• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 23:40
CEST 05:40
KST 12:40
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202561RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension5
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Server Blocker Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update The StarCraft 2 GOAT - An in-depth analysis
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 665 users

Thoughts on Design - Why Input From Pros Can Suck - Page 4

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next All
dave333
Profile Joined August 2010
United States915 Posts
March 13 2011 17:56 GMT
#61
The huge ball mechanics of SC2 kind of kill a lot of it I think. It feels like, watching battles in BW, that fights were way more dynamic and exciting. You had far sicker micro it seems (omg rine splits against blings! vs. rotating rines against lurkers). Now a lot of the game is just big, tightly packed balls, that make melee suck and put so much of winning on AOE. The fighting just seems clunkier and more boring.

Besides that though, blizzard should be buffing, not nerfing. And they often take things to an extreme (when they first nerfed the roach, when reaper went bye, etc.). Also notice that zerg doesn't have any of the seemingly "overpowered" units; except maybe banelings en masse or through drops. Even then, you compare it to bio, HT, tanks, etc. the only thing zerg has is spammability/large numbers...which it should.

Meanwhile, they are overnerfing templar. If they instead it made it 63 energy for HT, they could add a huge tension aspect to the game. The audience sees a drop coming "Oh no!" Templar slowly warps in, slowly gathers energy. The drop makes it in, starts shooting stuff, the templar's energy slowly ticks up and up....till it hits 75. Instead, they chose instead of "oh herp derp warp in templar storm instantly" to say "herp derp drop warp in templar does absolutely nothing drop does huge damage".

Blizzard just sometimes has very questionable ideas on balance and design.
Raiznhell
Profile Joined January 2010
Canada786 Posts
March 13 2011 18:06 GMT
#62
Mainly from a Terran perspective I think Pro input sucks because pretty much all Terrans are marine marauder fanatics and Terran is basically being balanced on how good MMM with occasional support handles in the late game.

A ton of my posts are about promoting Mech but I also don't want Mech only Terran I like variation and especially love watching bio vs Zerg but I think entertainment wise seeing a Metal Terran vs Terran
or Terran vs Protoss just gets super exciting to me. But I also don't want MMM to die completely I just hate seeing it be more potent than Higher Teched Terran units.
Cake or Death?
NicolBolas
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States1388 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-13 18:28:19
March 13 2011 18:22 GMT
#63
You can't say that; sure Zergs were having a hard time dealing with siege tanks and reaper rushes but you could also say that these styles were being figured out rapidly just before they got neutered. Point being that no-one ever got the chance or the inclinination to explore the game as it was, since whining and leaning back was a much more effective way of dealing with it.


You could say that it was being figured out, but were you right? Are you certain that it would have been "figured out" at all?

See, it's easy to look at something like a 50-damage Marine and call that imbalanced. It's much harder to say that a 7-damage Marine instead of 6 would be imbalanced. Or a 5-damage one instead of 6.

Sure, people might come up with a way to deal with it. Then again, they might not. Or it might take years, during which time people will leave the game in droves due to the "obvious" imbalance. Or people might leave a race. Or whatever.

StarCraft 2 is a young game; unlike SC1, it's future is not ensured. Any appearance of imbalance, particularly in its early days, will be seen as a legitimate reason to drop the game like a bad habit. When SC2 gets a few years under its belt, then we can talk about letting the community "find a way" to deal with something. Until then, any appearance of imbalance must be rectified.

Even if one claims that the Corruptor is better AtA than the Viking and Phoenix, the Corruptor is strategically weaker than those two. It means people will only get corruptors when they need that particular unit role in their army, and not incorporating it into any cool or intriguing tactics.


I don't see the problem. It is the nature of the Zerg, even in SC1. If the enemy doesn't get air units, you won't see Scourge. There's a reason that Scourge and Corruptors come from the Spire, which gives the Zerg access to Mutalisks as well. Namely, Zerg are probably going to get Mutas, so give them some anti-air at the same time.

But I also don't want MMM to die completely I just hate seeing it be more potent than Higher Teched Terran units.


What you want is impossible. Because if MMM is not as good as "Higher Teched Terran units," then they will not be used.

The only reason M&M were used against Zerg in SC1 is because Zerg didn't have as good AoE as Protoss or Terrans. STs murdered M&M by the dozens, and a single Reaver could slaughter M&M with ease (not to mention Storm). Lurkers were effective against M&M, but not nearly as much as STs or Reavers. The M&M could at least shoot back before dying, though they needed detection to do so.

Personally, I'm tired of Terran Mech. I would have been happy to see the Siege Tank go away entirely, but Blizzard wouldn't do that. Seeing MMM work better than Mech in a lot of cases is a good thing to me.
So you know, cats are interesting. They are kind of like girls. If they come up and talk to you, it's great. But if you try to talk to them, it doesn't always go so well. - Shigeru Miyamoto
BanelingXD
Profile Joined April 2010
130 Posts
March 13 2011 18:41 GMT
#64
It should be clear to anyone reading the interviews that Browder's team never set out with a specific design philosophy. SC1 was successful because they intended to build a balanced game. Browder is trying to do this after the fact. He has mismanaged the biggest release in Blizz history. SC2 needs a complete overhaul, including repairing the ball mechanics and addressing the cool but useless units. The best thing they could do is fire Browder and bring someone in who actually understands game theory.

0 harvesters, 2700 minerals per minute. Mules are totally balanced!
red.venom
Profile Joined October 2002
United States4651 Posts
March 13 2011 18:47 GMT
#65
SC2 is hella boring right now. They should make more things viable instead of remove options for each race. Its sad how overpowered some units are on a cost/value basis and how that combined with a lot of techs being so slow in relation to other things makes entire unit compositions or a lot of more aggressive possibilities totally irrelevant in competitive play.
Broom
Jayrod
Profile Joined August 2010
1820 Posts
March 13 2011 18:50 GMT
#66
On March 14 2011 03:41 BanelingXD wrote:
It should be clear to anyone reading the interviews that Browder's team never set out with a specific design philosophy. SC1 was successful because they intended to build a balanced game. Browder is trying to do this after the fact. He has mismanaged the biggest release in Blizz history. SC2 needs a complete overhaul, including repairing the ball mechanics and addressing the cool but useless units. The best thing they could do is fire Browder and bring someone in who actually understands game theory.


SC2 design philosophy is implied by the success of SC1. Their goal was to create a similar experience, but improve upon many of the shortcomings of the original game. They've done that. SC2 is an awesome game, and imo, overall better than SC1. Obviously thats my personal point of view, but I think overall blizz has done a great job... created a good game... and I agree with the OP that Blizzard should be a little more patient with the changes.
Keitzer
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States2509 Posts
March 13 2011 18:50 GMT
#67
cuz pros don't get their ramp bunkered

User was temp banned for this post.
I'm like badass squared | KeitZer.489
SilverPotato
Profile Joined July 2010
United States560 Posts
March 13 2011 18:51 GMT
#68
On March 14 2011 03:41 BanelingXD wrote:
It should be clear to anyone reading the interviews that Browder's team never set out with a specific design philosophy. SC1 was successful because they intended to build a balanced game. Browder is trying to do this after the fact. He has mismanaged the biggest release in Blizz history. SC2 needs a complete overhaul, including repairing the ball mechanics and addressing the cool but useless units. The best thing they could do is fire Browder and bring someone in who actually understands game theory.



Browder did a better job than you or anyone that slanders him could even dream of doing. Being head of the biggest release in RTS history comes with its challenges and he handled them better than anyone could have. As for the balance of the game, things seem pretty good to me, not perfect, but taking the GSL into account, the games we see there are enjoyable and the currently the most mechanically sound players are winning. You can't ask for much more than that.
"The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage." ~Arie de Geus
rackdude
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
United States882 Posts
March 13 2011 19:04 GMT
#69
The only problem is that they allowed ball mechanics because of the unit abilities involved. In SC1 ball mechanics were gone because a good dark swarm means you can run right in and destroy it, a reaver scarab could kill 20000 units, and tanks just killed everything. In SC2 they nerfed the tanks, put collosi/templar in instead, and gave no anti-ball to Zerg (except maybe BLs). Well, now late game TvP is kinda going in the same direction, but there is no reason not to just ball up vs Zerg because there is no way for them to have an advantage from you doing so.
Sweet.
Wegandi
Profile Joined March 2011
United States2455 Posts
March 13 2011 19:06 GMT
#70
As someone who played at the highest levels in Age of Empires III I can attest that instant use abilities/building units will ruin the game as it did in AoE III. I am glad they got rid of KA not because it isn't balanced (I believe it to be balanced), but because the mechanic takes no thought and allows you to defend positions without any thought. It essentially takes a lot of skill out of the game.
Thank you bureaucrats for all your hard work, your commitment to public service and public good is essential to the lives of so many. Also, for Pete's sake can we please get some gun control already, no need for hand guns and assault rifles for the public
Dommk
Profile Joined May 2010
Australia4865 Posts
March 13 2011 19:13 GMT
#71
On March 14 2011 01:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 14 2011 01:16 Dommk wrote:
On March 14 2011 00:12 IdrA wrote:
On March 13 2011 23:22 Dommk wrote:
Dayvi was talking to HuK on his stream and said something along the lines of "every pro thinks their race is the weakest race, I think that is a sign that we are doing a good job with balance"

Kind of is really

some z's have been saying since the beta that immortal ht compositions are just as overpowered pvz as collosus builds


And same T's have been saying that the only way they can beat Zerg is by doing lame shit like Bunker rushing to block early hatcheries, or 2rax, but that isn't exactly the case either.


results back one up and not the other


Don't see any results for Immo/Templar being overpowered. Even then, the style is only now picking up again, how many months did people think Roaches were overpowered after the range buff? It took quite a long time to realize that range 4 roaches weren't anything special.


Why are people saying things like this? You have no experience with it so you think you can judge it? I don't understand this logic, because you seem to be admitting that you don't know what you're talking about. People are starting to use it because of how impenetrable it is. I don't know if that will remain after the KA removal though...

That last statement is a little weird considering how mass roach is pretty much the grand ol' strategy vs. toss right now...

Really? What do you have to back this claim? I haven't even seen a single lick of QQ about immortal Templar being overpowered till now. When the Roach change happened, Immortal Templar was THE build to go and no one even complained, but all of a sudden it is "impenetrable"? Aside from Idra saying it is just as good as Colossus builds, I have never seen anyone else even suggest that it is even remotely overpowered...
palanq
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
United States761 Posts
March 13 2011 19:39 GMT
#72
Players are biased in favor for their own race.

good players know what works for them, what seems to be both easy and difficult to deal with. there are plenty of players of all races.
you only get data that affects the current metagame... As good as pros are, they arent good enough to predict all the specific strategies that appear in the future.

okay, no one can predict the future though? if anyone will be able to predict that unconventional unit compositions are actually overpowered it's going to be professional players who spend 8 hr/day trying to push the game to its limits. the only consequence of this observation is that changes should be done cautiously, which, as you note, has been the case.
dynamic blah blah blah competitive community sux

and here people were complaining blizzard was catering to the casuals too much...
time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana
Toadvine
Profile Joined November 2010
Poland2234 Posts
March 13 2011 19:40 GMT
#73
On March 14 2011 03:50 Jayrod wrote:
SC2 design philosophy is implied by the success of SC1. Their goal was to create a similar experience, but improve upon many of the shortcomings of the original game. They've done that. SC2 is an awesome game, and imo, overall better than SC1. Obviously thats my personal point of view, but I think overall blizz has done a great job... created a good game... and I agree with the OP that Blizzard should be a little more patient with the changes.


Thing is, the game doesn't feel very similar to BW, to me at least. It's difficult to say if it's better or worse, but it's certainly different. Race design has shifted dramatically - the SC2 Terran is more like the BW Protoss, and SC2 Protoss is a little bit like BW Terran, but it's not a pronounced similarity. SC2 Zerg is a lot different than any of the BW races.

Sometimes I have the feeling that it's the community that's sort of remodelling SC2 into being more like BW, with all the calls for macro maps, disdain for 1 base aggression, and so forth. Because if you look at SC2 mechanics as a whole, it certainly feels like 1 base all-ins is something they wanted to have a lot of.
"There are always some Eskimos ready to instruct the Congolese on how to cope with heat waves." - S.J.Lec
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
March 13 2011 19:47 GMT
#74
Blizzard try to fix the balance the wrong way in my opinion.
What all theses stats showed me is that the game is unstable. It's more about "how to survive this timings so that i crush my opponent in this timing" rather than a strategy game, and that's why every pro think their race is weak, because they all face timing attack that hardcounter their strategies once in a while and get crushed like noobies.
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
parn
Profile Joined December 2010
France296 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-13 20:07:58
March 13 2011 20:07 GMT
#75
On March 14 2011 03:41 BanelingXD wrote:
It should be clear to anyone reading the interviews that Browder's team never set out with a specific design philosophy. SC1 was successful because they intended to build a balanced game. Browder is trying to do this after the fact. He has mismanaged the biggest release in Blizz history. SC2 needs a complete overhaul, including repairing the ball mechanics and addressing the cool but useless units. The best thing they could do is fire Browder and bring someone in who actually understands game theory.

Agree with most of what you said, but firing Browder won't change anything imo, I think it's more about Blizzard global commercial policy. There's a lot of conflicts between making a game interesting, and making the most benefits from a game.

That's why not so many people really play chess while it's the best strategy game ever "made".
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.
0mar
Profile Joined February 2010
United States567 Posts
March 13 2011 20:10 GMT
#76
On March 14 2011 03:41 BanelingXD wrote:
It should be clear to anyone reading the interviews that Browder's team never set out with a specific design philosophy. SC1 was successful because they intended to build a balanced game. Browder is trying to do this after the fact. He has mismanaged the biggest release in Blizz history. SC2 needs a complete overhaul, including repairing the ball mechanics and addressing the cool but useless units. The best thing they could do is fire Browder and bring someone in who actually understands game theory.



lol, SC1 didn't have any design philosophy either except make the three races as distinct as possible. Blizzard didn't want to make "WarCraft in Space." I still have the '97 PCGamer where StarCraft was revealed. RTS balance wasn't even on the radar because no one knew what that term actually meant. Before Bnet, most people just played with their own group of (real-life) friends or on fairly small servers like Kali. Bnet was the first system with mass appeal for online gaming. Bnet was what allowed people to actually play thousands of other people readily and without hassle.

Remember, SC/BW being an esport is basically 100% fluke. Blizzard never had the intention of making SC/BW an esport; the entire concept of esport didn't even exist. It's all just a happy coincidence that BW made it big. It's even more of a fluke that SC/BW was balanced. Blizzard didn't have any intention of doing so; they wanted a fun game that appealed to people. Half of the balance comes from engine bugs/tricks/flaws that were never intended to work in that manner.
MonsieurGrimm
Profile Joined August 2010
Canada2441 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-13 20:35:09
March 13 2011 20:32 GMT
#77
On March 14 2011 00:21 DoubleReed wrote:
If we're talking about Balance and Design, shouldn't we talk about the actual design of some of the units then?

When I see a corruptor, I see a cool looking unit that has the most boring ability in both Starcraft and Starcraft 2. It has good stats and certainly fills a role in the zerg army, but it doesn't do anything more than that. Corruption has absolutely zero strategy in relation to it. It can't be used to harass. It requires absolutely no real micro other than spamming.

How does this affect balance? It's huge. Consider the Viking and the Phoenix both with phenomenal ground-support abilities. Both Lift/Land and Anti-Gravity have tons of uses in actual strategy/tactics. It allows for more dynamic gameplay, harassment etc. etc. Even if one claims that the Corruptor is better AtA than the Viking and Phoenix, the Corruptor is strategically weaker than those two. It means people will only get corruptors when they need that particular unit role in their army, and not incorporating it into any cool or intriguing tactics.

Overmaking Corruptors is a common defense against the colossus. It is expensive and deadly. With Terran its much less of an issue because they can actually support the ground with the lift/land. But a lot of zerg's issues lie with these kind of odd design choices, not with the unit stats and costs.

Agree wholeheartedly with this: the issue is that the corruptors are next to useless when the colossi die, whereas the vikings can at least do something even if it's not that strong (it shouldn't be, they aren't made for that).

I think that if corruption became a small AoE spell which had much less effect, we wouldn't have the trouble with the corruptor vs hydroach balance because if you made too many corruptors they wouldn't be flying wastes of supply.

Also, I don't think that phoenixes fall in the same category as corruptors and vikings: phoenixes, mutalisks and banshees are more harassment-oriented while void rays, corruptors and vikings are your more beefy air force which you use in your standing army. Obviously, overmaking void rays still helps against the ground army because void rays shoot down ^^.
"60% of the time, it works - every time" - Brian Fantana on Double Reactors All The Way // "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Motat
Profile Joined November 2010
315 Posts
March 13 2011 20:33 GMT
#78
On March 13 2011 21:46 GhostFall wrote:

Now don't get me wrong, pros know the game better than anyone else. If I wanted to change a game with the intent of pure balance, I would do nothing but listen to the pro community. But this brings up several issues. Let's address the easiest and least interesting to understand first: bias. This is fairly simple. Players are biased in favor for their own race. The more of a certain race among the pros, the more biased feedback and analysis comes from the competitive community. If there are more Terran pros, you're going to get more feedback that is Terran biased from the overall community. A simple numbers argument.



I don't know about you but whenever I read or hear an interview or just any comment about balance from a pro, it is usually completely unbiased. Players like Jinro openly stating that they realize terran needs a little nerf, the toss players saying end game toss vs zerg is EXTREMLY hard to beat, as a zerg.
PM me for coaching. I'm a mid masters zerg player.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
March 13 2011 20:51 GMT
#79
On March 14 2011 03:41 BanelingXD wrote:
It should be clear to anyone reading the interviews that Browder's team never set out with a specific design philosophy. SC1 was successful because they intended to build a balanced game. Browder is trying to do this after the fact. He has mismanaged the biggest release in Blizz history. SC2 needs a complete overhaul, including repairing the ball mechanics and addressing the cool but useless units. The best thing they could do is fire Browder and bring someone in who actually understands game theory.


This is wrong on so many accounts.

-All the interviews with Browder actually show a really tight design philosophy. I'm not sure where you're getting this from at all. You may disagree with his design philosophy, but it's certainly there.
-That is not why SC1 was successful. That may be one reason, but it is FAR from the best reason.
-Trying to balance after what fact? What are you talking about? Do people expect that the game should have been balanced before the first expansion? None of the Blizzard games have ever been like that. Look at the ridiculously massive changes that happened with The Frozen Throne.
-Game Theory. *facepalm* What does this have to do with game theory? Do you know what game theory is? Because it's more about financial strategy and economics than it is about designing a game. I'm just going to assume you meant game design.
teamsolid
Profile Joined October 2007
Canada3668 Posts
March 13 2011 21:03 GMT
#80
On March 14 2011 01:05 tyCe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 14 2011 00:33 DoubleReed wrote:
On March 14 2011 00:31 karpo wrote:
On March 14 2011 00:21 DoubleReed wrote:
If we're talking about Balance and Design, shouldn't we talk about the actual design of some of the units then?

When I see a corruptor, I see a cool looking unit that has the most boring ability in both Starcraft and Starcraft 2. It has good stats and certainly fills a role in the zerg army, but it doesn't do anything more than that. Corruption has absolutely zero strategy in relation to it. It can't be used to harass. It requires absolutely no real micro other than spamming.

How does this affect balance? It's huge. Consider the Viking and the Phoenix both with phenomenal ground-support abilities. Both Lift/Land and Anti-Gravity have tons of uses in actual strategy/tactics. It allows for more dynamic gameplay, harassment etc. etc. Even if one claims that the Corruptor is better AtA than the Viking and Phoenix, the Corruptor is strategically weaker than those two. It means people will only get corruptors when they need that particular unit role in their army, and not incorporating it into any cool or intriguing tactics.

Overmaking Corruptors is a common defense against the colossus. It is expensive and deadly. With Terran its much less of an issue because they can actually support the ground with the lift/land. But a lot of zerg's issues lie with these kind of odd design choices, not with the unit stats and costs.


Lift/land does not have "tons of uses" nor is it a "phenomenal ground support ability". I can count on one hand the times i've seen landed vikings do anything beside fail miserably at GtG combat.


What? You've never seen them land to harass a worker line? You've never seen them kill all the Colossi and then immediately land for ground support? Really? Because it actually works really well.

That's not exciting at all. I missing shuttle/reaver micro. Now, THAT was exciting.

Dark swarm push
Spawn broodling on tanks (and ultras at hive tech ZvZ lol)
Clutch storms/plague
Irradiate erasers
Scourge cloning
Yamato cloning
Mine drags.
Marine v lurker micro (sooooooo much more entertaining than "micro" vs banelings)

It was even better knowing how damn HARD it is to do most of these things without the easymode AI automation that we get now in SC2.

Dark swarm push - Pioneered largely by Savior ~2005
Spawn broodling on tanks (and ultras at hive tech ZvZ lol) - Only popped up within last couple years
Clutch storms/plague - Can still happen in SC2
Irradiate erasers - Looks cool, but isn't hard to do at all
Scourge cloning - Only cool because it's "difficult", not visually impressive
Yamato cloning - Only cool because it's "difficult", not visually impressive
Mine drags. - Def. cool, wish there were mines in SC2
Marine v lurker micro (sooooooo much more entertaining than "micro" vs banelings) - Really only started becoming common after Oov's dominance

Most of the stuff you listed only popped up like almost a decade into the game, so I'd just give it some time, and hope the expansions add some cool units/abilities.
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 6h 20m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
WinterStarcraft424
Nina 198
RuFF_SC2 123
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 4794
GoRush 178
Sexy 78
NaDa 73
Icarus 7
League of Legends
JimRising 485
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1268
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King169
amsayoshi40
Other Games
summit1g9422
shahzam935
ViBE257
C9.Mang0216
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1348
BasetradeTV26
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 82
• practicex 28
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift5067
• Lourlo970
• Stunt382
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
6h 20m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
10h 20m
CSO Cup
12h 20m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
14h 20m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 5h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 10h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 14h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Korean StarCraft League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL Team Wars
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.