|
I just can't understand this. The mechanics needs to be made more difficult ? Like no workers rally point ? Limit Control group back to 12 units ? can't use control group on more than 1 building ? These mechanics improvement are all things that made me love SC2 much more than I used to like BW, because you can at last focus on your overall plan/micro/ stategy instead of losing time sending each SCV manually to it's mineral patch.
Valid Point...
I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
Also Valid Point....
The fact is both points of view are perfectly valid and is why we need to consider either a toggle between competitive and casual mode...or we all need to accept that SC2 will not be able to perfectly support both casual and competitive players. It takes a game as good as SC2 to make this kind of problem noticeable...most games are so flawed even the concept of fair competitive play is thrown out the window. I guess we'll just have to see how Blizzard reacts over time to the needs of community...Historically they've done a great job. I'm not counting them out yet.
|
I think the MVP situation has more to do with the current changing metagame that came along with the new maps. Big maps are harder for Terran and they allow Protoss to enter the lategame more easily. I'm sure most people agree that Protoss has some great advantages in the lategame.
|
Don't see how you get volatile from MVP's games. Thats just the nature of the meta-game, or balance. Can't say at this point.
|
On March 17 2011 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal.
Bio is still more viable than mech imo.
When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there.
I don't mean to be contrary here, but IIRC mech has access to units which are good against zealots (blue flame hellions) and 250MM cannon for immortals.
You may recall this, but bio also has two units they are also poor against, the colossus and high templar. Bio also has issues with forcefields, whereas mech does not - but they also have mobility via Medivacs, which are less useful for mech.
But really, all I'm saying now is that Bio and Mech are completely different - which is true. Saying that if everyone at the top does it that it must be right would make sense in a world where people couldn't communicate strategies to each other, but that's really not the case here. Tomorrow, if huk posted a strategy involving teching safely to carriers in PvT on two bases, I think you'd suddenly see a lot of carriers in PvT. That doesn't mean it's the best build, it just means that's what people are doing.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
SC2 is marketed to casual right now, If they fundementally change mechanics to make it harder to play then alot of casuals won't buy the game anymore, hence why they won't do a complete overhaul.
I have a tiny slither of hope that maybe they will do it as a function/option though, but I doubt that too.
|
On March 17 2011 05:15 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal.
Bio is still more viable than mech imo.
When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there.
I don't mean to be contrary here, but IIRC mech has access to units which are good against zealots (blue flame hellions) and 250MM cannon for immortals. You may recall this, but bio also has two units they are also poor against, the colossus and high templar. Bio also has issues with forcefields, whereas mech does not - but they also have mobility via Medivacs, which are less useful for mech. But really, all I'm saying now is that Bio and Mech are completely different - which is true. Saying that if everyone at the top does it that it must be right would make sense in a world where people couldn't communicate strategies to each other, but that's really not the case here. Tomorrow, if huk posted a strategy involving teching safely to carriers in PvT on two bases, I think you'd suddenly see a lot of carriers in PvT. That doesn't mean it's the best build, it just means that's what people are doing.
You know I wonder if Flash turtle is still viable in TvP. Have a sick 2/1 (2/2) push and just harass with BF Hellions and Medivacs until you get your MechDeath. The problem is Blizzard maps are pretty horrible for macro/turtle play. Hopefully they put in the GSL/MLG maps to the ladder play or I'll be relegated to customs (which I think are better than ladder anyways, but without practice partners on throughout the day, it isn't as consistent).
|
MVP has never been good against toss... he was shitting his pants when he thought he was going to have to face MC... anyone with a third grade education could tell 2 good tosses would be the end of him.
Apparently you never played BW... everybody thought terran was the worst race for a year or two... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Shit changes, and people overhype some players so much that you are shocked when they lose...
I bet you've never watched Savior vs. Bisu in the MSL finals. That would've made your head explode...
|
On March 17 2011 05:18 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 05:15 Treehead wrote:On March 17 2011 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal.
Bio is still more viable than mech imo.
When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there.
I don't mean to be contrary here, but IIRC mech has access to units which are good against zealots (blue flame hellions) and 250MM cannon for immortals. You may recall this, but bio also has two units they are also poor against, the colossus and high templar. Bio also has issues with forcefields, whereas mech does not - but they also have mobility via Medivacs, which are less useful for mech. But really, all I'm saying now is that Bio and Mech are completely different - which is true. Saying that if everyone at the top does it that it must be right would make sense in a world where people couldn't communicate strategies to each other, but that's really not the case here. Tomorrow, if huk posted a strategy involving teching safely to carriers in PvT on two bases, I think you'd suddenly see a lot of carriers in PvT. That doesn't mean it's the best build, it just means that's what people are doing. You know I wonder if Flash turtle is still viable in TvP. Have a sick 2/1 (2/2) push and just harass with BF Hellions and Medivacs until you get your MechDeath. The problem is Blizzard maps are pretty horrible for macro/turtle play. Hopefully they put in the GSL/MLG maps to the ladder play or I'll be relegated to customs (which I think are better than ladder anyways, but without practice partners on throughout the day, it isn't as consistent).
The problem is that hellions are pretty bad at killing stalkers while vultures are decent at killing goons with mines.
|
I would seriously approve of a toggle for a more competetive and a more casual version of the game. DEFINITELY.
It is just genius. I think Blizzard seriously need to think about SC2 and the game as an e-sport.
Edit: Also, I definitely DON'T want to see stuff that only requires a higher apm but not really much of cleverness, like having all production buildings on one hotkey, 12+ units per cgroup etc. More like, more micro-intense capabilities of units, it can even be really subtle.
|
On March 17 2011 05:21 Louuster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 05:18 Wegandi wrote:On March 17 2011 05:15 Treehead wrote:On March 17 2011 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal.
Bio is still more viable than mech imo.
When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there.
I don't mean to be contrary here, but IIRC mech has access to units which are good against zealots (blue flame hellions) and 250MM cannon for immortals. You may recall this, but bio also has two units they are also poor against, the colossus and high templar. Bio also has issues with forcefields, whereas mech does not - but they also have mobility via Medivacs, which are less useful for mech. But really, all I'm saying now is that Bio and Mech are completely different - which is true. Saying that if everyone at the top does it that it must be right would make sense in a world where people couldn't communicate strategies to each other, but that's really not the case here. Tomorrow, if huk posted a strategy involving teching safely to carriers in PvT on two bases, I think you'd suddenly see a lot of carriers in PvT. That doesn't mean it's the best build, it just means that's what people are doing. You know I wonder if Flash turtle is still viable in TvP. Have a sick 2/1 (2/2) push and just harass with BF Hellions and Medivacs until you get your MechDeath. The problem is Blizzard maps are pretty horrible for macro/turtle play. Hopefully they put in the GSL/MLG maps to the ladder play or I'll be relegated to customs (which I think are better than ladder anyways, but without practice partners on throughout the day, it isn't as consistent). The problem is that hellions are pretty bad at killing stalkers while vultures are decent at killing goons with mines.
This is true, however, Hellions are better at killing probes than Vultures were. Is this enough to make up for the difference? Should be tested more, since the new maps support this style of play.
|
We just need a promod of some sorts.
|
United States15275 Posts
On March 17 2011 04:47 Zystra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote:To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens  ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show. Look at the English Premier League, 4 teams have dominated for 15 years, enough said. Luck can cause an upset or bad form can cause an upset. But in general, the best always rises to the top and stays there, im struggling to see this with SC2.
Why are you comparing a team from another sport to individual players in a computer game? The differences are so vast that any parallels are inevitably faulty.
|
United States7483 Posts
The volatility in the game is due to one primary factor: stronger very early game builds that can't be scouted easily. Once players figure out how to do safe, reliable builds that defend against most forms of early cheeses and are reasonably good in the mid and late game, a lot of the volatility will disappear.
The game just seems volatile because players like Bitbybit can beat amazingly good players with ridiculous cheeses. Once those cheeses are invalidated by standard builds (or the standard builds evolve to invalidate them), players won't have to worry about getting all-in'd as much.
Most of the strength of all-ins comes from the early game macro mechanics (chrono boost for getting that one thing you need really fast, mules allowing for SCV's to be pulled, larva inject for faster unit growth rates). It'll be figured out.
|
On March 17 2011 05:29 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 04:47 Zystra wrote:On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote:To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show. Look at the English Premier League, 4 teams have dominated for 15 years, enough said. Luck can cause an upset or bad form can cause an upset. But in general, the best always rises to the top and stays there, im struggling to see this with SC2. Why are you comparing a team from another sport to individual players in a computer game? The differences are so vast that any parallels are inevitably faulty.
Because it shows that randomness makes things broing and their should always be 3-4 best players.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 17 2011 05:21 Louuster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 05:18 Wegandi wrote:On March 17 2011 05:15 Treehead wrote:On March 17 2011 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal.
Bio is still more viable than mech imo.
When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there.
I don't mean to be contrary here, but IIRC mech has access to units which are good against zealots (blue flame hellions) and 250MM cannon for immortals. You may recall this, but bio also has two units they are also poor against, the colossus and high templar. Bio also has issues with forcefields, whereas mech does not - but they also have mobility via Medivacs, which are less useful for mech. But really, all I'm saying now is that Bio and Mech are completely different - which is true. Saying that if everyone at the top does it that it must be right would make sense in a world where people couldn't communicate strategies to each other, but that's really not the case here. Tomorrow, if huk posted a strategy involving teching safely to carriers in PvT on two bases, I think you'd suddenly see a lot of carriers in PvT. That doesn't mean it's the best build, it just means that's what people are doing. You know I wonder if Flash turtle is still viable in TvP. Have a sick 2/1 (2/2) push and just harass with BF Hellions and Medivacs until you get your MechDeath. The problem is Blizzard maps are pretty horrible for macro/turtle play. Hopefully they put in the GSL/MLG maps to the ladder play or I'll be relegated to customs (which I think are better than ladder anyways, but without practice partners on throughout the day, it isn't as consistent). The problem is that hellions are pretty bad at killing stalkers while vultures are decent at killing goons with mines.
Hilariously, and contrary to popular belief, hellions in large numbers become cost effective against stalkers in large numbers due to having much higher dps from splash damage (and the fact that stalkers do almost no damage at all). Goons were also much stronger than stalkers, and tanks do a great job at tearing stalkers a new one. You don't need vulture mines for mech in SC2, hellions are just absurdly good.
|
Players having a bad day and falling down allowing others to grab the spotlight isn't a bad thing. The favorite doesn't have to win every single game.
|
On March 17 2011 05:33 Zystra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 05:29 CosmicSpiral wrote:On March 17 2011 04:47 Zystra wrote:On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote:To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show. Look at the English Premier League, 4 teams have dominated for 15 years, enough said. Luck can cause an upset or bad form can cause an upset. But in general, the best always rises to the top and stays there, im struggling to see this with SC2. Why are you comparing a team from another sport to individual players in a computer game? The differences are so vast that any parallels are inevitably faulty. Because it shows that randomness makes things broing and their should always be 3-4 best players.
It's the old question -- Parity or David vs Goliath. I enjoy both entertainment spectrums so I would like to see most players on the same level with perhaps a few that are just a slight bit better than the rest, but enough to create the sense of underdog vs. gosu. I do not enjoy watching a great disparity between the skills of players. It's boring to watch Michael Jordan destroy High School basketball players for instance.
|
United States15275 Posts
On March 17 2011 05:33 Zystra wrote:
Because it shows that randomness makes things broing and their should always be 3-4 best players.
No it doesn't. 
Your example doesn't prove anything at all except (maybe) that group competition generally has more stability than individual competition.
A lot of talk about the "instability" of SC2 at the pro level comes from general misconceptions about the nature of the pro scene itself. People look at results without noting how the players reached them, dismiss Code A players as being much worse than Code S players automatically, and generally call players good without knowing what they're good (subsequently, ignoring why they lose when they lose).
|
On March 17 2011 05:20 VeNoM HaZ Skill wrote:
MVP has never been good against toss... he was shitting his pants when he thought he was going to have to face MC... anyone with a third grade education could tell 2 good tosses would be the end of him.
Apparently you never played BW... everybody thought terran was the worst race for a year or two... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Shit changes, and people overhype some players so much that you are shocked when they lose...
I bet you've never watched Savior vs. Bisu in the MSL finals. That would've made your head explode...
You are completly off topic. What made bisu's win so EPIC was especially because Savior was dominating since a longggggggggggg time, not to mention he lost in FINAL.
We are actually talking about a game were in 5 season, the number 1 of the previous season ALWAYS miserabily falls in the next season. And now we have "THE BEST PLAYER OF THE WORLD" if you listen to artosis, who falls in first round, loosing everything in the season while he is the fucking previous champion.
It's anticlimatic, for epicness to come, you need some kind of rarity. Seeing everyday THE BEST loosing to a goddamn Code A player has no taste at all.
PS: if you consider that instability, MKP is actually the best player, being in final twice, always having pretty strong result, and he was not demoted to code A.
|
On March 17 2011 02:40 Noli wrote:
Just because someone was amazing at Brood War doesn't make them amazing at SC. Sure it helps a lot but if you look at other competive games with sequels almost all the time with the new game you see new top players. (the exception being Ogre 2 of Final Boss) It's just since it's been the same game for so long now people forget the change in style forced by the new game and haven't adapted.
How is this even related  The thread pertains to the upsets of NesTea, MKP, FD, etc.
Especially Code A MVP
Not talking about Boxer, Nada, or July
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
