro mechanics seems very unlikely. Personally I would think it entirely reasonable to cut the efficiency of MULE, spawn larva and chronoboost in half and that would make the game much more stable.
I wouldn't blame unlimited unit selection. Macro mechanics, sure, those definitely contribute (although Chronoboost could probably be fine if you couldn't chrono Warpgate Research in the early game). But honestly, you could probably put MBS, automining, and unlimited unit selection in BW, and still have an awesome game (definitely not smartcasting though). An easier game with MUCH easier macro, of course, but a great game still.
Unlimited unit selection wouldn't change that much in BW, imo, because it was the collision size and pathing that made moving large armies difficult. In SC2, I can oftentimes have a 100 food stalker/sentry/Colossus ball all attacking at the same time, which is retarded. In BW, chokes gave you a huge defensive advantage, simply because there was no way to fit a lot of units in a small space.
I really do wonder how SC2 would play with a bigger collision radius for units and more open maps. Can you change that in the editor?
Unlimited unit selection (plus the improved movement AI) are the reason why "Protoss deathball" and "Terran bioball" work. These are very vulnerable to area attacks like Siege tanks, Psi Storm and so on. Thus these attacks got nerfed to smithereens - compared to the BW values - to keep these strategies alive. Personally I hated that because it is one of the reasons why mech isnt working well.
A bigger collision radius would solve some part of the problems with the Colossus at least IMO. If the Colossi are spread out more they cant be protected as easily by the Gateway units on all fronts and the "damage per attacker space" would be reduced.
The game is not ball v ball in the GSL, by and large -- and even ball v ball is pretty interesting to me. It's epic... but the game is not about that, by and large. Especially on bigger maps, there's so much more going on than that.
I really don't get what people don't like. I think it's great and getting better all the time.
On March 05 2011 20:51 Shikyo wrote: It's because SC2 gameplay was much more flawed when it went to beta, and even live. Some concepts just were really poorly thought-out and hence they needed to change a lot of stuff. Like the alpha Roaches and the early Reapers... how could they even put them in the game in the first place?
SCBW had a lot of imba stuff but every race had them so they balanced each other out... And I think there's a pretty significant luck factor as well in that the game became as good as it is. I guess the biggest change was spawning pool cost.
WOL is far better on day one that SC1 was. Starcraft, at release, was actually really, really, REALLY poorly balanced. While we tend to think of BW as the big macro game, the standard Z opening for a very long time was the 4pool, because the spawning pool cost 150 minerals.
Indeed, look at these balance changes in patch 1.04
Terran: Wraith: Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas. Increased cooldown rate of ground attack. Increased air to air damage to 20. Dropship: Increased speed slightly. Science Vessel: Decreased cost to 100 minerals, 225 gas. Increased acceleration Increased overall damage of Irradiate Increased sight radius Battlecruiser: Increased starting armor to 3 Increased Yamato Cannon damage to 260 Goliath: Increased ground damage to 12 Increased effectiveness of weapon upgrade on ground to air weapon system Nuke: Nuclear Missiles build faster ComSat: Decreased energy cost to 50 Starport: Decrease cost of Starport to 150 minerals, 100 gas Decreased add-on cost of Control Tower to 50 minerals, 50 gas Decreased build time
Protoss: Archon: Increased acceleration Dragoon: Decreased cost to 125 minerals, 50 gas Decreased build time Increased range upgrade (Singularity Charge) by 1 High Templar: Decreased energy cost of Hallucination to 100 Scout: Increased Air to Air damage to 28 Decreased starting armor to 0 Increased shields to 100 and hit points to 150 Increased cooldown rate of ground attack Carrier: Changed build cost to 350 minerals, and 250 gas Increased hit points of Carrier to 300 Increased starting armor of Carrier to 4 Increased Interceptor shields and hitpoints to 40 Increased Interceptor damage to 6 Decreased Interceptor cost to 25 Arbiter: Decreased cost to 100 minerals, 350 gas Shuttle: Increased build time Reaver: Increased build time Templar Archives: Increased cost to 150 minerals, 200 gas. Citadel of Adun: Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas. Stargate: Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 150 gas Decreased build time Robotics Facility: Increased build time Robotics Support Bay: Increased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas Observatory: Decreased cost to 50 minerals, 100 gas Forge: Decreased cost to 150 minerals Photon Cannon: Decreased build time Fleet Beacon: Decreased cost of "Increased Carrier capacity" upgrade to 100 minerals, 100 gas Decreased research time of "Increased Carrier capacity" upgrade Shield Battery: Increased starting energy to 100 Increased effective range of “Recharge Shields” ability
Zerg: Overlord: Increased speed bonus for "Pneumatized Carapace" upgrade Decreased research time of "Ventral Sacs" upgrade Scourge: Increase hit points to 25 Hydralisk: Increased build time Queen: Increased range of Broodling by 1 Increase energy cost of Parasite to 75 Decreased Parasite casting range to 12 Defiler: Increased cost to 50 minerals, 150 gas Hatchery: Decreased the speed at which the Hatchery/Lair/Hive spawn new larva Decreased build cost to 300 minerals Increased build time Sunken Colony: Decreased cost of Sunken Colony upgrade to 50 minerals Decreased build time Increased attack rate of Sunken Colony Increased damage to 40 Spore Colony: Decreased build time Changed damage type to normal Greater Spire: Increased build time
And that was patch 1.04! Brood War is considered to have gotten good in patch 1.08. i.e., another four of these.
The other problem was that while BW did have a lot of imba stuff that all balanced out, it wasn't like everyone knew how to deal with it all right away. They went to websites like, well, like teamliquid.net, and they cried and cried and cried about how Protoss or Zerg or Terran was imba. We didn't have the concept of "Web shows" like Imbalanced! back then, but trust me, BW wasn't accepted as balanced for a very, very, very long time. Hell, just imagine what would happen if Starcraft came out today. The forums would be filled with people complaining that Dark Swarm or Irradiate or this that and the other was imba, and no one would play the goddamn game.
Like I pointed out, all those changes are only hp, damage, build time changes. Those are just pure numbers. The tech trees were not messed with and the overall general strategies were not. Compared to SC2, where a lot of changes have completely removed strategies. Its a bad trend because we want SC2 to have lots of varied strategies.
On March 06 2011 12:00 FrostyTreats wrote: Dont over look the amulet upgrade. it is a serious fucking issue. If anyone here has played tvp at a high level they will tell u once the game gets to 3 base toss with HT's.... your hopes of being aggressive to that toss are now gone. There is literally almost no way to be aggressive vs HT into the late game and things just start to stagnate.. its not good for gameplay. and im glad it was removed....It's too strong vs bio...
One point to you sir:
Don't stay on Tier 1 unit seriously, learn how to play. By the time he has HT's which Tier 3 unit and it takes forever to make it useful. Get some Tier 3 unit man, don't stick to MMM.
Wish to enlighten me which tier 3 units a terran should transition to, and how to transition into it? Bio openings are very strong against protoss, so it makes sense to open MM(M). 1-1-1 openings can work as well, but leaves the Terran more vulnerable to early pushes as well as gives protoss a fairly decent economic option. This narrows down the 2 base transition for Terran to bio centric play, which means MMM or MM ghost.
However, let's pretend our Terran did decide to go 1-1-1 or at least rax-fact expand and gets onto 2 base with mech based play. If Protoss goes twilight tech, he has ample options to contend with the mech play through the council (blink stalkers). Tanks, thors, and hellions all get creamed by a tier 1.5 unit with a tier 2 upgrade. BUT THAT'S RIDICULOUS! How can such a low tier unit be so good against a tier 3 unit (Thors)?! It's the same story with BCs.
So let's backtrack to our opening. It's pretty ridiculous that heavy mech gets countered pretty hard by all 3 protoss tech trees by the time 2 base saturation is reached. So, that brings us back to rax based openings. These work out pretty well against almost all Protoss openings. There is no standard macro opening Protoss can do that will catch you with your pants down. The natural transitions (at this point in time) are ghosts or medivacs/vikings. If terran chooses ghosts, he has to CONSTANTLY push the front and trade armies, since bio works a lot better in medium numbers (20-40 supply) against Protoss armies due to stim and FFs. If he chooses medivacs, he will have to wait slightly longer to attack to get the medivacs, so the option to drop becomes more favorable. This medium number advantage plays out well for drops, since Protoss has to send a much larger army to counter the drop.
So we make it to 3 bases in our TvP matchup as Terran. Huzzah, what a good game! Now comes the tricky part. If Protoss goes colossus and you went medivacs, then you can win if you pick your battles correctly and continue to just be annoying with drops. If you didn't cause enough damage with bio-ghost aggression, you could find yourself in quite the pickle without a great transition to vikings.
If Protoss instead goes for the templar tech path, this becomes a different game. If you go ghosts, you can still continue your high aggression bio pushes, but they become more risky. Even with EXCELLENT emps, there is still the threat of warp in storms. You'll have to play smart and extra attentive to win at this point with your heavy duty bio play. With the medivac oriented play, your drops suddenly become less effective as less and less is needed to deal with them due to enhanced Protoss mobility through twilight council and the potency of warp in storms. The Protoss is able to devote a smaller army now to counter your drops, while banking a bigger main army. If you aren't able to deal SERIOUS damage with at least 1 drop, your chances of winning drop DRAMATICALLY due to your less efficient army.
If you notice something about the heavy bio play in a general sense, it is a very fast paced, high aggression style meant to slowly whittle down the Protoss army. Terran is forced to CONSTANTLY push and create a new army, leaving very little room to tech switch into tier 3 units. Not only that, but the addition of extra units into the mix complicates the macro involved as well as lowers the food count of your army as you spend more money on production and tech upgrades. When people say, "You should simply transition into higher tier units!" it's not simply a matter of whipping out a BC, thor, or tank out of thin air. There's a lot of complex play behind getting those units out.
Some of the stuff maybe sounds biased because I used to play zerg so most of the problems i have listed are probably zerg problems but I got tired of playing only race so i switched to random. I also forget tons of stuff most likely but thats what iam raging most about right now.
There are lots of problems.
Lets take the Ultralisk it is supposed to counter armored Units - but it gets hardcountered by armored Units (marauders) but hey - even marines kills ultralisks within nanonseconds, there is almost never a way to use ultras costefficient if terran keeps up with upgrades.
Lets talk about the Phenix vs Hydra - why does the "counter" to the phenix actually take extra damage from the phenix once lifted?
Luck based Units vs microable Units
Banelings vs Marines - if the terran is able to micro his marines perfectly banelings arent costefficient - on the other hand you cant micro banelings against marines to make them costefficient as long as the terran player responds correct. Raven vs anything - you will never land a HSM so if you ever hit one your opponent fucked up.
Detection - Terrans gets detection for free - you cant ever catch them totally offguard with dts or burrowed roaches burrowed infestor or banshees like you can, vs Zerg or Protoss - yes i know that you have to use a mule as terran but to be reasonable - if you have 4 dts in your base you can easily waste 5 scans to kill them off and it was still an even trade.
Macromechanics -
Spawn Larva - its the most ridicilous skill of all - miss it once and you die to an early attack, get it perfect in the lategame and you will have so much larva that you cant ever spend them - once protoss or terran lose their army in the lategame Zerg cant lose it anymore given that the map is big and open enough.
Warpgate tech - this mechanic bugs me the most, remove the defenders advantage because you can instantly reeinforce at their doorstep this combined with the fact that the stalker is a really strong Unit early game makes warpgate rushes so ridicilously stupid.
Chronoboost - Compared to Mules and Spawn Larva its like Blizzard slapped every single protoss player in the face. Its like the said "we gave all the cool stuff to Terran and Zerg lets see if we got something shitty left for protoss" - on the other hand its usefull to rush for warpgates even faster, and getting out probes fast, probably the skill that becomes the worst as the game goes on.
Mules/Supply Drop/Scan - Orbital Command - Blizzard thought about a structure that removes any skill from a race - and they inventet the orbital command. So with orbitals you will never be supply stuck, you dont have to worry about detection ever - and if you dealt with these two issues you get a powerful tool that allows terran as the only race to mine effieciently from more than 4 bases - because mules dont take up supply, so terran can mine from 7 bases and only need like 3 but zerg needs like 7 bases and can mine from 3 only. Some logical mistake happend here. On a sidenote - using all Scvs in allin attacks becomes viable because of the orbital command, if you kill enough drones/probes you will instantly have ~6 workers(~1 mule) back home and terran is the strongest race to rebuild from nothing. I almost forgot to mention that Orbitals cant die because they can fly away if they are getting attacked, while they run for their money they build up energy and once they land again you will have enough to cast 6 mules on a gold base.
Other generell imbalances - Killing Scvs is not nearly as powerful as killing Drones and Probes is. Terrans Mineral only Units are still really powerful lategame, compared to Protosses.
To resolve most of the stuff they have to fix the stupid damage system, remove some of the Macromechanics or make them a lot weaker. They should try to spread the Units that require skill to make them costefficient equally over all 3 races or make it so you need to be at least even skilled with every race.(as i said iam random and PvT you can get away with 60 apm being the protoss but you need way over 100 being the terran to do everything) And they probably need to rebalance Lategame Units especially caster - but they are doing a step into the right direction by removing the amulet.
/E there is so much stuff horrible wrong that they have to remove Units and stuff to get the game somewhat balanced - they wont unless they fix all the stupid stuff they did, i really hope that they make a huge patch in the near future or they change tons of stuff with the addon. Right now the biggest problem i see is huge maps - the macromechanics and everything designed to ahve stuff faster leads to problems if the maps are too big - Protoss having 3 base before minute 12 on TerminusRe is ridicilous. That combined with the fact that the "deathball" is the strongest Unit composition in the game right now leads to many problems as well.
On March 06 2011 17:00 GhostFall wrote: [ Like I pointed out, all those changes are only hp, damage, build time changes. Those are just pure numbers. The tech trees were not messed with and the overall general strategies were not. Compared to SC2, where a lot of changes have completely removed strategies. Its a bad trend because we want SC2 to have lots of varied strategies.
I guess I kinda get that you mean you don't like removing an upgrade altogether, but really, is "warp in HTs to storm immediately" *really* a strategy? I mean, strategies make use of the "numbers" to win games... and dramatically messing with those numbers is certainly adding and removing strategies as well.
But really, is warping in storm-capable HTs wherever you like *really* a strategy? Is removing that capability *really* "removing a strategy"??
On March 06 2011 17:00 GhostFall wrote: [ Like I pointed out, all those changes are only hp, damage, build time changes. Those are just pure numbers. The tech trees were not messed with and the overall general strategies were not. Compared to SC2, where a lot of changes have completely removed strategies. Its a bad trend because we want SC2 to have lots of varied strategies.
I guess I kinda get that you mean you don't like removing an upgrade altogether, but really, is "warp in HTs to storm immediately" *really* a strategy? I mean, strategies make use of the "numbers" to win games... and dramatically messing with those numbers is certainly adding and removing strategies as well.
But really, is warping in storm-capable HTs wherever you like *really* a strategy? Is removing that capability *really* "removing a strategy"??
No, but removing flux vanes removed the "mass void rays and kill half a base" strategy. =P
On March 06 2011 17:12 idonthinksobro wrote: Some of the stuff maybe sounds biased because I used to play zerg so most of the problems i have listed are probably zerg problems but I got tired of playing only race so i switched to random. I also forget tons of stuff most likely but thats what iam raging most about right now.
There are lots of problems.
Lets take the Ultralisk it is supposed to counter armored Units - but it gets hardcountered by armored Units (marauders) but hey - even marines kills ultralisks within nanonseconds, there is almost never a way to use ultras costefficient if terran keeps up with upgrades.
Lets talk about the Phenix vs Hydra - why does the "counter" to the phenix actually take extra damage from the phenix once lifted?
Luck based Units vs microable Units
Banelings vs Marines - if the terran is able to micro his marines perfectly banelings arent costefficient - on the other hand you cant micro banelings against marines to make them costefficient as long as the terran player responds correct. Raven vs anything - you will never land a HSM so if you ever hit one your opponent fucked up.
Detection - Terrans gets detection for free - you cant ever catch them totally offguard with dts or burrowed roaches burrowed infestor or banshees like you can, vs Zerg or Protoss - yes i know that you have to use a mule as terran but to be reasonable - if you have 4 dts in your base you can easily waste 5 scans to kill them off and it was still an even trade.
Macromechanics -
Spawn Larva - its the most ridicilous skill of all - miss it once and you die to an early attack, get it perfect in the lategame and you will have so much larva that you cant ever spend them - once protoss or terran lose their army in the lategame Zerg cant lose it anymore given that the map is big and open enough.
Warpgate tech - this mechanic bugs me the most, remove the defenders advantage because you can instantly reeinforce at their doorstep this combined with the fact that the stalker is a really strong Unit early game makes warpgate rushes so ridicilously stupid.
Chronoboost - Compared to Mules and Spawn Larva its like Blizzard slapped every single protoss player in the face. Its like the said "we gave all the cool stuff to Terran and Zerg lets see if we got something shitty left for protoss" - on the other hand its usefull to rush for warpgates even faster, and getting out probes fast, probably the skill that becomes the worst as the game goes on.
Mules/Supply Drop/Scan - Orbital Command - Blizzard thought about a structure that removes any skill from a race - and they inventet the orbital command. So with orbitals you will never be supply stuck, you dont have to worry about detection ever - and if you dealt with these two issues you get a powerful tool that allows terran as the only race to mine effieciently from more than 4 bases - because mules dont take up supply, so terran can mine from 7 bases and only need like 3 but zerg needs like 7 bases and can mine from 3 only. Some logical mistake happend here. On a sidenote - using all Scvs in allin attacks becomes viable because of the orbital command, if you kill enough drones/probes you will instantly have ~6 workers(~1 mule) back home and terran is the strongest race to rebuild from nothing. I almost forgot to mention that Orbitals cant die because they can fly away if they are getting attacked, while they run for their money they build up energy and once they land again you will have enough to cast 6 mules on a gold base.
Other generell imbalances - Killing Scvs is not nearly as powerful as killing Drones and Probes is. Terrans Mineral only Units are still really powerful lategame, compared to Protosses.
To resolve most of the stuff they have to fix the stupid damage system, remove some of the Macromechanics or make them a lot weaker. They should try to spread the Units that require skill to make them costefficient equally over all 3 races or make it so you need to be at least even skilled with every race.(as i said iam random and PvT you can get away with 60 apm being the protoss but you need way over 100 being the terran to do everything) And they probably need to rebalance Lategame Units especially caster - but they are doing a step into the right direction by removing the amulet.
/E there is so much stuff horrible wrong that they have to remove Units and stuff to get the game somewhat balanced - they wont unless they fix all the stupid stuff they did, i really hope that they make a huge patch in the near future or they change tons of stuff with the addon. Right now the biggest problem i see is huge maps - the macromechanics and everything designed to ahve stuff faster leads to problems if the maps are too big - Protoss having 3 base before minute 12 on TerminusRe is ridicilous. That combined with the fact that the "deathball" is the strongest Unit composition in the game right now leads to many problems as well.
So what makes these things imbalances...?
I don't really get it. That's just how the game works. A protoss on 3 bases means the zerg should be shooting for an endgame earlier than that or even more bases. It's not inherently "imbalanced"...
I just don't see any evidence that everything is "horribly wrong" if every unit can be used successfully and all races see strikingly similar levels of success at the highest levels.
Part of the problem is the philosophy that created the Immortal.
Immortals are very effective VS armored units because of their damage bonus. But they are boring. You have Thors, I have Immortals, I have the advantage. Micro does not play a large role in the Immortal's interaction with other units. It is simply strong or it isn't, and lets a-move and get it over with.
The Immortal is defined completely by its relationship with armored units. bleh.
The Lurker is not so one dimensional, the lurker's damage 'type' doesn't define it, its damage 'method' does. The lurker does 20 damage in a straight line it attacks while invisible (burrowed), which can be a down side when it comes to mobility. The Lurker has more depth because it relates to other units in a variety of ways.
A Battle should have the potential to swing with the dramatic flair! Ala the pop of a Reaver scarab, the drag of a mine, the guts of 10 marines who all died to 2 well placed lurker spines, and the list goes on. To be a good Esports game you have to have tension, drama, excitement!
in BW it wasn't just the 'right unit comp' it was using your units right that won you games (this is not to say sc2 doesn't require micro, just that the micro tends to be less important, or less dramatic when done well)
Powerful (potential to be hugely cost effective) multi-dimensional (relates to other units in a variety of interesting ways) units were a large part of what Brood War fun to watch, and fun to play. If Blizzard doesn't return to its roots, sc2 might be easy for a bronze leaguer to play without getting pwned by one unit, but it won't be the next Esports giant.
EDIT: To be fair, the Immortal has its shield, but again, that just makes it 'better' at standing and shooting another type; units that deal high damage and a slow firing rate... Which is something we as spectators see from a mile away (oh, the unit comp is in the Toss' favor), not something that may or may not happen during the battle that will swing the battle. (mine drags, etc).
On March 06 2011 18:04 QuestSeekers wrote: Part of the problem is the philosophy that created the Immortal.
Immortals are very effective VS armored units because of their damage bonus. But they are boring. You have Thors, I have Immortals, I have the advantage. Micro does not play a large role in the Immortal's interaction with other units. It is simply strong or it isn't, and lets a-move and get it over with.
The Immortal is defined completely by its relationship with armored units. bleh.
The Lurker is not so one dimensional, the lurker's damage 'type' doesn't define it, its damage 'method' does. The lurker does 20 damage in a straight line it attacks while invisible (burrowed), which can be a down side when it comes to mobility. The Lurker has more depth because it relates to other units in a variety of ways.
A Battle should have the potential to swing with the dramatic flair! Ala the pop of a Reaver scarab, the drag of a mine, the guts of 10 marines who all died to 2 well placed lurker spines, and the list goes on. To be a good Esports game you have to have tension, drama, excitement!
in BW it wasn't just the 'right unit comp' it was using your units right that won you games (this is not to say sc2 doesn't require micro, just that the micro tends to be less important, or less dramatic when done well)
Powerful (potential to be hugely cost effective) multi-dimensional (relates to other units in a variety of interesting ways) units were a large part of what Brood War fun to watch, and fun to play. If Blizzard doesn't return to its roots, sc2 might be easy for a bronze leaguer to play without getting pwned by one unit, but it won't be the next Esports giant.
EDIT: To be fair, the Immortal has its shield, but again, that just makes it 'better' at standing and shooting another type; units that deal high damage and a slow firing rate... Which is something we as spectators see from a mile away (oh, the unit comp is in the Toss' favor), not something that may or may not happen during the battle that will swing the battle. (mine drags, etc).
BW had a much slower development than SC2. You imply that good micro brought excitement to BW, but that was because of how long a good strategy lingered in the air. Before somebody could come up with the counter to a certain build, they would have to practice it literally hundreds of times. At the end of the day, the execution is what sealed the fate of the players. Solid mechanics, with a hint of brilliant play is what BW is largely about.
However, since a strategy is a little easier to develop due to simpler mechanics, the excitement comes from the strategies themselves. Brilliant play, with solid mechanics in the background are what makes up the majority of the major results we see. MKP didn't lose GSLs because he had poor execution, but because he had predictable play. That's what the draw is in SC2, and what makes a lot of people excited about watching it.
I tend to think it was a PR mistake of Blizzard to cite 2v2 balance as a reason for a patchchange. A lot of people apparently don't play the game, yet feel free to insult Blizzard about balancing the game around the people who play it, not just a very tiny subset. To me, if Starcraft II was fun to play on all levels but not perfect as an e-sport it would be more of a success then if it was only balanced on the highest levels.
I played WC3 for ages, not competitively, but just because it was amusing to try different things and that was because Blizzard tried to keep most units and strategies at least a little bit valuable and to me this added a lot of depth to it as a casual to semi-competitive game. I'd hate for SCII to be some sort of annoying, hard, completely unforgiving game where you auto-lose if you make the tiniest mistake and play is more frustrating than fun. And at least, if that would actually be best for e-sports purposes, then add it as a special game mode, but I'd rather not have 2v2 and low level play utterly broken if the cost is a minor bit of strategic variety in 1v1 play.
Regarding removing abilities, I don't see how that's a dangerous path to go on, or so. If Blizzard wants to they can add a dozen of seemingly intruiging upgrades to the game next week. Why not let hellions leave trails of fire to damage the enemy (blaze from Diablo II ), require banshees and medivacs to land to be able to be repaired (realism), give reapers spidermines (bringing back old SC:BW abilities), or just introduce several new units and a variety of upgrades giving units increased range, speed, hit points and so on? I bet for a lot of them you could give well-thought out reasons as to why they'd improve the game, but essentially, the argument against it would be the same as to why outright removing the amulet upgrade isn't necessarily bad, namely that there's a cost to diversity and that is that the game becomes less focused, more difficult to balance, harder to guess strategies after scouting maybe.
aksfjh United States. March 06 2011 18:26. Posts 56 PM Profile Quote #
BW had a much slower development than SC2. You imply that good micro brought excitement to BW, but that was because of how long a good strategy lingered in the air. Before somebody could come up with the counter to a certain build, they would have to practice it literally hundreds of times. At the end of the day, the execution is what sealed the fate of the players. Solid mechanics, with a hint of brilliant play is what BW is largely about.
However, since a strategy is a little easier to develop due to simpler mechanics, the excitement comes from the strategies themselves. Brilliant play, with solid mechanics in the background are what makes up the majority of the major results we see. MKP didn't lose GSLs because he had poor execution, but because he had predictable play. That's what the draw is in SC2, and what makes a lot of people excited about watching it.
I agree with you, strategy and mechanics are important and can be interesting.
The main thing I wanted to communicate was that the units in BW tend to interact with the other units in BW in a variety of ways AND those ways have the potential to be dramatic (REEEAVER!) and cost effective. Whereas many of the units in Sc2 have to potential to be cost effective, but not to be dramatic.
On March 06 2011 17:00 GhostFall wrote: [ Like I pointed out, all those changes are only hp, damage, build time changes. Those are just pure numbers. The tech trees were not messed with and the overall general strategies were not. Compared to SC2, where a lot of changes have completely removed strategies. Its a bad trend because we want SC2 to have lots of varied strategies.
I guess I kinda get that you mean you don't like removing an upgrade altogether, but really, is "warp in HTs to storm immediately" *really* a strategy? I mean, strategies make use of the "numbers" to win games... and dramatically messing with those numbers is certainly adding and removing strategies as well.
But really, is warping in storm-capable HTs wherever you like *really* a strategy? Is removing that capability *really* "removing a strategy"??
Okay my problem with this point is, you don't realize you don't HAVE to remove the upgrade to change warp-in storms. You could, i dunno, do what he pointed out and change the numbers?
Instead of increasing the mana by 25 increase it by 15 or 20. Give warp in time and 5 or 10seconds to kill the HT. Hell you could even redesign it so increase the regenerate time. Point being, you dont HAVE to remove it to "fix" the "problem" but you can do what he has been saying over and over, change the numbers, not remove the upgrade. I feel like you missed what he is saying by just saying that stopping a drop with warp-in storms isnt strategy. Basically, and i am coming to agreement so far, you shouldn't just blatantly remove something, rather change its stats to balance it instead of killing an option.
They are different games, and they were developed in different ways.
Starcraft 2 has always, and still to this day suffers from it's design philosophy. That being "let's design some awesome units, and then try to balance them" instead of actually adding units that fix flaws for example.
The team is also very different from the team that was on starcraft 1 as far as I know, so for the current team it's has been one big experimentation, and sometimes drastic measures are needed.
Like someone else said, BW and SC2 were just made with different design philosophy's.
You can't just say, BW was very close to balanced, so every RTS game from now on needs to be balanced in exactly the same way, different games, different approaches.
And if it is their opinion that something needs to be removed to actually make it work instead of altering some numbers, then that is their decision.
We also don't know what is going on behind the screens, maybe they have certain plans for the upcoming expansion (for example remove amulet, but give HT's a new upgrade in HoTs, or give them a unit that fills a gap that is left by the removal off this upgrade), or they don't think that they can actually balance it in a timely manner, and they decide to remove it untill they can get a replacement that is actually very well thought out and balanced, but they decided to remove it because for the time being it is their opinion the game is balanced better without it then with it.
Ofcourse that paragraph is completely made up, but it was just to show that we have no clue what the "bigger picture" is or what is actually going on at blizzard that we don't know.
balancing a game like this is just much more effort then "oh well just give them a 5 sec longer warp in time, whatever that will work"
A big thing is gonna be the first expansion, since that is basicly the first time where they really get to do their thing to fix some of those underlying flaws and use the experience/knowledge they have build up during WoL.
To close off my post,
SC2 is not broodwar, it's starcraft, but it's not BW 2.0 with some new units. They are just different games. Just as WC3 and SC2 are different games.
This is a thing I struggled with at the beginning, and for a long time, I wanted this to be BW 2.0, I wanted units such as the colossus (shoots lasers, shoots lasers, move command back, shoots lasers /yawn, give my reaver back) gone. That is like a WC3 player coming to SC2 and saying that the units are dumb and it needs to add hero's.
But in the end that is just not gonna happen, the only thing we can do from now on is actually give proper feedback to blizzard (that is what the PTR is for) and with this try to help blizzard to steer this game towards an even better game. And ofcourse a lot of the time there will be analogy's to BW, but just don't expect them to throw away theyre goals and design philophosy off the game to make it BW with new graphics.
There are just some things that they see differently, for example I really want those "micro-tricks" in the game, like in other great competitive games, animation cancelling in certain games, muta stacking in bw, and all that kind off stuff. I mean the whole quake series is basicly based on a "bug" like this that was discovered in quake 1, aka strafejumping. But the balance team just thinks otherwise, and the moment something like this pops up they remove it.
If you really feel very strongly about certain points, why not send a well argumented letter/email to blizzard, if it is actually good enough they may actually read it.
Ofcourse you could sit here and think "well that is not gonna happen, why would they ever bother to do that", the same thing as what people think in regards to animals being "abused" (couldn't find the correct english word", but it could make a difference, even if the chances are small, so why not?
On March 06 2011 16:17 suejak wrote: I dunno... I find the game fun to watch and play, and I think it's balanced. Virtually every unit sees use, and every match-up is unique and exciting.
Allow me to venture a guess: You are a Terran player, are you not?
You can already see people complaining about PvX being boring to spectate and repetitive in the recent GSL LR threads. And you know what, I play Protoss, and I mostly agree. And removing KA is obviously only going to make it worse.
On March 06 2011 17:30 suejak wrote: I guess I kinda get that you mean you don't like removing an upgrade altogether, but really, is "warp in HTs to storm immediately" *really* a strategy? I mean, strategies make use of the "numbers" to win games... and dramatically messing with those numbers is certainly adding and removing strategies as well.
But really, is warping in storm-capable HTs wherever you like *really* a strategy? Is removing that capability *really* "removing a strategy"??
It's a huge nerf to non-Colossus builds in PvX. They might still be viable, but I wouldn't be surprised if all Protosses basically opened with Colossus play in all matchups after this change goes live. So, yeah, it does remove a fair bit of strategic variety. No more Double Forge, and no more Immortal/Stalker/Templar in PvZ, most likely.
As a sidenote, it's hilarious how Idra and Artosis lobby for a Colossus nerf with their new show, citing Templar builds as possible alternatives, and the next thing Blizzard does is nerf Templar.
[B]On March 06 2011 18:36 Grumbels wrote: I played WC3 for ages, not competitively, but just because it was amusing to try different things and that was because Blizzard tried to keep most units and strategies at least a little bit valuable and to me this added a lot of depth to it as a casual to semi-competitive game. I'd hate for SCII to be some sort of annoying, hard, completely unforgiving game where you auto-lose if you make the tiniest mistake and play is more frustrating than fun. And at least, if that would actually be best for e-sports purposes, then add it as a special game mode, but I'd rather not have 2v2 and low level play utterly broken if the cost is a minor bit of strategic variety in 1v1 play.
This is actually interesting, because that IS how SC2 feels to me right now. Small mistake, battle lost, no comeback possibility, game over. I've lost PvZs because I looked away from my army/the minimap for ~2 seconds, after having played very well up to that point.
This is me being bad, of course, and I do deserve to lose. But it never really felt like that in BW. Sure, you could react slowly to a reaver behind your mineral line, or walk into a mine field like a total retard. However, even if you did fail, it just put you behind, and you had the possibility of making a comeback if you did something equally damaging, or just expanded and macroed really well.
In SC2, if I don't deny a Blue Flame Hellion drop really decisively, I lose 20+ probes and may as well leave. If I lose a big lategame battle, the opponent walks into my natural and the game is over. It's just really, really easy to lose, at any skill-level.
On March 06 2011 18:04 QuestSeekers wrote: Part of the problem is the philosophy that created the Immortal.
Immortals are very effective VS armored units because of their damage bonus. But they are boring. You have Thors, I have Immortals, I have the advantage. Micro does not play a large role in the Immortal's interaction with other units. It is simply strong or it isn't, and lets a-move and get it over with.
The Immortal is defined completely by its relationship with armored units. bleh.
The Lurker is not so one dimensional, the lurker's damage 'type' doesn't define it, its damage 'method' does. The lurker does 20 damage in a straight line it attacks while invisible (burrowed), which can be a down side when it comes to mobility. The Lurker has more depth because it relates to other units in a variety of ways.
A Battle should have the potential to swing with the dramatic flair! Ala the pop of a Reaver scarab, the drag of a mine, the guts of 10 marines who all died to 2 well placed lurker spines, and the list goes on. To be a good Esports game you have to have tension, drama, excitement!
in BW it wasn't just the 'right unit comp' it was using your units right that won you games (this is not to say sc2 doesn't require micro, just that the micro tends to be less important, or less dramatic when done well)
Powerful (potential to be hugely cost effective) multi-dimensional (relates to other units in a variety of interesting ways) units were a large part of what Brood War fun to watch, and fun to play. If Blizzard doesn't return to its roots, sc2 might be easy for a bronze leaguer to play without getting pwned by one unit, but it won't be the next Esports giant.
EDIT: To be fair, the Immortal has its shield, but again, that just makes it 'better' at standing and shooting another type; units that deal high damage and a slow firing rate... Which is something we as spectators see from a mile away (oh, the unit comp is in the Toss' favor), not something that may or may not happen during the battle that will swing the battle. (mine drags, etc).
The Immortal adds the possibility for the Protoss player to draw Siege Tank fire away from his army for a long enough time to crush through a position. 2 Siege Tanks on a cliff? Move a single Immortal into range of each one at the same time. The tanks won't change target from the Immortal until it dies unless told to shoot something else, meaning your ground army has a long, long time to take them out. That's possible micromanagement for both the Protoss and Terran player in a situation that most players would attack move. There's a ton of possibility for little nuances of micro in Starcraft 2, you just need to give time to let the game develop. I don't think it helps having effectively unlimited units per control group though, it just leads to 1a syndrome at all levels of play, hampering the development of micromanagement.
EPT
