|
On April 23 2013 19:55 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 22:02 ZenithM wrote:On April 22 2013 21:39 LurkersGonnaLurk wrote:On April 22 2013 20:23 ZenithM wrote:
Lolol people are talking about how BW technical limitations were the better core design.
It's not "design" if it's not intended, guys. They didn't limit control groups to 12 and not put MBS and automine because they somehow foresaw that it would be a better design (and it's not).
The bad path finding (which is why units don't clump in BW) wasn't intended by design either. In fact, Blizzard was quite proud to present in early alpha stages of SC2 how they improved the path finding. No game designer in his right mind would say: "I'll introduce more constraining mechanics and technical limitations and bad path finding than in any of our modern RTS concurrents. Please buy my game, it's awesome."
Please no. Stop talking about "design", you're not game designers. Let's keep it to balance. Blizzard won't change the core mechanics anyway. Strafe jumping in Quake wasn't an originally intended mechanic either, but look at the gameplay that emerged as a result. You blindly dismissing mechanics as a means of making interesting gameplay is ignorant. Just because the technology has improved (pathing, MBS, infinite control groups) does not mean that the gameplay improves as a result. In games as with many things in life newer does not mean better. + Show Spoiler +Design: (noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints; "Strafe jumping" wasn't intended, so it wasn't "design". That's all I'm saying here. Stop talking about "design", dammit, that's not even your point most of the time. Most of the great things that came with BW weren't "by design". And my point about Blizzard not wanting to put BW's mechanics back in SC2 is that it's not marketingly viable for them to do so. When most of the RTS out there feature hundreds of "different" units and 20 factions and hugely automatized mechanics (like auto-unit production), you can't really say "yeah, we have bad path-finding, welcome to 2010!". And we'll have to agree to disagree about MBS and auto-mine being bad for the game. I think it was great. People arguing about "design" when they don't even know what design means seem also ignorant to me. Patrick Wyatt on The Making of WarcraftShow nested quote +
When I first implemented the feature it was possible to select and control large numbers of units at a time; there was no upper limit on the number of units that could be selected.
Later in the development process, and after many design arguments between team-members, we decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II. Command and Conquer, the spiritual successor to Dune 2, didn’t have any upper bound on the number of units that could be selected. It’s worth another article to talk about the design ramifications, for sure.
That's a good post, I didn't know that. My point still stands though, I'm sure there are plenty of other things that people found awesome in BW and that were not "designed" things. That's perfectly fine, and even cool, don't get me wrong, but I would just like to see people like Rabiator stop wielding around the word "design" like they know anything about it.
|
On April 24 2013 15:43 PeggyHill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 13:51 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 01:49 Decendos wrote:On April 23 2013 22:04 Rabiator wrote:On April 22 2013 16:36 Big J wrote:On April 22 2013 13:04 Rabiator wrote:On April 22 2013 00:14 Big J wrote:Why are you guys even discussing with him based upon an assumption that he has not proven? Where is any proof for anything being underpowered/overpowered at lower leagues? Specifically about mutalisk regeneration. Do low League players harass so much with mutalisks that they take a lot of damage that can be regenerated? Do low league players pull back with the mutas in time? Do they even build mutalisks? So here is some actual data that points towards a very balanced game at the lower leagues. (not to mention that blizzard has said so multiple times) http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/allCheck the Leagues, check the average point section. All races have similar amounts of points per player. So there is definitely no matchup that is very favored due to skill needed to play a race. Oh come on ... just use some COMMON SENSE instead of that stupid fallback of "prove it 1000% first". Just look at the Blizzard boards and you will probably see a lot of WHINING about units ... which is based upon the perception of them being imba. That doesnt really mean they are, but they are probably still hard to play against. So there are things like the MULE, Forcefield and lots more in the game which really are hard to handle for lower levels. If I use my common sense it tells me that low league players don't have the multitasking to harass properly with mutalisks. That they often won't do enough damage, lose a lot of mutalisks in the process and just die to a straight up attack. And the regeneration will hardly ever matter. When they win with mutalisks, it's going to be because their opponent wasn't in position to deal with them and a whole mineralline is gone before their army got back. Lower league players DONT NEED to "multi"task and will still be able to harrass properly with Mutalisks. The DEFENDER against that needs to switch to "base defense" QUICKLY and that is the hard part for a lower level player ... deciding how to defend the base against threat X properly ... In any case the Mutalisks will be in a MUCH better shape FOR THE NEXT ENGAGEMENT due to the regeneration and that is what makes them too strong for lower leagues ... your own playing mistakes / slow reactions are somewhat negated by that buff to the unit ... That is how common sense works ... also lower league players will lose horribly to widow mines...even more than high league players. it balances out dude. every race has "OP" stuff. Gosh ... that is a STUPID design for a game where "horribly OP stuff" is in the game and will give you bad and unsatisfactory games. Maybe you understand it this way: Casuals do not care about BALANCE ... they do care about FUN. A game where you lose to Reapers after five minutes just because you were too slow or didnt put your two Marines at the exactly right spot is not very satisfying to play. The same is true for losing to warp ins inside your base, a Baneling bust or even regular engagement on your pack of Marines ... its a NOT FUN WAY TO LOSE because you never ever had a chance. In BW the game developed rather slowly and especially the unit selection and movement mechanics made sure that you had way more time to react before half your army was dead. Again ... fuck balance (especially of the "everyone has his OP stuff" type) and yay for fun and excitement even when you lose. Satisfaction - even when losing - comes from the "illusion of having had a chance" and the OP stuff in SC2 do not give that illusion. On April 24 2013 02:20 convention wrote:
Rabiator said MULE was hard in the lower leagues? Show me where ... EDIT: The MULE is part of the whole "production and eceonomic speed boost" package and I think this whole thing should be removed from the game because it is behind some of the problems of the game ... which are caused by too many units (in conjunction with the tightly packed movement and unlimited unit selection) and the "imbalance" of asymmetric production speed boost capacity (Terrans only being able to boost "simple units" while Zerg can do anything and Protoss have something inbetween). ---- Most people here are coming with a "competitive point of view" and it is great to have such a dedicated and well moderated site for the scene, BUT they sadly seem to forget that there are people who dont care about "going up on the ladder" or "balance" and just want to play a game or two every week for fun. This experience is ruined because of the units and mechanics which Blizzard has added to the game. They may be balanced for higher skilled players, but they sadly are totally OP in lower leagues due to the "critical amount" stuff and all the snowballing that results from it OR the gimmicky nature which leaves not enough time to react to a threat. As a casual you simply have less stuff than a pro, BUT your opponent might have chosen to have a higher tech already and a few units of that stuff might easily walk over your whole units or ruin your economy. Not fun way to lose when you had no chance because of a "build order loss". We all went through this as low league players. But the thing is that you DO have a chance, it is called IMPROVING. At the end of the day, if you aren't willing to learn & improve, why should you expect to win?
You are confusing FUN with WINNING. They arent the same. In a lower league and as a casual you just want to PLAY and thatis made "unfun" by simply overpowered units and mechanics (for that skill level). Just look at BW and you will see that the only way to get to an enemy base was by walking or flying, but in SC2 there are tons of ways to circumvent this. Flying units were a nuisance, but many of them had relatively low "vs ground" damage. In SC2 however they are adding more damage and "safety features" to those same flying harrassment units and it is impossible for a low skill player to deal with them.
Another reason why SC2 is worse for casuals than BW is the economy, because there is too much of it. In BW you could build defensive units and structures and - due to the existence of a defenders advantage - had time to react to stuff if there was a larger force coming your way. In SC2 you can produce a big army much too fast and there isnt such a thing as a defernders advantage anymore. Why else do you think people complained about 4-gate and warp-ins in the enemy base so much early on? That is exactly the stuff which is anti-casual, but cliff-jumping Reapers and other stuff are just as bad.
Stop thinking about competitiveness or use "just get better" as an answer and think more about playing a satisfying game. Losing to 1-2 Reapers in your base after five minutes isnt fun.
|
seriously you need to stop comparing bw and sc2 and just stop with the "fun" discussion. This is a balance discussion thread.
BW is definitly worse for casual due to all the restrictions and mechanics pullback.
Economy in SC2 for causal is FINE
Casual players just build and attack to win, they don't even follow any legit opening and build. Try playing in some bronze/silver game and you will see the so called mass economy, production etc don't apply at all. Terran stay 1 or 2 base forever and turtle, zerg under droning, protoss just massing void rays.
I don't see how defender advantage would affect anything at all.
A lesser player losing to a superior should always be ideal (your reaper example). A player who is not good at defending 4 gate will lose to a player who did 4 gate. A player who can execute a 4 gate build well will beat a player who didn't scout for it.
4 gate isn't even an issue anymore for a long time.
|
A lot of people arguing here... people need to realize everyone is right.
Casuals don't care about balance, they want fun. And they should get it.
Competitive players don't care about fun, they care about winning and balance (because those = fun).
Everyone should get what they want.
How? Separate SC2 into competitive and non-competitive. Make different rules and game mechanics for bronze - gold league. Then, give players the choice about whether or not they wish to enter platinum league. Then make plat/diamond/masters/GM "competitive" leagues with different playstyles and different mechanical restrictions.
One could even so so far as to differentially balance the game, based on which league you play in.
This simultaneously solves the problem of low level balance/fun, while giving purist competitive players the game design that they DESERVE.
The only people this will affect is those on the cusp of gold/platinum. They will need to decide whether or not they wish to play competitive or casual SC2.
|
On April 26 2013 15:25 InfestedSC2 wrote:
A lot of people arguing here... people need to realize everyone is right.
Casuals don't care about balance, they want fun. And they should get it.
Competitive players don't care about fun, they care about winning and balance (because those = fun).
Everyone should get what they want.
How? Separate SC2 into competitive and non-competitive. Make different rules and game mechanics for bronze - gold league. Then, give players the choice about whether or not they wish to enter platinum league. Then make plat/diamond/masters/GM "competitive" leagues with different playstyles and different mechanical restrictions.
One could even so so far as to differentially balance the game, based on which league you play in.
This simultaneously solves the problem of low level balance/fun, while giving purist competitive players the game design that they DESERVE.
The only people this will affect is those on the cusp of gold/platinum. They will need to decide whether or not they wish to play competitive or casual SC2.
I've done a lot of sports at university over the years, ranging from low level to ..mid level (I never really specialized). For many of them there were different rules compared to the competitive scene.
For basketball, we didn't have to obey some of the specialized rules such as not being allowed to be in the field at the basket for too long or having to score within a certain amount of time or a distinction between two- and three-pointers.
For football(soccer) we didn't have the offside rule, but that wasn't necessary because the field we played on was smaller and we had less players.
For squash we had a different size ball.
On the other hand, table tennis, tennis, badminton and volleyball were done with the same rules, even if potentially for volleyball we could have made the net lower, the ball more floaty, the field smaller etc.
|
On April 26 2013 15:25 InfestedSC2 wrote:
A lot of people arguing here... people need to realize everyone is right.
Casuals don't care about balance, they want fun. And they should get it.
Competitive players don't care about fun, they care about winning and balance (because those = fun).
Everyone should get what they want.
How? Separate SC2 into competitive and non-competitive. Make different rules and game mechanics for bronze - gold league. Then, give players the choice about whether or not they wish to enter platinum league. Then make plat/diamond/masters/GM "competitive" leagues with different playstyles and different mechanical restrictions.
One could even so so far as to differentially balance the game, based on which league you play in.
This simultaneously solves the problem of low level balance/fun, while giving purist competitive players the game design that they DESERVE.
The only people this will affect is those on the cusp of gold/platinum. They will need to decide whether or not they wish to play competitive or casual SC2.
I don't think a lot of people would like that, even if blizzard found a consesus on "what is wrong if you play low league".
Not to mention that it would be really hard to implement properly. Like, what do you tell that platinum player who got demoted? Time to learn a different game to requalify for the real game again? Or how do you make think a former gold player will like it that his favorite 1base push is actually an allin, because he can't fall back behind superdefenses afterwards? What do you tell that silver leaguer "who wants to play that build he saw stephano doing", but his units just plainly are not capable of doing those things?
If we/blizzard want/s such things, I believe the way to go is by custom maps and a ladder system for such. E.g: Desert Strike could be treated like "Starcraft light". Or a package of maps like Desert Strike, a battlefield like map with normal Starcraft units that run around and fight for checkpoints, capture the flag maps for normal units, etc. make up their own "ladder for casuals".
|
On April 26 2013 18:14 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 15:25 InfestedSC2 wrote:
A lot of people arguing here... people need to realize everyone is right.
Casuals don't care about balance, they want fun. And they should get it.
Competitive players don't care about fun, they care about winning and balance (because those = fun).
Everyone should get what they want.
How? Separate SC2 into competitive and non-competitive. Make different rules and game mechanics for bronze - gold league. Then, give players the choice about whether or not they wish to enter platinum league. Then make plat/diamond/masters/GM "competitive" leagues with different playstyles and different mechanical restrictions.
One could even so so far as to differentially balance the game, based on which league you play in.
This simultaneously solves the problem of low level balance/fun, while giving purist competitive players the game design that they DESERVE.
The only people this will affect is those on the cusp of gold/platinum. They will need to decide whether or not they wish to play competitive or casual SC2. I don't think a lot of people would like that, even if blizzard found a consesus on "what is wrong if you play low league". Not to mention that it would be really hard to implement properly. Like, what do you tell that platinum player who got demoted? Time to learn a different game to requalify for the real game again? Or how do you make think a former gold player will like it that his favorite 1base push is actually an allin, because he can't fall back behind superdefenses afterwards? What do you tell that silver leaguer "who wants to play that build he saw stephano doing", but his units just plainly are not capable of doing those things? If we/blizzard want/s such things, I believe the way to go is by custom maps and a ladder system for such. E.g: Desert Strike could be treated like "Starcraft light". Or a package of maps like Desert Strike, a battlefield like map with normal Starcraft units that run around and fight for checkpoints, capture the flag maps for normal units, etc. make up their own "ladder for casuals".
How about: if you are promoted to a new league you get one additional map choice and one additional veto. The new maps will be more e-sports oriented.
Or: players are allowed to use a custom interface (even with things like spawn larva timers, minimap alerts), but they can be disabled in custom games and it's expected for tournaments that people use the standard interface.
|
I think it's essential the game is same for all leagues. People don't play same as progamers, but they want to play the same game. This will be even more important as time goes on, because it's esport, that will keep people playing starcraft. And that's for all levels of play. If I want to play different game I play arcade or just different game.
|
On April 26 2013 15:25 InfestedSC2 wrote:
A lot of people arguing here... people need to realize everyone is right.
Casuals don't care about balance, they want fun. And they should get it.
Competitive players don't care about fun, they care about winning and balance (because those = fun).
Everyone should get what they want.
How? Separate SC2 into competitive and non-competitive. Make different rules and game mechanics for bronze - gold league. Then, give players the choice about whether or not they wish to enter platinum league. Then make plat/diamond/masters/GM "competitive" leagues with different playstyles and different mechanical restrictions.
One could even so so far as to differentially balance the game, based on which league you play in.
This simultaneously solves the problem of low level balance/fun, while giving purist competitive players the game design that they DESERVE.
The only people this will affect is those on the cusp of gold/platinum. They will need to decide whether or not they wish to play competitive or casual SC2.
You pretty much want 1 thing: Casuals should play an entirely different game than competitive players. While i do not agree with you on the topic of choosing wether you want to play competitively or not in the SC2 settings, i agree with you on the topic that casuals who "want to have fun" might encounter some problems.
To keep it short: If you have no desire of learning and improving, SC2 will not be a fun game to you. On the other hand, why should a game which has 2 main focuses (RTS and e-Sports) be changed in a way which will deny them? If SC2 is the wrong game because you do not want to learn the mechanics, do not enjoy improving, or generally just dont have the time and will to put effort into it, well shucks. SC2 is no game for you.
Can we get back to a balance discission now please? "The game is hard for casuals" and "people dont like losing" are topics ~100% irrelevant for balance.
|
On April 26 2013 18:54 FetTerBender wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 15:25 InfestedSC2 wrote:
A lot of people arguing here... people need to realize everyone is right.
Casuals don't care about balance, they want fun. And they should get it.
Competitive players don't care about fun, they care about winning and balance (because those = fun).
Everyone should get what they want.
How? Separate SC2 into competitive and non-competitive. Make different rules and game mechanics for bronze - gold league. Then, give players the choice about whether or not they wish to enter platinum league. Then make plat/diamond/masters/GM "competitive" leagues with different playstyles and different mechanical restrictions.
One could even so so far as to differentially balance the game, based on which league you play in.
This simultaneously solves the problem of low level balance/fun, while giving purist competitive players the game design that they DESERVE.
The only people this will affect is those on the cusp of gold/platinum. They will need to decide whether or not they wish to play competitive or casual SC2. You pretty much want 1 thing: Casuals should play an entirely different game than competitive players. While i do not agree with you on the topic of choosing wether you want to play competitively or not in the SC2 settings, i agree with you on the topic that casuals who "want to have fun" might encounter some problems. To keep it short: If you have no desire of learning and improving, SC2 will not be a fun game to you. On the other hand, why should a game which has 2 main focuses (RTS and e-Sports) be changed in a way which will deny them? If SC2 is the wrong game because you do not want to learn the mechanics, do not enjoy improving, or generally just dont have the time and will to put effort into it, well shucks. SC2 is no game for you. Can we get back to a balance discission now please? "The game is hard for casuals" and "people dont like losing" are topics ~100% irrelevant for balance.
Balance is not separate from game design.
|
On April 26 2013 19:20 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 18:54 FetTerBender wrote:On April 26 2013 15:25 InfestedSC2 wrote:
A lot of people arguing here... people need to realize everyone is right.
Casuals don't care about balance, they want fun. And they should get it.
Competitive players don't care about fun, they care about winning and balance (because those = fun).
Everyone should get what they want.
How? Separate SC2 into competitive and non-competitive. Make different rules and game mechanics for bronze - gold league. Then, give players the choice about whether or not they wish to enter platinum league. Then make plat/diamond/masters/GM "competitive" leagues with different playstyles and different mechanical restrictions.
One could even so so far as to differentially balance the game, based on which league you play in.
This simultaneously solves the problem of low level balance/fun, while giving purist competitive players the game design that they DESERVE.
The only people this will affect is those on the cusp of gold/platinum. They will need to decide whether or not they wish to play competitive or casual SC2. You pretty much want 1 thing: Casuals should play an entirely different game than competitive players. While i do not agree with you on the topic of choosing wether you want to play competitively or not in the SC2 settings, i agree with you on the topic that casuals who "want to have fun" might encounter some problems. To keep it short: If you have no desire of learning and improving, SC2 will not be a fun game to you. On the other hand, why should a game which has 2 main focuses (RTS and e-Sports) be changed in a way which will deny them? If SC2 is the wrong game because you do not want to learn the mechanics, do not enjoy improving, or generally just dont have the time and will to put effort into it, well shucks. SC2 is no game for you. Can we get back to a balance discission now please? "The game is hard for casuals" and "people dont like losing" are topics ~100% irrelevant for balance. Balance is not separate from game design.
That is true of course, but game design in such a deep sense that it makes pretty much an entirely different game is not balancing. When you give people / casuals the choice to ease everything up (easier mechanics, allow macros, easier HUD´s and whatever) and have on the other hand a competitive scene, where none of this is allowed, i would dare to say that it is not 1 game anymore, but two different games. Due to Blizzards focus on e-Sports and balancing around the top players, this will never happen.
|
On April 26 2013 18:33 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 18:14 Big J wrote:On April 26 2013 15:25 InfestedSC2 wrote:
A lot of people arguing here... people need to realize everyone is right.
Casuals don't care about balance, they want fun. And they should get it.
Competitive players don't care about fun, they care about winning and balance (because those = fun).
Everyone should get what they want.
How? Separate SC2 into competitive and non-competitive. Make different rules and game mechanics for bronze - gold league. Then, give players the choice about whether or not they wish to enter platinum league. Then make plat/diamond/masters/GM "competitive" leagues with different playstyles and different mechanical restrictions.
One could even so so far as to differentially balance the game, based on which league you play in.
This simultaneously solves the problem of low level balance/fun, while giving purist competitive players the game design that they DESERVE.
The only people this will affect is those on the cusp of gold/platinum. They will need to decide whether or not they wish to play competitive or casual SC2. I don't think a lot of people would like that, even if blizzard found a consesus on "what is wrong if you play low league". Not to mention that it would be really hard to implement properly. Like, what do you tell that platinum player who got demoted? Time to learn a different game to requalify for the real game again? Or how do you make think a former gold player will like it that his favorite 1base push is actually an allin, because he can't fall back behind superdefenses afterwards? What do you tell that silver leaguer "who wants to play that build he saw stephano doing", but his units just plainly are not capable of doing those things? If we/blizzard want/s such things, I believe the way to go is by custom maps and a ladder system for such. E.g: Desert Strike could be treated like "Starcraft light". Or a package of maps like Desert Strike, a battlefield like map with normal Starcraft units that run around and fight for checkpoints, capture the flag maps for normal units, etc. make up their own "ladder for casuals". How about: if you are promoted to a new league you get one additional map choice and one additional veto. The new maps will be more e-sports oriented. Or: players are allowed to use a custom interface (even with things like spawn larva timers, minimap alerts), but they can be disabled in custom games and it's expected for tournaments that people use the standard interface.
Well, those map-for-low-leaguer ideas have been around and I think it might be decent. However keep in mind that blizzard was actually doing that for the first year. They were arguing for maps with shorter rush distances and less spread out expansions to keep the game simple. The community reaction was a shitstorm, because everybody wanted to play the bigger, balanced maps they saw in tournaments. I have actually not heard a single low-league player at that time arguing that they'd rather want to play Steppes of War, because Tal Darim Altar had too many expansions.
I'm not sure if the custom interface would really help the people who are already overwhelmed with looking at the minimap. But yeah, this could help, though if you have played SupCom you may know that customizing your interface is not really the thing you think about when trying to get better.
In the end I believe all those "different game" for low-leaguer ideas come down to:
either they are not significant or they change the game in ways that people don't want, because they want to play THE game. Else they would play Arcade to begin with.
|
WOL was balanced, but it was shit to watch and the viewer audience reflected that, you can have both you know.
As to fun, currently Terrans are having lots of fun.
Warp speed medivacs drops are fun
Hellbat drops annihilating mineral lines are fun.
Widow Mines mangling Zerg armies are fun
Ravens with their new mini nukes are fun
Good old fashioned Ghost Nukes are fun
Now those are fun units. Where as the other 2 races got fuck all in the fun factor. Protoss and Zerg got boring flat units..Swarm Host lol, fu^k me !!!!, at least Protoss has Storm and Zerg has Banelings i suppose from WoL
Watching Zerg and Protoss in HOTs is flat out boring ..I think Destiny got it bang on when he switched to LOL
Switch to Terran and have some fun, i did
|
On April 26 2013 19:49 Topdoller wrote:
WOL was balanced, but it was shit to watch and the viewer audience reflected that, you can have both you know.
As to fun, currently Terrans are having lots of fun.
Warp speed medivacs drops are fun
Hellbat drops annihilating mineral lines are fun.
Widow Mines mangling Zerg armies are fun
Ravens with their new mini nukes are fun
Good old fashioned Ghost Nukes are fun
Now those are fun units. Where as the other 2 races got fuck all in the fun factor. Protoss and Zerg got boring flat units..Swarm Host lol, fu^k me !!!!, at least Protoss has Storm and Zerg has Banelings i suppose from WoL
Watching Zerg and Protoss in HOTs is flat out boring ..I think Destiny got it bang on when he switched to LOL
Switch to Terran and have some fun, i did
Lol, Swarm Hosts are funtastic units and abduct play is incredibly awesome.
The fun just stops when your opponent beats any kind of positional play with swarm host, any form of positional play with blinding clouds, any form of engagement play with roach/hydra with mooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrr marines.
Go play PvZ and you will find out that the game can be incredibly fun as zerg if you just keep on playing the switcharoo game and your opponent does not just play the Colossus/VR turtle, but actually tries to hit you with prisms and timings and phoenixes and DTs. The problem is surely not that zerg units are "not fun", the problem is that the marine counters all of them and leaves zerg with ling/bling/infestor/ultra as playable units with expensive mutalisks (a very fun unit if you can use them offensively) which are pinned in your own bases by dirtcheap, gameending marinedrops.
Yes, playing Terran is a lot of fun. But Zerg is by no means badly designed in terms of funplay. The fungameplay is just not viable because it gets countered by stim + brag about the amazing splitskills that you showed in that irrelevant 200vs100 supply battle at the end.
|
I think ZvT is a lot of fun:
Terran makes bio, mines and skip siege tanks, you just all-in ling/bling or ling/bling/roaches and win every single time.
Terran going hellbat drops? you just all-in ling/bling or ling/bling/roaches and win every single time.
Terran doesnt skip siege tank, you play standard.
People just need to stop playing standard versus the first two builds.
|
On April 26 2013 19:49 Topdoller wrote:
WOL was balanced
Nice introduction to instantly lose all credibility.
On April 26 2013 21:23 j4vz wrote:
Terran makes bio, mines and skip siege tanks, you just all-in ling/bling or ling/bling/roaches and win every single time.
You can stop 3-bases Baneling busts without Tanks.
|
On April 26 2013 15:25 InfestedSC2 wrote:
Competitive players don't care about fun, they care about winning and balance (because those = fun).
True pro-gamers do care about fun and having balance that makes fun games. If games were balanced but not fun no one would watch it and the idea of a pro-gamer as a profession would simply not exist. If Blizzard wants this game to become a phenomenon where spectating the game is fun then they have to work towards a balance that makes the game dynamic and interesting. A lot of pro's become pros because they love, or loved, playing the game because it was and still is fun. Obviously the immediate concern is the balance of the current design, but in the long run everyone wants the game to be fun at all levels of play otherwise if it's not it will fail as a spectator sport.
|
On April 26 2013 21:23 j4vz wrote:
I think ZvT is a lot of fun:
Terran makes bio, mines and skip siege tanks, you just all-in ling/bling or ling/bling/roaches and win every single time.
Terran going hellbat drops? you just all-in ling/bling or ling/bling/roaches and win every single time.
Terran doesnt skip siege tank, you play standard.
People just need to stop playing standard versus the first two builds.
This.
Also, as far as openers go, I beat so many Terrans (high diamond) because they do the greedy openings and assume that Zerg will play standard/passive. A ling-bling all-in that hits at 7:00 will crush them unless they made only 1 CC (not 2) and spent the rest of their resources on making an army and placing defensive measures (not teching). Just get ~1.25 bases saturated and 1 gas (~23 drones), 2 queens, then start churning out units (bling nest at ~5:30). Hit at ~7:00.
It doesn't even have to be all-in. Once the attack begins (at ~7:00), instead of making more zerglings, only make drones and voila! you macro out of what people call an "all-in." The army you already made is usually enough to overwhelm and kill the Terran, but even if you don't finish him off, you should be in a significant lead with the damage that you did (as long as you were macroing properly behind it).
The problem with the TvZ Terran mass bio is that the Zerg is letting them expand quickly early on (and then, once the bio waves start coming, the Zerg continues to let them expand). Don't let them get an easy big early economy. Continue to deny/slow their expansions. This is what stops the bio, because even though you may be killing their constant bio armies, if you haven't stymied their economy then it will just continue indefinitely because bio is cheap, given its insane cost effectiveness (ie. with stim + heal-buses).
|
On April 26 2013 21:40 BeyondCtrL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 15:25 InfestedSC2 wrote:
Competitive players don't care about fun, they care about winning and balance (because those = fun).
True pro-gamers do care about fun and having balance that makes fun games. If games were balanced but not fun no one would watch it and the idea of a pro-gamer as a profession would simply not exist. If Blizzard wants this game to become a phenomenon where spectating the game is fun then they have to work towards a balance that makes the game dynamic and interesting. A lot of pro's become pros because they love, or loved, playing the game because it was and still is fun. Obviously the immediate concern is the balance of the current design, but in the long run everyone wants the game to be fun at all levels of play otherwise if it's not it will fail as a spectator sport.
I think Starcraft 2 is pretty much the only game that was an e-sports before it was tested as a game people enjoyed playing.
|
On April 27 2013 00:18 Jinky wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 21:23 j4vz wrote:
I think ZvT is a lot of fun:
Terran makes bio, mines and skip siege tanks, you just all-in ling/bling or ling/bling/roaches and win every single time.
Terran going hellbat drops? you just all-in ling/bling or ling/bling/roaches and win every single time.
Terran doesnt skip siege tank, you play standard.
People just need to stop playing standard versus the first two builds.
This. Also, as far as openers go, I beat so many Terrans (high diamond) because they do the greedy openings and assume that Zerg will play standard/passive. A ling-bling all-in that hits at 7:00 will crush them unless they made only 1 CC (not 2) and spent the rest of their resources on making an army and placing defensive measures ( not teching). Just get ~1.25 bases saturated and 1 gas (~23 drones), 2 queens, then start churning out units (bling nest at ~5:30). Hit at ~7:00. It doesn't even have to be all-in. Once the attack begins (at ~7:00), instead of making more zerglings, only make drones and voila! you macro out of what people call an "all-in." The army you already made is usually enough to overwhelm and kill the Terran, but even if you don't finish him off, you should be in a significant lead with the damage that you did (as long as you were macroing properly behind it). The problem with the TvZ Terran mass bio is that the Zerg is letting them expand quickly early on (and then, once the bio waves start coming, the Zerg continues to let them expand). Don't let them get an easy big early economy. Continue to deny/slow their expansions. This is what stops the bio, because even though you may be killing their constant bio armies, if you haven't stymied their economy then it will just continue indefinitely because bio is cheap, given its insane cost effectiveness (ie. with stim + heal-buses).
3cc with +-4 hellions, 1 bunker + wall and 1 tank holds this. But maybe I'm still stuck in wol building tanks lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
