|
I'm not opposed to maps that aren't huge, but Steppes of War style bullshit is moronic and has no place in the game.
However, aside from that...
I generally think Blizzard has done a much, much better job of moving this game towards balance, on both the casual and pro level, than most people give them credit for. Since the game has been released, every single patch has been greeted with mass complaints--that Blizzard was breaking the game, that they were rendering entire tech paths obsolete, that they were dumbing it down, that they hated Zerg or loved P or T...
and yet the state of the game right now is VASTLY better than it was at launch. Play is more balanced and more diverse. There have been a few missteps, but a lot of the changes have been inspired--the Infestor change, for example, was one NOBODY in the community saw coming, and it completely changed Zerg for the better in a way that didn't break the game. The ONLY way they come up with a change that clever, is if they are in fact paying very, very close attention to the game, and thinking very hard about how they can improve it. Thus far, I think they're doing a bang-up job. So much so, in fact, that I hope they stay pretty hands off until HotS ccomes out--I don't think WoL is in any glaring need of balance changes anymore.
|
Terran unit control is not harder than protoss unit control, that's ridiculous. They are pretty much equal. Stim is as hard as guardian shield. Splitting bio is as hard as casting forcefields if not easier. I almost never see a terran lift units that are trapped by forcefields in the first place, and if they did the medivac would probably get feedbacked anyway. Most people just let them sit there. Avoiding storms and kiting against chargelots is pretty much the same thing, you are moving backwards then firing. This is no harder than blink micro. No one uses ravens, and using EMP is not harder than using feedback.
marine splitting is in no way easier or anywhere near the same level of difficulty as casting forcefield. I play random.
|
On June 17 2011 06:55 crms wrote:
i like the balance more or less besides 1 thing...
rushes having no real economic impact.
A terran can 2 rax (proxy or not) pull SCV's and have it fail vs Z and still end up being basically even. This is a complete joke. There needs to be a choice, go for cheese win, play greedy or play standard. There shouldn't be this 'im going for cheese oh well it failed, time to play standard." I hate that, I want actually risks to being cheesy just like there are risks to playing greedy. The way the game is setup it's stupid to not 2 rax cheese, bunker rush etc., 20% free win 70% end up even, 10% end up slightly behind.*
*obviously numbers pulled out of my ass but I hope you get my point.
What the hell are you talking about?
In order to execute an effective 2 rax, you cut scvs to get your barracks out quicker. Which means you take a hit to economy. It isn't really a cheese at all. If you don't do some kind of aggression as terran vs zerg, you will have a hard time competing with him later in the game. Your post is garbage balance whine imo.
|
marine splitting is in no way easier or anywhere near the same level of difficulty as casting forcefield. I play random.
Marine splitting is irrelevant to PvT, and indeed against pretty much anything but banelings--nobody effectively splits much vs. Colossus, for example. It is hard/awesome, but its not the be-all, end-all of playing T, and chances are if you're not pro you're not that good at it anyway. Lots of the Terrans talking up how awesome and hard T micro is are still a-moving big bioballs.
Top-level Toss micro is still hard as fuck. There's a big difference between massing sentries and spamming forcefields to split an army once--which anyone can do--and timing it exactly so you have exactly enough energy to perfectly place the exact number of FFs you'll need to win, ala MC. Anyone can blink up and down high ground, but MC-style blink stalker control is far, far beyond the skill level of even most master level Toss. Toss micro isn't super flashy, but watching a really good Toss manage a diverse composition of units that are all vastly different speeds, making sure they're arranged just so, spreading to avoid FG and EMP, FFing and binking perfectly, is still super impressive.
|
god damn that camera man must ether be from Cloverfield or has one leg shorter then the other.
The Broodlord Infestor combo doesn't seem as op as they were saying. I mean ghosts counter both of them but it seems Terran don't want to stop making Marian Tank....
|
On June 17 2011 08:41 InToTheWannaB wrote:
WoW! Does anyone find it amazing that only 1% of players beat the single player on brutal? Being on TL so much and playing with BW vets in such a insular hardcore community. You forget that 99% of people are noobs that just want to fly big motherships around the map. Its really pretty neat that Blizzard focus as much as they do on us because we clearly are not the majority lol.
I bet a large majority of people on Team Liquid and a majority of progamers have never beaten the single player on brutal. I know I'd rather not waste the time.
|
awesome interviews and very informative, but i wish JP brought up close spawn positions during the map segment with david kim. theyve been dispelled from essentially all online play and its aggravating to feel like whenever its close spawn on a map the game doesnt matter and that i should just all in.
|
They've said before that close spawns are being removed next season.
|
awesome yaotzin. i didnt know that =P
|
David Kim said 2 matchups had a measurable deviation from 50% winrate ... but at the same time not too large of a deviation (Using their advanced skill-factor analysis). Yet he refrains from saying which two matchups these are?
Any guesses, community?
|
On June 19 2011 06:23 Shucks! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 06:55 crms wrote:
i like the balance more or less besides 1 thing...
rushes having no real economic impact.
A terran can 2 rax (proxy or not) pull SCV's and have it fail vs Z and still end up being basically even. This is a complete joke. There needs to be a choice, go for cheese win, play greedy or play standard. There shouldn't be this 'im going for cheese oh well it failed, time to play standard." I hate that, I want actually risks to being cheesy just like there are risks to playing greedy. The way the game is setup it's stupid to not 2 rax cheese, bunker rush etc., 20% free win 70% end up even, 10% end up slightly behind.*
*obviously numbers pulled out of my ass but I hope you get my point. What the hell are you talking about? In order to execute an effective 2 rax, you cut scvs to get your barracks out quicker. Which means you take a hit to economy. It isn't really a cheese at all. If you don't do some kind of aggression as terran vs zerg, you will have a hard time competing with him later in the game. Your post is garbage balance whine imo.
Balance talk isn't always unwarranted.
You don't really cut that many scvs when you 2 rax. Maybe a couple at most. Depending on how aggressive the bunker rush is intended to bring, you might bring 1-3 scvs, and zerg will have to bring anywhere from 5-10 or so drones to help hold it off, losing mining time. And of course, some of these will die of course. (Mules for T are huge that early in the game too, esp. when zerg isn't mining that much while holding off the rush, for what its worth).
You can see how well it does in the pro scene as well, and decide if it's balanced from that if you want. I may be a little biased towards zerg admittedly, but almost every 2 rax bunker rush I've watched at the pro level I have considered the trade to be either relatively even or in the advantage for terran. There's a fair amount of games where the zerg loses outright, but worse case scenario for terran, you cut say 2 scvs, lost 3, but in the meantime you've still been mining with the others (plus the MULE) and producing marines, which are pretty well rounded units and useful in most situations against zerg.
Don't mean my post to be "whiney" but I do think the 2 rax bunker rush is too strong in terms of risk vs reward. Of course, I do feel that way about a LOT of rushes in sc2, but this one seems to be the most prevalent in that regard
|
On June 19 2011 06:06 awesomoecalypse wrote:
I'm not opposed to maps that aren't huge, but Steppes of War style bullshit is moronic and has no place in the game.
However, aside from that...
I generally think Blizzard has done a much, much better job of moving this game towards balance, on both the casual and pro level, than most people give them credit for. Since the game has been released, every single patch has been greeted with mass complaints--that Blizzard was breaking the game, that they were rendering entire tech paths obsolete, that they were dumbing it down, that they hated Zerg or loved P or T...
and yet the state of the game right now is VASTLY better than it was at launch. Play is more balanced and more diverse. There have been a few missteps, but a lot of the changes have been inspired--the Infestor change, for example, was one NOBODY in the community saw coming, and it completely changed Zerg for the better in a way that didn't break the game. The ONLY way they come up with a change that clever, is if they are in fact paying very, very close attention to the game, and thinking very hard about how they can improve it. Thus far, I think they're doing a bang-up job. So much so, in fact, that I hope they stay pretty hands off until HotS ccomes out--I don't think WoL is in any glaring need of balance changes anymore.
Yeah I don't know if I like that they said they will be having "rush maps". You can rush on just about any map with reasonable success if you do it will and mind-game your opponent with it (ie "He wouldn't rush on a big map like Shattered Temple - I'll be fine" or something like that). I don't think that rushes are becoming so weak that we need maps specifically made for them (probably the opposite if anything!)
|
Since when is Brood Lord/Infestor a problem? Not only are they extremely expensive and incredibly slow, they also are unavailable until deep in the game. It's the other player's responsibility to stop the game from reaching that point. If you have mass BL/Infestor, that also means you're pretty much on at least 4 bases, probably 5. That's the problem, not the units themselves.
|
Since when is Brood Lord/Infestor a problem? Not only are they extremely expensive and incredibly slow, they also are unavailable until deep in the game. It's the other player's responsibility to stop the game from reaching that point. If you have mass BL/Infestor, that also means you're pretty much on at least 4 bases, probably 5. That's the problem, not the units themselves.
I agree. As a Protoss player, if Colossus/VR deathballs aren't something that need to be patched out, then BL/Infestor shouldn't either. The fact is, if you are able to mass up a ton of high tech, super expensive units, that should be really hard to beat. Otherwise whats the point? The answer to compositions like that is to kill your opponent before they can get to it--Zerg learned to do it against Toss, and other races should do the same against Zerg.
|
On June 19 2011 10:10 Danglars wrote:
David Kim said 2 matchups had a measurable deviation from 50% winrate ... but at the same time not too large of a deviation (Using their advanced skill-factor analysis). Yet he refrains from saying which two matchups these are?
Any guesses, community?
Well, a thread on TL a few weeks ago showed that, at (major) tournament level, protoss was behind against both terran and zerg, but this could be completely different on ladder.
|
i love these interviews with dayvie and dustin. gives an awesome, new perspective. at least we know there are a few guys working around the clock to get this game right.
|
On June 19 2011 06:23 Shucks! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 06:55 crms wrote:
i like the balance more or less besides 1 thing...
rushes having no real economic impact.
A terran can 2 rax (proxy or not) pull SCV's and have it fail vs Z and still end up being basically even. This is a complete joke. There needs to be a choice, go for cheese win, play greedy or play standard. There shouldn't be this 'im going for cheese oh well it failed, time to play standard." I hate that, I want actually risks to being cheesy just like there are risks to playing greedy. The way the game is setup it's stupid to not 2 rax cheese, bunker rush etc., 20% free win 70% end up even, 10% end up slightly behind.*
*obviously numbers pulled out of my ass but I hope you get my point. What the hell are you talking about? In order to execute an effective 2 rax, you cut scvs to get your barracks out quicker. Which means you take a hit to economy. It isn't really a cheese at all. If you don't do some kind of aggression as terran vs zerg, you will have a hard time competing with him later in the game. Your post is garbage balance whine imo.
You can just look at the recent Idra vs MC match in MLG to see this is wrong. That series is a pretty clear example of the risk/reward involved in a terran 2-rax.
Game 1: The Reward
MC's 2-raxes doesn't get scouted -> Idra immediately loses.
Game 2: The Risk
MC's 2-rax is scouted and Idra defends correctly -> MC floats his barracks safely back to his base and keeps up with Idra in economy -> MC wins later with a 2-base push.
Edit: sorry, thinking of MMA, not MC. The games that knocked him into the losers bracket.
|
On June 19 2011 13:23 Nakas wrote:
You can just look at the recent Idra vs MC match in MLG to see this is wrong. That series is a pretty clear example of the risk/reward involved in a terran 2-rax.
Game 1: The Reward
MC's 2-raxes doesn't get scouted -> Idra immediately loses.
Game 2: The Risk
MC's 2-rax is scouted and Idra defends correctly -> MC floats his barracks safely back to his base and keeps up with Idra in economy -> MC wins later with a 2-base push.
Sure you're not talking about another Korean Pro?
And that's IdrA's fault for not scouting it correctly; And I also have to question his mindset since he seems to always become very upset when he feels that it was a cheap victory.
|
On June 19 2011 13:23 Nakas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:23 Shucks! wrote:On June 17 2011 06:55 crms wrote:
i like the balance more or less besides 1 thing...
rushes having no real economic impact.
A terran can 2 rax (proxy or not) pull SCV's and have it fail vs Z and still end up being basically even. This is a complete joke. There needs to be a choice, go for cheese win, play greedy or play standard. There shouldn't be this 'im going for cheese oh well it failed, time to play standard." I hate that, I want actually risks to being cheesy just like there are risks to playing greedy. The way the game is setup it's stupid to not 2 rax cheese, bunker rush etc., 20% free win 70% end up even, 10% end up slightly behind.*
*obviously numbers pulled out of my ass but I hope you get my point. What the hell are you talking about? In order to execute an effective 2 rax, you cut scvs to get your barracks out quicker. Which means you take a hit to economy. It isn't really a cheese at all. If you don't do some kind of aggression as terran vs zerg, you will have a hard time competing with him later in the game. Your post is garbage balance whine imo. You can just look at the recent Idra vs MC match in MLG to see this is wrong. That series is a pretty clear example of the risk/reward involved in a terran 2-rax. Game 1: The Reward MC's 2-raxes doesn't get scouted -> Idra immediately loses. Game 2: The Risk MC's 2-rax is scouted and Idra defends correctly -> MC floats his barracks safely back to his base and keeps up with Idra in economy -> MC wins later with a 2-base push.
somehow i doubt that MC ever did a 2rax....
besides that there is one more option what can happen with 2rax
1) Terran does a lot of damage because the zerg player did a micro mistake. Worst Case he immiditaly wins the game.
2) Terran does some damage and knows when to back off, zerg defends properly. Both players are even
3) Terran overcommitts and loses too much to almost no losses for zerg. Most of the time not an immidiatly win for zerg but he can jump far ahead.
not to forget that every 2rax can easily be negated by opening pool first and not hatch first. just like nestea did against scfou in gsl semi finals because he didn't wanted to play the 2rax game.
|
Sorry, I'm thinking of the MMA games that knocked Idra into the losers bracket IIRC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
