On April 18 2011 17:28 trifecta wrote:
Is everyone forgetting that the map pool has changed massively in the last six months, allowing for more strategic options? Too many variables (balance patches, map pool, metagame, player skill) are shifting to definitively disprove or confirm the OP. However, the OP has a lot of valid points that are being ignored or approached with ignorance.
Show nested quote +
On April 18 2011 16:22 nvrs wrote:
This post and Jibbas make the most sense - i can't think of anyhthing else to add really.
Also, the high number of great games that we have watched the past 10 days (TSL in particular), with a lot of back and forth action, multiple battles on many fronts and various strategies are a proof for me at least that the OP is wrong.
On April 18 2011 15:58 Ribbon wrote:
ZvZ was my favorate matchup, probably because it was my best in BW (but I was one of those kids who did what the pros did down to the split-second timings even though my mechinics sucked. "Okay, now I make a Dragoon and plink at the Terran's depot until a tank pops out").
Anyway, I don't think Storm or Reavers filled that role at all. The idea of the "setting up" lurkers and tanks was that - while certainly good at offense - they were significantly better at defense. This is why TvT tended to have boring stalemates (the SC2 version of TvT is widely considered the best matchup, and arguably better than it's BW counterpart).
I think people have a blind spot to the idea that SC2 can one day be amazing in ways BW never was. Thus, when something in SC2 doesn't work out (Steppes of War), the community will declare that this is proof that Blizzard doesn't know what the hell they're doing and their stupid and Activision something something etc., and say the game should've been perfectly designed and balanced at launch, which is simply insane.
I tend to be quick to defend Blizzard. It's not so much because I'm a fanboy (Warcraft 3 was a bad game, and the campaign was awful!), but because I work at a software company and understand how these things work out, which is slowly, frustratingly, and with stops and starts.
The game has been improving. Significantly. It was only a few months ago that one-base all-ins were standard TvZ (remember GSL3? Literally 90%+ of TvZs were marine SCV all-ins!). Back then, TvP was considered an inherently fucked matchup, because T was super-OP early game, but protoss was super-OP late game. MarineKingPrime said that the marine was so ludicrously overpowered that it hid the "fact" that every single other Terran unit was garbage, so T would justify the all-ins by saying they had no chance in the late game either Zerg or Protoss. Proxy Void Rays killed everything, and SCVs would surround Thors in a rush, making the Thor invincible because it fucked up the pathing AI. It was conventional wisdom that the game was garbage because 1-base cheese was too strong and we'd never see macro games. Nothing could be done to fix this, of course. The mechanics of the game simply made one-base all-ins too powerful, and this was a fundamental flaw that nothing would overcome.
Nowadays (not counting PvP), FEs are standard, and even one-base openings transition into an expo fairly quickly. In GSTL February, MVP FE'd, saw that Squirtle FE'd as well, and reacted by taking a fast third. Today we know that's the correct response, but at the time, it blew people's minds. Watch the VOD, and listen to Tasteless and Artosis. They freak out! And that was only three months ago!
Right now, check out the Spanishiwa build, right? It's a really greedy build that's nevertheless safe from nearly all one-base pressures or all-ins except unscouted cheese. What's the big complaint that's keeping it from catching on at a pro level? According to Darkforce, it takes too long to get a third if your opponent takes his natural super fast because you can't pressure enough.
Just go back in time six months. Imagine if someone came along during GSL 3 (Marine SCV All-in! Every game!) and said "Hey, I've got a build that lets you saturate two bases in the first 6 minutes, and it's safe against Marine SCV all-ins, cloak banshees, hellion openings, and 4gates, while hard countering Void Ray rushes, the Phoenix openings that don't exist yet, and uncloaked banshhes". Can you imagine that build coming out back in November and Zerg's responding "yeah , but if the opponent goes for an FE, it takes like 3 minutes to get your third going"? Back then? Had the Spanishiwa build come out in November, it would've solved nearly every common complaint about the game for months, until P and T felt more comfortable macroing.
And what's the big complaint in SC2 now? Deathballs. Specifically, the Protoss deathball, especially against Zerg.
As we await the promised Colossus nerf which will fix that problem (and make PvT and PvZ have more of the really awesome games that happen when P doesn't go Colo tech!), I want everyone to just take a step back, and think about how weird it would've seemed just a few months ago that the big complaint was revolve around 200/200 armies with full upgrades and mostly tier 3 units. Recognize that SC2 has come a long way in a little under a year, even as we agree that it has a long way to go.
I wonder what the complaint will be next during GSL 10 or NASL 3?
On April 18 2011 12:11 mahnini wrote:
well, i would say to some extent psi storm and reavers filled that role but i didn't really enjoy watching pvp. hell, i even hated watching zvz and i played z. i didn't mind tvt as long as it wasn't a huge turtle fest.
On April 18 2011 11:11 Ribbon wrote:
A even better question would be either
1. Why did PvP have it?
2. If it didn't, why was PvP still good?
On April 18 2011 10:45 mahnini wrote:
i think a better question would be which bw protoss matchup lacks this dynamic.
On April 18 2011 09:53 Ribbon wrote:
What to BW Protoss have in this category?
On April 18 2011 08:35 mahnini wrote:
i think this is a good way to put it. i had a hard time explaining it so i called it literal map control but this is what i mean. units that when are setup you wouldn't attack into without strong reason because you would suffer massive damage, but the downside of such units is that when they are not setup they aren't anywhere near as effective. this makes it absolutely essential to not be caught out of position and let your opponent setup, which is vastly different than positioning to avoid unfavorable terrain.
On April 18 2011 08:31 mike1290 wrote:
Map control, in the sense the OP is talking about, is provided by units that have the ability to, in smaller numbers, pay for themselves many times over before they are killed. Examples of this from BW are vultures, lurkers, defilers, siege tanks, and there are probably a few more. These types of units, with the potential to do enough damage to pay for themselves many times over, are not as potent in SC2 as they were in BW.
Map control, in the sense the OP is talking about, is provided by units that have the ability to, in smaller numbers, pay for themselves many times over before they are killed. Examples of this from BW are vultures, lurkers, defilers, siege tanks, and there are probably a few more. These types of units, with the potential to do enough damage to pay for themselves many times over, are not as potent in SC2 as they were in BW.
i think this is a good way to put it. i had a hard time explaining it so i called it literal map control but this is what i mean. units that when are setup you wouldn't attack into without strong reason because you would suffer massive damage, but the downside of such units is that when they are not setup they aren't anywhere near as effective. this makes it absolutely essential to not be caught out of position and let your opponent setup, which is vastly different than positioning to avoid unfavorable terrain.
What to BW Protoss have in this category?
i think a better question would be which bw protoss matchup lacks this dynamic.
A even better question would be either
1. Why did PvP have it?
2. If it didn't, why was PvP still good?
well, i would say to some extent psi storm and reavers filled that role but i didn't really enjoy watching pvp. hell, i even hated watching zvz and i played z. i didn't mind tvt as long as it wasn't a huge turtle fest.
ZvZ was my favorate matchup, probably because it was my best in BW (but I was one of those kids who did what the pros did down to the split-second timings even though my mechinics sucked. "Okay, now I make a Dragoon and plink at the Terran's depot until a tank pops out").
Anyway, I don't think Storm or Reavers filled that role at all. The idea of the "setting up" lurkers and tanks was that - while certainly good at offense - they were significantly better at defense. This is why TvT tended to have boring stalemates (the SC2 version of TvT is widely considered the best matchup, and arguably better than it's BW counterpart).
On April 18 2011 14:36 LaLuSh wrote:
SC2 is still good and plenty entertaining. Blizzard can probably eventually fix balance to the point where thigns settle down.
Problem for them is that we're expecting balance to lead to broodwar-like quality. We use bw as the benchmark.
That's probably not realistic with how the game was designed.
SC2 is still good and plenty entertaining. Blizzard can probably eventually fix balance to the point where thigns settle down.
Problem for them is that we're expecting balance to lead to broodwar-like quality. We use bw as the benchmark.
That's probably not realistic with how the game was designed.
I think people have a blind spot to the idea that SC2 can one day be amazing in ways BW never was. Thus, when something in SC2 doesn't work out (Steppes of War), the community will declare that this is proof that Blizzard doesn't know what the hell they're doing and their stupid and Activision something something etc., and say the game should've been perfectly designed and balanced at launch, which is simply insane.
I tend to be quick to defend Blizzard. It's not so much because I'm a fanboy (Warcraft 3 was a bad game, and the campaign was awful!), but because I work at a software company and understand how these things work out, which is slowly, frustratingly, and with stops and starts.
The game has been improving. Significantly. It was only a few months ago that one-base all-ins were standard TvZ (remember GSL3? Literally 90%+ of TvZs were marine SCV all-ins!). Back then, TvP was considered an inherently fucked matchup, because T was super-OP early game, but protoss was super-OP late game. MarineKingPrime said that the marine was so ludicrously overpowered that it hid the "fact" that every single other Terran unit was garbage, so T would justify the all-ins by saying they had no chance in the late game either Zerg or Protoss. Proxy Void Rays killed everything, and SCVs would surround Thors in a rush, making the Thor invincible because it fucked up the pathing AI. It was conventional wisdom that the game was garbage because 1-base cheese was too strong and we'd never see macro games. Nothing could be done to fix this, of course. The mechanics of the game simply made one-base all-ins too powerful, and this was a fundamental flaw that nothing would overcome.
Nowadays (not counting PvP), FEs are standard, and even one-base openings transition into an expo fairly quickly. In GSTL February, MVP FE'd, saw that Squirtle FE'd as well, and reacted by taking a fast third. Today we know that's the correct response, but at the time, it blew people's minds. Watch the VOD, and listen to Tasteless and Artosis. They freak out! And that was only three months ago!
Right now, check out the Spanishiwa build, right? It's a really greedy build that's nevertheless safe from nearly all one-base pressures or all-ins except unscouted cheese. What's the big complaint that's keeping it from catching on at a pro level? According to Darkforce, it takes too long to get a third if your opponent takes his natural super fast because you can't pressure enough.
Just go back in time six months. Imagine if someone came along during GSL 3 (Marine SCV All-in! Every game!) and said "Hey, I've got a build that lets you saturate two bases in the first 6 minutes, and it's safe against Marine SCV all-ins, cloak banshees, hellion openings, and 4gates, while hard countering Void Ray rushes, the Phoenix openings that don't exist yet, and uncloaked banshhes". Can you imagine that build coming out back in November and Zerg's responding "yeah , but if the opponent goes for an FE, it takes like 3 minutes to get your third going"? Back then? Had the Spanishiwa build come out in November, it would've solved nearly every common complaint about the game for months, until P and T felt more comfortable macroing.
And what's the big complaint in SC2 now? Deathballs. Specifically, the Protoss deathball, especially against Zerg.
As we await the promised Colossus nerf which will fix that problem (and make PvT and PvZ have more of the really awesome games that happen when P doesn't go Colo tech!), I want everyone to just take a step back, and think about how weird it would've seemed just a few months ago that the big complaint was revolve around 200/200 armies with full upgrades and mostly tier 3 units. Recognize that SC2 has come a long way in a little under a year, even as we agree that it has a long way to go.
I wonder what the complaint will be next during GSL 10 or NASL 3?
This post and Jibbas make the most sense - i can't think of anyhthing else to add really.
Also, the high number of great games that we have watched the past 10 days (TSL in particular), with a lot of back and forth action, multiple battles on many fronts and various strategies are a proof for me at least that the OP is wrong.
Is everyone forgetting that the map pool has changed massively in the last six months, allowing for more strategic options? Too many variables (balance patches, map pool, metagame, player skill) are shifting to definitively disprove or confirm the OP. However, the OP has a lot of valid points that are being ignored or approached with ignorance.
Jibba and others more or less argue every single point of the OP. Maybe it's just that alot of people here enjoy SC2 for what it is and want to see its growth without it being compared and drawn towards how BW works. It really doesn't mean people are ignorant, that's just bs.