| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On August 15 2014 02:54 TurboMaN wrote: If a protoss plays save on 3 bases with blink he always has an advantage If this were true, every Protoss would always play defensive Blink up to 3 bases. + Show Spoiler + It's obviously not true. Pro level Protoss players NEED to be able to mix things up. If they become too predictable then it's easy to counter their play style. | ||
|
Mojito99
Germany154 Posts
On August 15 2014 03:21 DinoMight wrote: If this were true, every Protoss would always play defensive Blink up to 3 bases. + Show Spoiler + It's obviously not true. Pro level Protoss players NEED to be able to mix things up. If they become too predictable then it's easy to counter their play style. Which is the most persistent issue that was created by the new mines, which counter everything but colossus tech and stalker at higher leagues but those generally tend to go hand in hand. | ||
|
r691175002
249 Posts
On August 15 2014 03:26 Mojito99 wrote:Which is the most persistent issue that was created by the new mines, which counter everything but colossus tech and stalker at higher leagues but those generally tend to go hand in hand. I think the oracle stunted build orders to a far greater degree than window mines. Blizzard needs to stop introducing units that force matchups to be played in a specific way. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2014 04:20 r691175002 wrote: I think the oracle stunted build orders to a far greater degree than window mines. Blizzard needs to stop introducing units that force matchups to be played in a specific way. You mean like Lurkers, Siege Tanks, and Reavers in BW? The problem is not forcing matchups to play predictably, its about whether that predictable play is interesting/dynamic/flashy or not. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 15 2014 01:42 DinoMight wrote: I think you're being nitpicky. He's saying that, when left up to the general population of StarCraft 2 viewers to vote on the best games (the ones they enjoyed the most), the community picked more games with Terran in them. Meaning more people prefer to watch games with Terran. Hence Terran produces "better" (more pleasing) games for the viewers. I think the reason people prefer games with Terrans in them is because since HotS came out Terran has been slumping a bit and there haven't been too many good games involving Terran. So the ones that are good usually get the most recognition. Proleague has had a ton of awesome PvPs.... but ... supply/demand means that the Terran games get more coverage in the "best games" section. Sorry, but that's really nonsensical. If there are less high level terran games then the natural result is /not/ that terran games will have more coverage in any best of list. All things being equal the opposite will be true. And you're playing dumb, you know as well as others do that generally terran games are more preferred than protoss ones independent of rarity, but you're simply claiming that's not the case to misdirect the conversation here. | ||
|
Mojito99
Germany154 Posts
since HotS came out Terran has been slumping a bit and there haven't been too many good games involving Terran. [/QUOTE] I highly doubt both statements hold up over all of Hots. Keep in mind that hots was out a long time before mines and hellbats were initially adjusted. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On August 15 2014 06:00 Grumbels wrote: Sorry, but that's really nonsensical. If there are less high level terran games then the natural result is /not/ that terran games will have more coverage in any best of list. All things being equal the opposite will be true. And you're playing dumb, you know as well as others do that generally terran games are more preferred than protoss ones independent of rarity, but you're simply claiming that's not the case to misdirect the conversation here. You must be some sort of psychic, reading my mind and all. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On August 14 2014 23:50 DinoMight wrote: Disagree. You just sound a bit salty from losing to Protoss, that's all. I don't play SC2. My only interest in it is that of a spectator. So there goes that theory. I'm still the only person here who has actually done any amount of research on the topic at hand. You're welcome to disagree, but please understand that doing so without explaining why my analysis of TvP is factually incorrect makes you look like a fool. ZvP is a great matchup and PvP is better than it's been for a long time. PvP is watchable when it's played by some combination of Zest, Rain, Parting, Classic, herO, and sOs. Replace even one of them with another player, and it doesn't look like a MU that should give players money for winning it. Why don't you suggest ways to make Protoss more mechanically challenging that you think would be fair, then? If my analysis is correct, Protoss takes less than half of the mechanical skill of Terran. Possibly a third. So... are you saying you want me to tell you how to make Protoss take the same amount of skill? You want me to redesign the entire race right here right now? Because that's what's needed. (By the way, Zerg is far from immune to criticism. But I'm happy to concentrate on P to keep the discussion focused.) Units like Colossus, Immortal, Void Ray, Dark Templar, and Archon need to be completely redesigned. Off the top of my head examples: -give the Colossus friendly fire and change its attack to travel from the Colossus to its target (as opposed to its current perpendicular beam). This means if you stick a Colossus in your deathball, it will roast half of your Zealots, Stalkers, and Archons on the way to hitting the enemy. GG deathball. GG players who don't constantly reposition their Colossi during combat. Tails and Terminator never make it into Code A again for as long as they live. The Colossus will probably become too vulnerable as they move around the sides of the battlefield, so it'll need a shield or HP boost to compensate. It will probably need a slight damage boost as well considering all the time it'll spend not firing. -change Dark Templar from 40 HP/80 Shields to 40 HP/20 Shields and give it Blink. Using Blink makes the DT visible for 5 seconds. -remove the Immortal's hardened shield and give it a new, activated ability called "Overcharge." Using the ability gives the Immortal 50% shield damage resistance at the cost of 50% damage output. Before the Immortal's shields reach 0, the Psionic Wall can be "detonated" (by casting again) to boost that Immortal's damage output by a % based on how much damage its shields have taken since the ability was cast. Casting it at 1% remaining shields will give a MUCH higher boost than casting it at 30% shields. Positioning and timing becomes critical. These are probably imbalanced as all get out, and they might not even lead to fun gameplay, but there's no way to know without trying. That's what Test Maps and Betas are for. As for the balance, that's easy to fix once the design is good. On August 15 2014 00:10 ejozl wrote: It's a game that emphasize very different races, how are you gonna not have them require different skill sets? By designing the units to have a high skill floor and an even higher skill ceiling. It's not rocket science. I don't want the races to be identical, I want them to take a roughly identical amount of mechanical skill to play. Early HOTS TvZ proves that it's not impossible to be within the right ballpark. Terran and Zerg were still very different, but both took a lot of mechanical finesse to play that tug of war. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On August 15 2014 04:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: You mean like Lurkers, Siege Tanks, and Reavers in BW? The problem is not forcing matchups to play predictably, its about whether that predictable play is interesting/dynamic/flashy or not. Not the same at all, in my opinion. What he's talking about is the potential for a single unit in an individual quantity to completely screws with certain tech paths. Lurkers didn't do that. Protoss often went corsair, citadel, and templar archives prior to getting a robo for observers, so in reality, lurkers only forced eventual detection. Siege tanks didn't do that. They weren't gotten until after quite a while in TvZ and could be used in varying quantities, with very limited use, or even to the point of mass use with mech. In TvP you had a choice of opening tank or not and the protoss could respond with a vast amount of counters. Storm is the reason bio wasn't viable in TvP, with reavers being a temporary good substitute (and often necessity). Reavers were completely optional in PvZ (although desirable very late game) and completely optional in PvT and hardly forced certain openers whatsoever. In fact, 4gate and DT openings were still common. Those were poor examples of forcing certain openings, at least compared to the potential of widow mines (force robo tech first for observer, and then denies a quick chargelot/templar opening) and potential of an oracle (forces terrans to open up with the immediate need to counter a fast oracle. DT were most similar in BW but hit at a definite later stage). | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On August 15 2014 09:42 pure.Wasted wrote: If my analysis is correct, Protoss takes less than half of the mechanical skill of Terran. Possibly a third. So... are you saying you want me to tell you how to make Protoss take the same amount of skill? You want me to redesign the entire race right here right now? Because that's what's needed. (By the way, Zerg is far from immune to criticism. But I'm happy to concentrate on P to keep the discussion focused.) Your analysis is bullshit, especially if you are only a spectator. Such claims are inappropriate, even for a thread as silly as this. Typed a good two paragraphs explaining the nuances of what Protoss needs to go through compared to Terran micro and macro wise, but it came off as a silly one-sided rant. Not quite as silly as your assertion, but overall unneeded nonetheless. EDIT: Double post, didn't realize I was in the same thread. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On August 15 2014 10:23 FabledIntegral wrote: Your analysis is bullshit, especially if you are only a spectator. Such claims are inappropriate, even for a thread as silly as this. Typed a good two paragraphs explaining the nuances of what Protoss needs to go through compared to Terran micro and macro wise, but it came off as a silly one-sided rant. Not quite as silly as your assertion, but overall unneeded nonetheless. EDIT: Double post, didn't realize I was in the same thread. Don't give me the theory of what a Protoss needs to do in battle. Link us to a high level game, sit down and actually count the actions that the players are performing. Proving your argument once and for all is that easy. | ||
|
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
On August 15 2014 10:23 FabledIntegral wrote: Your analysis is bullshit, especially if you are only a spectator. Such claims are inappropriate, even for a thread as silly as this. Typed a good two paragraphs explaining the nuances of what Protoss needs to go through compared to Terran micro and macro wise, but it came off as a silly one-sided rant. Not quite as silly as your assertion, but overall unneeded nonetheless. EDIT: Double post, didn't realize I was in the same thread. Yeah, Protoss definitely takes more than 'half or a third' of Terran's mechnical demands. Protoss requires a lot of skill especially at higher levels that I think unless you've played the race you wouldn't realize, things like making sure you're positioning stalkers correctly / keeping collosi back / splitting HT's / ect are a lot more important for Protoss than they are for Terran. The problem is that Terran has a much higher 'minimal' micro skill requirement (i.e. a-move + use one ability Protoss rapes a-move + use one ability Terran), and Protoss has greater diminishing returns for micro (i.e. a Terran player splitting units in smaller and smaller groups will continue to see better results, whereas a lot of Protoss micro is either did it correctly or did not do it correctly, such as force fields / spacing out templar / keeping Gateway units in front of Collosi / blinking back hurt stalkers ect. And while there is definitely room for improvement in all of these Protoss things, once you execute them at a certain level executing them better doesn't add much value to your army). In addition to recieving greater diminishing returns, because so much of Protoss micro is about subtle positioning / army movement and anticipating your opponent's moves, it doesn't look nearly as exciting or demanding as Terran splitting and focus firing and dropping all across the map, which compounds the problem. That being said, I do feel like Terran is more demanding mechanically. But certainly not on a scale of 200-300%, and the advantage of the greater skill demand is greater potential. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On August 15 2014 10:35 pure.Wasted wrote: Don't give me the theory of what a Protoss needs to do in battle. Link us to a high level game, sit down and actually count the actions that the players are performing. Proving your argument once and for all is that easy. Only a fool would think you could "prove" what you are asserting. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On August 15 2014 10:54 FabledIntegral wrote: Only a fool would think you could "prove" what you are asserting. Only a fool would think that it's possible to look at what a Protoss is doing and understand what that Protoss is doing? Lol. And people call Terrans elitists. If I'm doing one of the players a disservice by not noticing subtle things he's doing, chances are I'm doing both of them a disservice, so on average it should balance itself out. Disagree? Then put your money where your mouth is and get counting. Pause the battles every second if you have to. I certainly did. On August 15 2014 10:52 Pursuit_ wrote:That being said, I do feel like Terran is more demanding mechanically. But certainly not on a scale of 200-300%, and the advantage of the greater skill demand is greater potential. I appreciate your civility! But I would appreciate even more if you didn't go on as though it's impossible to get close to the truth and all we can ever do is guess. There is another option: watching games and identifying the actions performed. I've done it. That's where my numbers come from. I didn't just make them up on the spot. I'm open to the possibility that my numbers are off, or that they're right but the game in question is not representative of how most high level TvPs go... but it's on someone else to prove it. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2014 10:12 FabledIntegral wrote: Not the same at all, in my opinion. What he's talking about is the potential for a single unit in an individual quantity to completely screws with certain tech paths. Lurkers didn't do that. Protoss often went corsair, citadel, and templar archives prior to getting a robo for observers, so in reality, lurkers only forced eventual detection. Siege tanks didn't do that. They weren't gotten until after quite a while in TvZ and could be used in varying quantities, with very limited use, or even to the point of mass use with mech. In TvP you had a choice of opening tank or not and the protoss could respond with a vast amount of counters. Storm is the reason bio wasn't viable in TvP, with reavers being a temporary good substitute (and often necessity). Reavers were completely optional in PvZ (although desirable very late game) and completely optional in PvT and hardly forced certain openers whatsoever. In fact, 4gate and DT openings were still common. Those were poor examples of forcing certain openings, at least compared to the potential of widow mines (force robo tech first for observer, and then denies a quick chargelot/templar opening) and potential of an oracle (forces terrans to open up with the immediate need to counter a fast oracle. DT were most similar in BW but hit at a definite later stage). Being forced to play in a specific way is not relegated to opening build orders. All units forces players to play a specific way, its why we have units in the first place. The problem is not the specificity of how we play but of whether those specifics are things we like. PvZ in BW required Observers because lurkers existed. Sure it doesn't need fast robo observers every game--but pretty much you are required to get observers. Siege Tanks in TvEverything was the go to unit. When facing terran as any of the 3 races in BW you always had to ask yourself "how do I deal with tanks" What you're complaining about is openings, not units. That is a completely different discussion. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On August 15 2014 14:28 Thieving Magpie wrote: Being forced to play in a specific way is not relegated to opening build orders. All units forces players to play a specific way, its why we have units in the first place. The problem is not the specificity of how we play but of whether those specifics are things we like. PvZ in BW required Observers because lurkers existed. Sure it doesn't need fast robo observers every game--but pretty much you are required to get observers. Siege Tanks in TvEverything was the go to unit. When facing terran as any of the 3 races in BW you always had to ask yourself "how do I deal with tanks" What you're complaining about is openings, not units. That is a completely different discussion. I was only responding to your comment, which was commenting in response to someone else specifically mentioning build orders. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
There's a reason all sport commentators are former players. They have no credibility otherwise. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On August 16 2014 00:08 DinoMight wrote: Aaaaand Pure Wasted doesn't even play the game. How am I not surprised. Please ignore everything he says from now on. He really has no idea what he's talking about. As an observer... as someone who is only watching a broadcasted game of StarCraft and making assumptions about what it takes to play the game at this level... how can you honestly think that your opinion of which race is more mechanically demanding matters at all? There's a reason all sport commentators are former players. They have no credibility otherwise. Can you stop with your stupid comments like this? It brings the thread down alot. The interest i have right now is the numbers from pure. Maybe he is wrong, maybe he is right but atleast he has something it seems. And you talk out of your ass. If a sport commentator hasnt even played the sport he is commentating. If the man decides to study the strategies involved, why the players move like they do. Iam sure that man could become an expert in understanding the sport, the strategies behind it and even the mindgames behind it. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2014 14:36 FabledIntegral wrote: I was only responding to your comment, which was commenting in response to someone else specifically mentioning build orders. Which is why I was pointing out his false logic. All units force you to play a specific way. His complaint was about build order options--which can be fixed as much by building costs and build/construction time as it can be fixed by unit redesign. He should either talk about changing how units interact or how build orders function, talking about them as one and the same thing is foolish. For example, if you remove the 2nd gas in the main and natural I can promise you that one base oracles and defending with 3-4 sentries stops being a problem. Other problems with come up, of course, but its a fast way to solve the current problems. He was making a false causation argument, which is why I responded the way I did. However, I did not realize it was a different person you retorted and hence I responded too quickly to your statements, sorry about that. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 16 2014 00:26 Foxxan wrote: Can you stop with your stupid comments like this? It brings the thread down alot. The interest i have right now is the numbers from pure. Maybe he is wrong, maybe he is right but atleast he has something it seems. And you talk out of your ass. If a sport commentator hasnt even played the sport he is commentating. If the man decides to study the strategies involved, why the players move like they do. Iam sure that man could become an expert in understanding the sport, the strategies behind it and even the mindgames behind it. Also, you don't have to play a game to be able to know what you enjoy seeing in the game. There's a reason American Football has been changing its rules every few years to protect quarterbacks just because the viewership loves watching quarterbacks. The same can be done for non-American-Football sports/esports. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Bisu
OSC
OSC
MaxPax vs Gerald
Solar vs Krystianer
PAPI vs Lemon
Ryung vs Moja
Nice vs NightPhoenix
Cham vs TBD
MaNa vs TriGGeR
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
The PondCast
OSC
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
