|
On March 28 2013 04:44 plogamer wrote:
Since everyone seems to be talking about balance at "woodleague". Well, banelings are OP at that level. You need to constantly babysit your marines or they all die in an instant. Since Joe Woodleague can't handle that, we need to buff marines.
See how stupid this is? :\
Yh this is why gold leaguers shouldn't qq about balance. Come on, people are talking about FFA's and stuff ROLF~! And all these people suggesting stuff think they're balance experts, well their suggestions would totally make units disappear from the game. Nerfing oracles LOL, yh making them as useless as shit. Nerfing the medivac to the same state as in wol, well there was a reason why drop play wasn't done that much anymore. And a lot more stupid suggestions, well I hope blizzard isn't going to respond to this whiny community.
O and phoenix'is are actually a good designed unit. It scales very good with control and multitasking. Maybe the person that stated that it is an bad design likes his deathball with ---> COLOSSUS <--- and expects to win with 1a'ing instead of micro and multitasking.
^ That unit is an example of bad design.
|
You have the same problem with many units. It's just how an RTS works out.
But yeah, I agree that they should not have buffed mutas/phoenix. Or only buffed pheonix and differently, like to make them slightly better against ground. There really was no need for any mutalisk buff and we get the bill for it now in the form of terrible ZvZ.
While I agree that muta wars gets a little old in zvz what would zerg do in ZVT without the buffed mutas. Life showed that muta/bane is really the only viable option v terran as roach/hydra/viper gets owned by bio/mine with drops due. Muta is an issue as its one of the very few viable options zerg has in almost any matchup right now.
|
On March 28 2013 05:36 PanzerElite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 04:44 plogamer wrote:
Since everyone seems to be talking about balance at "woodleague". Well, banelings are OP at that level. You need to constantly babysit your marines or they all die in an instant. Since Joe Woodleague can't handle that, we need to buff marines.
See how stupid this is? :\ Yh this is why gold leaguers shouldn't qq about balance. Come on, people are talking about FFA's and stuff ROLF~! And all these people suggesting stuff think they're balance experts, well their suggestions would totally make units disappear from the game. Nerfing oracles LOL, yh making them as useless as shit. Nerfing the medivac to the same state as in wol, well there was a reason why drop play wasn't done that much anymore. And a lot more stupid suggestions, well I hope blizzard isn't going to respond to this whiny community. O and phoenix'is are actually a good designed unit. It scales very good with control and multitasking. Maybe the person that stated that it is an bad design likes his deathball with ---> COLOSSUS <--- and expects to win with 1a'ing instead of micro and multitasking. ^ That unit is an example of bad design.
Please, dont joke. Just about everyone knows that colossus is bad design, only one who dont know is blizzard - I doubt there will be anyone who disagrees. But dont tell me that mutas ZvP and ZvZ are OK and that medivac outruning phoenix is good idea...
|
On March 28 2013 05:56 Innovation wrote:Show nested quote +You have the same problem with many units. It's just how an RTS works out.
But yeah, I agree that they should not have buffed mutas/phoenix. Or only buffed pheonix and differently, like to make them slightly better against ground. There really was no need for any mutalisk buff and we get the bill for it now in the form of terrible ZvZ. While I agree that muta wars gets a little old in zvz what would zerg do in ZVT without the buffed mutas. Life showed that muta/bane is really the only viable option v terran as roach/hydra/viper gets owned by bio/mine with drops due. Muta is an issue as its one of the very few viable options zerg has in almost any matchup right now.
Sorry, but you base your opinion on a few games. Life mostly just played ling/bling against opponents that were overreliant on mines. The metagame will shift a lot in the next few months. Just wait what the other topzergs will bring on. I mean, sure Life plays a ling/bling heavy style... but I wouldn't be surprised to see Symbol and RoRo bringing out the heavier guns - Ultralisks and roaches - or Curious showing how to turtle to Broodlord based compositions properly.
For me - I believe that against MMMM ling/bling/Infestor is actually better than mutalisks if you are prepared to be dropped. Without a solid tank count, infestors still have the potential to rape MMM - and they rape minefields for sure.
|
Northern Ireland23816 Posts
So happy with HoTS at present, albeit there are a lot of issues at present. Some I believe are solvable by the playerbase and I love that Blizzard are letting us have a crack at it for a while.
Incidentaly, the return of phoenix-heavy play is great. I actually feel I'm improving mechanically as a player after about a week back playing, probably above the level I was at before. Phoenixes actually task multitasking to use them and give us Protoss players that little bit more to do, which is always nice. For the last months of WoL I was really just learning timing attacks and executing them, was really unfulfilling as an experience, now Protoss appear to have a bit more improvisational capacity, especially in PvZ. Can't believe some people are complaining about them.
I feel voids need a rework of some kind if any particular unit does. I'd advocate them having energy and a cost for using their full beam, if anything but again it's probably not ideal. This way at least PvP vs airtoss would be a bit less silly, for example you could bait the beams with blink stalkers in preparation for a big engagement, or feedback them with templars.
Ground-base comps get stomped in my experience, and I dislike that in the matchup. Once you lose the opening war to a Stargate comp it's incredibly difficult to switch to your own skytoss without dying, so you can be stuck on the ground and destroyed in the inevitable deathball engagement. There are definitely ways around this, don't get me wrong but it reminds me in frustration of the old Inf/BL comp - kill him outright with a timing before he gets it all going. This is a viable strategy, but feels a bit 'meh' to me.
Note, I don't feel voids are 'broken' in the way certain WoL compositions were, but they harm the lategame variety of PvP imo, I'm not sure how Zergs feel about them on the whole but my innate instinct would be that they feel Void/Collosus is a bit too potent with the slightly neutered infestor.
|
On March 28 2013 00:02 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 10:38 Myrddraal wrote:On March 27 2013 06:04 Toadvine wrote:On March 27 2013 05:31 sAxiS wrote:
HOTS is a dream so far, so much closer to the positional style of BW. It's not perfect yet, but they are making positive progress. Yeah bro, nothing screams POSITIONAL like medivacs teleporting around the map with afterburners. Okay bro, fill in the blank in these two sentences for me: Faster Medivacs allow you to punish your opponent more harshly when he is out of ________. He used boosted his Medivacs to get into ________ quicker. In all seriousness Medivac boost should encourage good positional play and discourage bad positional play, with an emphasis on quick decisions since you have less time to react to them. For example, someone who sees an opponents army out of position can punish them quicker with drops, while someone who sieges outside an opponents base (in TvT) must either make efficient use of their good position (rather than just sitting their sieged forever) and make sure any units at home are in a good position to defend against drops. Yeah, medivacs are amazing at punishing your opponent for being "out of position", aka moving out on the map with his army. It's great that Blizzard came up with such a good way of punishing someone for not turtling, it's bound to make games a lot better. And they also allow for such amazing displays of positional play as Bomber vs goswser at MLG.
Right, because leaving your base totally undefended when your opponent has/may have medivacs is an example of genius positioning, the only solution is to leave your whole army in your base in case you get dropped.
You actually have this backwards, it may not seem intuitive, but the vast majority of the time having weaker harassment options is what encourages turtling. Let me explain before you dismiss the idea, because it does seem strange at first.
The weaker harassment options there are, the easier they are to defend, therefore a greedy opener followed by turtling up to a maxed army is a more effective strategy as you need to spend less on units or static defense early on. Case in point: Queen Range Buff, this allowed Zerg players to defend against pretty much all forms of early harassment much more easily, what did they do with this advancement? Generally they played greedier and turtled up to late game with an economic advantage.
Generally the only kind of turtling that stronger harassment encourages is turtling on two bases, since it makes taking a fast third riskier, which I think is a good thing* because as we all know, two base play is on sustainable for so long so the "turtler" will have to make some kind of action or else risk losing the macro game. I honestly think the reason I stopped watching WoL was because they weakened many harassment and aggression options/players figured them out, such that the majority of games were passive for too long and builds/games became too similar to each other.
*I say this is a good thing in the sense that it encourages players to play more aggressive strategies to try to force the other player to be restricted to two bases, of course if two base play became the norm this would not be a good thing, I'm not suggesting that players should never take a fast third base but just that it should carry some risk unlike the end of WoL where it felt like a given.
In all seriousness though, this isn't so much a problem with the medivac, but with maps having so much dead space everywhere. Thus, the "positional play" generated by medivacs is completely one-sided: Even if you have units spread out to defend against drops, the Terran can just retreat into dead space, and sit there forever. The only time medivacs actually encourage positional play is when the opponent has air units as well, which is why Muta ZvT makes for the best Hots matchup. If one party has all the mobility and is basically invulnerable, then what results is not "positional play", but a dumb benny hill chase.
It's not completely one sided, since units that are in Medivacs are not with the main army, if we are talking fairly early game this means that you could have quite a large advantage in a head to head fight with the rest of his army (ie the units in the drop were out of position). Making drops is always a risk, even if its not always a high risk of losing the drop, as the game gets later the risk is smaller, but their effectiveness should also lessen assuming the other player has adequate defenses.
Honestly though, if you people want to believe afterburners, abduct, recall and other fun additions actually make the game "positional", go right ahead. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and all that.
I specifically said that I think abduct punishes bad positioning, and encourages good positioning, can you please explain to me how this is not the case? Since it seems to me that it is an ability that does nothing else but punish units that are out of position.
I honestly don't understand how you think all these things that allow one player to gain a positional advantage or punish an opponents mistake in positioning somehow make the game less positional. When people think of positional play they tend to think only of slow powerful units like siege tanks but the thing is, Starcraft 2 is a fast paced game, so generally to use these slower units effectively you need something fast to either get your opponent out of position initially or to punish them once they are out of position. Besides if you were just after slow, powerful units, HotS has added Mines, Swarm Hosts, MS Core and Tempest.
|
I think something that would make pvp more open i.e you wont have to go void ray to win, is give void rays energy bars, this means they keep the ability but much like oracle it consumes energy as it is used...what this does? opens up templar tech as an alternative for stargate. which means there will be more to pvp than god forsaken void ray vs void ray..
|
On March 28 2013 04:44 plogamer wrote:
Since everyone seems to be talking about balance at "woodleague". Well, banelings are OP at that level. You need to constantly babysit your marines or they all die in an instant. Since Joe Woodleague can't handle that, we need to buff marines.
See how stupid this is? :\
Yep ... if you handle it with your simple minded logic which only includes "buff unit X" it will remain a topic to laugh at.
The whole thing would NOT be a problem if we had a 12 unit selection limit and forced unit spreading, because then those Banelings (or any other unit with "critical number") would not be as OP in a lower league due to a reduced unit density. In higher leagues the greater skill of the players could then "circumvent" this limitation and skill would have a chance to triumph over pure economic production capacity again.
Balancing the game is about more than unit stats and the general mechanics must be included in the whole process!
|
Hi dudes/dudettes.. just wanted to suggest something for discussion.. "spores with 8 range?!" zomg it fixes everything.
I don't know if others have suggested this before (i couldn't find any in a search)
I think it would be a great way to try and solve muta Vs muta in zvz:
If you need to cover your whole base in spores, this would reduce the amount of spores needed.
it would help against terran drops. yay!
and it would help against late game zvp..
I think the main problem with 8 range spores would be early zvp.. where i do not think that z needs a buff vs toss.
should this be implemented? -discuss! :D
|
Northern Ireland23816 Posts
On March 28 2013 19:57 wuweiCridland wrote:
Hi dudes/dudettes.. just wanted to suggest something for discussion.. "spores with 8 range?!" zomg it fixes everything.
I don't know if others have suggested this before (i couldn't find any in a search)
I think it would be a great way to try and solve muta Vs muta in zvz:
If you need to cover your whole base in spores, this would reduce the amount of spores needed.
it would help against terran drops. yay!
and it would help against late game zvp..
I think the main problem with 8 range spores would be early zvp.. where i do not think that z needs a buff vs toss.
should this be implemented? -discuss! :D
Phoenix harass would be totally neutered, and I love Stargate PvZ alas.
|
Buffing static defenses or defensive units (hello queen :D) is never a good idea imo.
I can't speak too much about their previous spore buff because it doens't affect me at all, but it seems that ZvZ is not that much better with it. And still mainly about muta wars.
|
On March 28 2013 19:36 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 04:44 plogamer wrote:
Since everyone seems to be talking about balance at "woodleague". Well, banelings are OP at that level. You need to constantly babysit your marines or they all die in an instant. Since Joe Woodleague can't handle that, we need to buff marines.
See how stupid this is? :\ Yep ... if you handle it with your simple minded logic which only includes "buff unit X" it will remain a topic to laugh at. The whole thing would NOT be a problem if we had a 12 unit selection limit and forced unit spreading, because then those Banelings (or any other unit with "critical number") would not be as OP in a lower league due to a reduced unit density. In higher leagues the greater skill of the players could then "circumvent" this limitation and skill would have a chance to triumph over pure economic production capacity again. Balancing the game is about more than unit stats and the general mechanics must be included in the whole process!
and they would be completly irrelevant, because with 12unit selection units would be spread out by default and banelings themselves would run in much less clumped, so they would get picked off 1by1. So you would have to buff them a fuckton and we would be back to start.
|
On March 28 2013 19:57 wuweiCridland wrote:
Hi dudes/dudettes.. just wanted to suggest something for discussion.. "spores with 8 range?!" zomg it fixes everything.
I don't know if others have suggested this before (i couldn't find any in a search)
I think it would be a great way to try and solve muta Vs muta in zvz:
If you need to cover your whole base in spores, this would reduce the amount of spores needed.
it would help against terran drops. yay!
and it would help against late game zvp..
I think the main problem with 8 range spores would be early zvp.. where i do not think that z needs a buff vs toss.
should this be implemented? -discuss! :D
I disagree with this. It would maybe help Medivac drops, but it will kill PvZ air openers, Banshee openings and probably will support turtling in ZvZ. I think that now Spore Crawlers are fine in ZvZ, people just don't make them that much for some odd reason. If Zerg commits to massive number of Mutalisks(20+), why wouldn't you make at least 3 Spores per base? They are doing very high damage to the Mutas, and are enough to delay them so you can get back with your ground units or your own Mutas and defend.
|
On March 28 2013 14:39 Myrddraal wrote:
Right, because leaving your base totally undefended when your opponent has/may have medivacs is an example of genius positioning, the only solution is to leave your whole army in your base in case you get dropped.
The problem is the short cooldown on the boost ability also removes the other major cost to using medivacs to harass compared to WoL - namely that those units won't be available to defend. In WoL, if Terran filled 6 medivacs with bio you had a good chance of just being able to take your whole army and go kill them. Now, when you start moving across the map, they can unload, do irreparable damage in seconds due to the very high DPS of bio, then load back up and boost home in time to help fight off your attack, thus immediately winning the game.
You cannot simply "leave units back to defend" against later game medivac use. In WoL Protoss could defend drops with an HT and a few cannons, because Terran couldn't load up more than 2-3 medivacs for a drop without just dying to a counterattack. Your few units and cannons are not going to deter a 6-medivac drop, and all those units can be back home in time to defend after they've stimmed down a nexus or a bunch of tech buildings.
The result of this is that the only viable strategies in PvT are 1-base allins designed to kill Terran before medivacs come out, and the deathball strategy where you try to turtle into a 200/200 unbeatable army that doesn't care about losing its production/economy once it moves out.
Also, in WoL Protoss had a late game advantage against Terran. That meant that playing well and simply not taking damage from medivac drops in the midgame was very good for you, as it let you move closer to the lategame where you had the advantage. In HotS, Protoss no longer has a large lategame advantage against Terran. This means that if you fail to defend well against midgame medivac use, you lose the game, but even if you defend perfectly, you're still just even, because the boost makes it basically impossible to ever actually kill these medivacs, all you can do is chase them off. This is a massive advantage for Terran that's not compensated by anything. As long as the drops are 100% risk-free and unkillable as they are now, it's going to be a problem.
|
Russian Federation125 Posts
by the way
top25 gml korea - only 3t
top50 gml korea - only 8t
...
|
On March 29 2013 00:41 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 14:39 Myrddraal wrote:
Right, because leaving your base totally undefended when your opponent has/may have medivacs is an example of genius positioning, the only solution is to leave your whole army in your base in case you get dropped. The problem is the short cooldown on the boost ability also removes the other major cost to using medivacs to harass compared to WoL - namely that those units won't be available to defend. In WoL, if Terran filled 6 medivacs with bio you had a good chance of just being able to take your whole army and go kill them. Now, when you start moving across the map, they can unload, do irreparable damage in seconds due to the very high DPS of bio, then load back up and boost home in time to help fight off your attack, thus immediately winning the game. You cannot simply "leave units back to defend" against later game medivac use. In WoL Protoss could defend drops with an HT and a few cannons, because Terran couldn't load up more than 2-3 medivacs for a drop without just dying to a counterattack. Your few units and cannons are not going to deter a 6-medivac drop, and all those units can be back home in time to defend after they've stimmed down a nexus or a bunch of tech buildings. The result of this is that the only viable strategies in PvT are 1-base allins designed to kill Terran before medivacs come out, and the deathball strategy where you try to turtle into a 200/200 unbeatable army that doesn't care about losing its production/economy once it moves out. Also, in WoL Protoss had a late game advantage against Terran. That meant that playing well and simply not taking damage from medivac drops in the midgame was very good for you, as it let you move closer to the lategame where you had the advantage. In HotS, Protoss no longer has a large lategame advantage against Terran. This means that if you fail to defend well against midgame medivac use, you lose the game, but even if you defend perfectly, you're still just even, because the boost makes it basically impossible to ever actually kill these medivacs, all you can do is chase them off. This is a massive advantage for Terran that's not compensated by anything. As long as the drops are 100% risk-free and unkillable as they are now, it's going to be a problem. . This is the effect of speed medivacs, I mean making drops that fast seems like it would force you to turtle against it. I don't see this as positional play at all. I'm not yet playing hots I'm just trying to understand it.
|
Just a small thought on medivacs and how an RTS game should generally play out... prepare for imba paint skillzzzz 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tTCedh2.jpg)
Keep in mind that most aggressive options look even much more off than the medivac - but the other way round (like nydus or lategame banshees). This is not so much a balance problem, because it just means that you simply choose to use them less.
Also I think the Medivac part is not too far off from the second graph where we ideally want it to be to create dynamic gameplay. I think it just turns out that they often just get away too easily and can punish small positional mistakes to harshly, while the attacker often really has to fuck up badly to lose inefficiently.
|
On March 28 2013 19:36 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 04:44 plogamer wrote:
Since everyone seems to be talking about balance at "woodleague". Well, banelings are OP at that level. You need to constantly babysit your marines or they all die in an instant. Since Joe Woodleague can't handle that, we need to buff marines.
See how stupid this is? :\ Yep ... if you handle it with your simple minded logic which only includes "buff unit X" it will remain a topic to laugh at. The whole thing would NOT be a problem if we had a 12 unit selection limit and forced unit spreading, because then those Banelings (or any other unit with "critical number") would not be as OP in a lower league due to a reduced unit density. In higher leagues the greater skill of the players could then "circumvent" this limitation and skill would have a chance to triumph over pure economic production capacity again. Balancing the game is about more than unit stats and the general mechanics must be included in the whole process!
units micro definitely presents a bigger role in sc2 if anything. Skill definitely plays a huge part there
12 units selection limit is stupid
|
Northern Ireland23816 Posts
On March 29 2013 04:25 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 19:36 Rabiator wrote:On March 28 2013 04:44 plogamer wrote:
Since everyone seems to be talking about balance at "woodleague". Well, banelings are OP at that level. You need to constantly babysit your marines or they all die in an instant. Since Joe Woodleague can't handle that, we need to buff marines.
See how stupid this is? :\ Yep ... if you handle it with your simple minded logic which only includes "buff unit X" it will remain a topic to laugh at. The whole thing would NOT be a problem if we had a 12 unit selection limit and forced unit spreading, because then those Banelings (or any other unit with "critical number") would not be as OP in a lower league due to a reduced unit density. In higher leagues the greater skill of the players could then "circumvent" this limitation and skill would have a chance to triumph over pure economic production capacity again. Balancing the game is about more than unit stats and the general mechanics must be included in the whole process! units micro definitely presents a bigger role in sc2 if anything. Skill definitely plays a huge part there 12 units selection limit is stupid
The primary reason I'm against some kind of unit selection limit, is because the numbers differ greatly between the races. Zerg and Terran tend to produce a lot more units than Protoss do, especially the former so it would in effect 'punish' Zergs.
|
Although I am for unit selection limit, it is too late anyways. We are already too "spoiled" with no limit, and there is no way we can go back now. If SC2 had started with, say, 24 units max in 2010, then things would have worked out around such mechanics. However, even as an advocate, I don't think it's realistic to implement unit selection limit as of 2013.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
