|
On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity.
Sorry but this is one of the most stupid statements I had to read here.
First of all, yes League does that. And guess what? League already SLAUGHTERS SC2 as an e-sport title. Why? Because they balance at EVERY level (sure its easier to balance for everyone because of the number of champs).
Do you even realize that your mindset kills SC2 as an e-sports title? Where do you think your average spectator, subsciber or donator comes from? From High Master and Grandmaster? If you lose your base of Bronzies - Diamonds you also lose so much money in this part of the industry... and you just do that in your post by saying "we dont need you playing, we just need you paying!".
A core balance should be achieved at any level. League achieves that by having low skillcap champs and high skillcap champs and getting both adjusted according to their relative strenght. In SC2 you just have a "few" units. You have no real "choice" between high skillcap units and low skillcap units. So if one race core units rely on "a-move" to get 80% effect while the other race achieves just 30% wit "a-move" but can go to 150% with "pro-micro" you have a huge balance issue on both levels of play, which WILL cost you players and ultimately viewers.
|
Russian Federation125 Posts
Meanwhile in Korean GML:
Top10 - 1 zerg 3 terr 6 toss
Top25 - 5 zerg 6 terr 14 toss
Top50 - 10 zerg 15 terr 25 toss
Yeh sure toss is the weakest and need buff  )
|
On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity.
Do you realize how stupid this is? BW was fair for low level players who played just for fun AND great to watch and awesome when progamers played it. Once and for all ...
FUN AND BALANCE FOR LOW LEVELS DO NOT EXCLUDE INTERESTING AND CHALLENGING HIGH LEVEL PLAY!!!
I apologize for the caps, but there are some simpletons here who believe these things to be exclusive when we have an older game as proof that it isnt true. The design concept around "faster faster faster" and "more stuff, more stuff, more stuff" is the problem of SC2, because they have designed an "F1 race car" and most of the people will not be able to handle that properly. They should have stuck to the "bicycle" of BW, which was more tedious to play+ Show Spoiler + Todays kids apparently cant be bothered to play with only 12 units per control group apparently because it is too tough. None of the "but technology has advanced since the 1990's" kids have ever complained about the 200 supply limit, the lack of formations for the units, the inability to attack the ground in the dark area, ... because there have been games for decades which had those features. So there CAN BE some arbitrary restrictions which are NECESSARY to make the game work!
To any of those who dont believe me ask yourself these questions:
- Is there a point where the game gets too fast? Can Blizzard endlessly increase (buff) them? (Either through unit speed or unit production)
- Is a fight with 10 times as many units really 10 times more exciting OR does a smaller fight offer more exciting because every unit that dies/is kept alive is more important? Lower amounts of units equal a lower total dps and this allows enough time to micro and save units, while bigger armies equal more explosions and a fast fight that does not really allow people the time to save their units most of the time. + Show Spoiler +The most amazing fights AND micro are happening when there are 2 Zerglings that fight another 2 Zerglings and one player wins with both of his Zerglings alive. Fights with lower numbers of units last almost as long because the total dps is much lower.
- Would it make sense to reduce the density of units on the battlefield for better control? (This would require removing any economic and production speed boosts from the game and adding forced units spreading.)
- Have you ever complained about the MULE, Forcefield or Fungal Growth? Arent they only a problem when they exist in larger numbers? + Show Spoiler +IMO a reduced number of units and density on the battlefield would allow for more extreme (= fun and exciting) spells since they dont kill as much at one time.
- Do you think the deathball is a good thing to have in the game? + Show Spoiler +Blizzard doesnt really do anything against it and the core design of "unit clumping" really enforces it.
A lower production speed - as it was in BW - does NOT mean players will wait until they have 200 supply and start attacking then. Lower numbers of units also mean that the game is more manageable for lower skill players, because the total kill speed is reduced and things like "Marine spreading vs Banelings" are not that much of an issue anymore.
|
On June 26 2013 23:12 dargul wrote:Meanwhile in Korean GML: Top10 - 1 zerg 3 terr 6 toss Top25 - 5 zerg 6 terr 14 toss Top50 - 10 zerg 15 terr 25 toss Yeh sure toss is the weakest and need buff )
Just think, all those Protoss who should be in WCS have a ton of free time on their hands to ladder and reach the top ranks.
|
On June 26 2013 22:47 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity. Sorry but this is one of the most stupid statements I had to read here. First of all, yes League does that. And guess what? League already SLAUGHTERS SC2 as an e-sport title. Why? Because they balance at EVERY level (sure its easier to balance for everyone because of the number of champs). Do you even realize that your mindset kills SC2 as an e-sports title? Where do you think your average spectator, subsciber or donator comes from? From High Master and Grandmaster? If you lose your base of Bronzies - Diamonds you also lose so much money in this part of the industry... and you just do that in your post by saying "we dont need you playing, we just need you paying!". A core balance should be achieved at any level. League achieves that by having low skillcap champs and high skillcap champs and getting both adjusted according to their relative strenght. In SC2 you just have a "few" units. You have no real "choice" between high skillcap units and low skillcap units. So if one race core units rely on "a-move" to get 80% effect while the other race achieves just 30% wit "a-move" but can go to 150% with "pro-micro" you have a huge balance issue on both levels of play, which WILL cost you players and ultimately viewers.
you can hit diamond/master with just a-move, probably just making one unit as well -- sorry to say man.
no league is probably more popular because its free, the game is just easy to play in general? you control one guy and have 3 buttons.
counterstrike was way harder to play than cod. counterstrike was taken seriously as an esports title. cod is not. of course there are higher skill units in sc2? there is balance of a-move vs non-amove and there is also a balance of simpler passive strategies vs. active higher skill ones.
i'd venture to say they could just rebalance the game for team games (like 1v1 are different rules from team), since its quite obvious that the bulk of sc2 base plays team games/custom games and watches 1v1 for entertainment.
fun is quite subjective, if they made this game like lol easy, i wouldn't really have much fun. i don't play lol cuz i just think its mind numbingly boring.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On June 26 2013 22:47 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity. Sorry but this is one of the most stupid statements I had to read here. First of all, yes League does that. And guess what? League already SLAUGHTERS SC2 as an e-sport title. Why? Because they balance at EVERY level (sure its easier to balance for everyone because of the number of champs). Do you even realize that your mindset kills SC2 as an e-sports title? Where do you think your average spectator, subsciber or donator comes from? From High Master and Grandmaster? If you lose your base of Bronzies - Diamonds you also lose so much money in this part of the industry... and you just do that in your post by saying "we dont need you playing, we just need you paying!". A core balance should be achieved at any level. League achieves that by having low skillcap champs and high skillcap champs and getting both adjusted according to their relative strenght. In SC2 you just have a "few" units. You have no real "choice" between high skillcap units and low skillcap units. So if one race core units rely on "a-move" to get 80% effect while the other race achieves just 30% wit "a-move" but can go to 150% with "pro-micro" you have a huge balance issue on both levels of play, which WILL cost you players and ultimately viewers.
The 3 only reasons why League is more popular: a) it's free, b) it's not as difficult to start off with in terms of mechanics and c) you have a team to blame. SC2 has an insane mechanical requirement compared to League. If you have bad mechanics in SC2, you'll lose. Especially because the ladder is designed to push you to your limits - you'll be playing people who are as good as you according to their MMR. If you have terrible mechanics in League you might still do well if your team is good and you profit from them. If your team does badly, just blame the others. Simple as that. A game like 1v1 SC2 that a) demands more from you mechanically and b) throws it in your face by having nobody else to blame when you lose will never be as popular. Because most people are simpletons and like to think they're good at things they're not actually good at. That's when they have fun.
SC2 should not be balanced around being fun. Unit concepts, race concepts, abilities, etc., short: the FUNDAMENTALS should be designed to be fun. After that balance it around the best of the best. The solution for everybody who's not one of the best is to ummm... get better if they want to do better. It's the same with League except that the team concept allows people to continue being ignorant idiots who think they're better than they are for much longer.
If you're not having fun because you feel that certain things are too strong at your level then either grind games and get better or shut up and accept the fact that you're not good enough. If you can't do either of those then a 1v1 strategy game is the wrong type of game for you in the first place.
|
On June 27 2013 01:00 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 22:47 Charon1979 wrote:On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity. Sorry but this is one of the most stupid statements I had to read here. First of all, yes League does that. And guess what? League already SLAUGHTERS SC2 as an e-sport title. Why? Because they balance at EVERY level (sure its easier to balance for everyone because of the number of champs). Do you even realize that your mindset kills SC2 as an e-sports title? Where do you think your average spectator, subsciber or donator comes from? From High Master and Grandmaster? If you lose your base of Bronzies - Diamonds you also lose so much money in this part of the industry... and you just do that in your post by saying "we dont need you playing, we just need you paying!". A core balance should be achieved at any level. League achieves that by having low skillcap champs and high skillcap champs and getting both adjusted according to their relative strenght. In SC2 you just have a "few" units. You have no real "choice" between high skillcap units and low skillcap units. So if one race core units rely on "a-move" to get 80% effect while the other race achieves just 30% wit "a-move" but can go to 150% with "pro-micro" you have a huge balance issue on both levels of play, which WILL cost you players and ultimately viewers. The 3 only reasons why League is more popular: a) it's free, b) it's not as difficult to start off with in terms of mechanics and c) you have a team to blame. SC2 has an insane mechanical requirement compared to League. If you have bad mechanics in SC2, you'll lose. Especially because the ladder is designed to push you to your limits - you'll be playing people who are as good as you according to their MMR. If you have terrible mechanics in League you might still do well if your team is good and you profit from them. If your team does badly, just blame the others. Simple as that. A game like 1v1 SC2 that a) demands more from you mechanically and b) throws it in your face by having nobody else to blame when you lose will never be as popular. Because most people are simpletons and like to think they're good at things they're not actually good at. That's when they have fun. SC2 should not be balanced around being fun. Unit concepts, race concepts, abilities, etc., short: the FUNDAMENTALS should be designed to be fun. After that balance it around the best of the best. The solution for everybody who's not one of the best is to ummm... get better if they want to do better. It's the same with League except that the team concept allows people to continue being ignorant idiots who think they're better than they are for much longer. If you're not having fun because you feel that certain things are too strong at your level then either grind games and get better or shut up and accept the fact that you're not good enough. If you can't do either of those then a 1v1 strategy game is the wrong type of game for you in the first place.
i agree, but don't you think they could make the game have different rules for team games to make it more fun for casuals? I like 1v1 too and really enjoy the punishing atmosphere of 1v1, but sometimes people just want to relax to kill shit. Most people who play sc2 play the campaign, play custom games, and play team games, blizzard should just make a more concerted effort to balance those aspects of the game as well. i think team games are more popular because you can play with your friends, and also yes because you can blame 'bad teammates' when playing by yourself. i notice this tendency when talking to some friends who claim to be 'unable to make it out of x league in team games because of bad teammates'.
|
On June 26 2013 23:12 dargul wrote:Meanwhile in Korean GML: Top10 - 1 zerg 3 terr 6 toss Top25 - 5 zerg 6 terr 14 toss Top50 - 10 zerg 15 terr 25 toss Yeh sure toss is the weakest and need buff )
It's really hard to balance Protoss since the whole race is based on gimmicks and broken RTS fundamentals. I don't believe real RTS players would enjoy the gameplay of Protoss, which mainly consists of cheese/gimmicks, timing attacks, or camping to deathballs. Maybe that's a reason Protoss isn't doing so great in tournaments.
Successful protoss play is about doing the “wrong” things right, which inhibits the development and longer term success of the race.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:21 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:00 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 26 2013 22:47 Charon1979 wrote:On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity. Sorry but this is one of the most stupid statements I had to read here. First of all, yes League does that. And guess what? League already SLAUGHTERS SC2 as an e-sport title. Why? Because they balance at EVERY level (sure its easier to balance for everyone because of the number of champs). Do you even realize that your mindset kills SC2 as an e-sports title? Where do you think your average spectator, subsciber or donator comes from? From High Master and Grandmaster? If you lose your base of Bronzies - Diamonds you also lose so much money in this part of the industry... and you just do that in your post by saying "we dont need you playing, we just need you paying!". A core balance should be achieved at any level. League achieves that by having low skillcap champs and high skillcap champs and getting both adjusted according to their relative strenght. In SC2 you just have a "few" units. You have no real "choice" between high skillcap units and low skillcap units. So if one race core units rely on "a-move" to get 80% effect while the other race achieves just 30% wit "a-move" but can go to 150% with "pro-micro" you have a huge balance issue on both levels of play, which WILL cost you players and ultimately viewers. The 3 only reasons why League is more popular: a) it's free, b) it's not as difficult to start off with in terms of mechanics and c) you have a team to blame. SC2 has an insane mechanical requirement compared to League. If you have bad mechanics in SC2, you'll lose. Especially because the ladder is designed to push you to your limits - you'll be playing people who are as good as you according to their MMR. If you have terrible mechanics in League you might still do well if your team is good and you profit from them. If your team does badly, just blame the others. Simple as that. A game like 1v1 SC2 that a) demands more from you mechanically and b) throws it in your face by having nobody else to blame when you lose will never be as popular. Because most people are simpletons and like to think they're good at things they're not actually good at. That's when they have fun. SC2 should not be balanced around being fun. Unit concepts, race concepts, abilities, etc., short: the FUNDAMENTALS should be designed to be fun. After that balance it around the best of the best. The solution for everybody who's not one of the best is to ummm... get better if they want to do better. It's the same with League except that the team concept allows people to continue being ignorant idiots who think they're better than they are for much longer. If you're not having fun because you feel that certain things are too strong at your level then either grind games and get better or shut up and accept the fact that you're not good enough. If you can't do either of those then a 1v1 strategy game is the wrong type of game for you in the first place. i agree, but don't you think they could make the game have different rules for team games to make it more fun for casuals? I like 1v1 too and really enjoy the punishing atmosphere of 1v1, but sometimes people just want to relax to kill shit. Most people who play sc2 play the campaign, play custom games, and play team games, blizzard should just make a more concerted effort to balance those aspects of the game as well. i think team games are more popular because you can play with your friends, and also yes because you can blame 'bad teammates' when playing by yourself. i notice this tendency when talking to some friends who claim to be 'unable to make it out of x league in team games because of bad teammates'.
This I agree with. But I think they want the Arcade to become that place. They've been improving it slowly with HotS but I agree that if they want the game to offer that type of entertainment, they'll have to do a lot more. Balancing teamgames is really really hard though without completely screwing 1v1 balance. Maps are pretty much the only thing they can work with there.
|
On June 27 2013 01:34 vNmMasterT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:12 dargul wrote:Meanwhile in Korean GML: Top10 - 1 zerg 3 terr 6 toss Top25 - 5 zerg 6 terr 14 toss Top50 - 10 zerg 15 terr 25 toss Yeh sure toss is the weakest and need buff ) It's really hard to balance Protoss since the whole race is based on gimmicks and broken RTS fundamentals. I don't believe real RTS players would enjoy the gameplay of Protoss, which mainly consists of cheese/gimmicks, timing attacks, or camping to deathballs. Maybe that's a reason Protoss isn't doing so great in tournaments. Successful protoss play is about doing the “wrong” things right, which inhibits the development and longer term success of the race.
Every race is built upon stuff that you can call gimmick in one way or another. Core Starcraft principles like building walls are supergimmicky concepts that only work due to Starcrafts gimmicky grid system and building balancing (units can shoot through them, high HP, cheap - try to do that in one of the fundamental RTS games like Dune2 or CnC).
Starcrafts map design is extremly gimmicky... Basically no other RTS games relies that heavily on concepts like "main bases", "natural expansions", "third bases", "expansions" and "chokes". Most RTS games just design the races in ways that they turn out equal on any map.
And I'm pretty sure that Grubby is a real RTS player and that he enjoys Protoss.
|
On June 26 2013 04:40 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Mines?? No one uses Mines along with bio by lategame. Tempests/Colossi/Stalkers/Templars stomps every possible Terran army.
If you watched NaNiWa vs ThorZaiN game 1 at EsportSM you would probably take that back 
|
On June 27 2013 02:57 Big J wrote:
Every race is built upon stuff that you can call gimmick in one way or another. Core Starcraft principles like building walls are supergimmicky concepts that only work due to Starcrafts gimmicky grid system and building balancing (units can shoot through them, high HP, cheap - try to do that in one of the fundamental RTS games like Dune2 or CnC).
Starcrafts map design is extremly gimmicky... Basically no other RTS games relies that heavily on concepts like "main bases", "natural expansions", "third bases", "expansions" and "chokes". Most RTS games just design the races in ways that they turn out equal on any map.
And I'm pretty sure that Grubby is a real RTS player and that he enjoys Protoss.
I'm not an English native speaker so maybe I'm wrong, but “gimmicky” does not mean “weird”. There is a notion of “relying on novelty” in the word. I thus fail to see how “building walls” is “a supergimmicky concept”?...
On June 27 2013 03:03 prOxySC2 wrote:If you watched NaNiWa vs ThorZaiN game 1 at EsportSM you would probably take that back
I heard about this game, do you know if there is a VOD and if yes, where?
|
On June 27 2013 03:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 02:57 Big J wrote:
Every race is built upon stuff that you can call gimmick in one way or another. Core Starcraft principles like building walls are supergimmicky concepts that only work due to Starcrafts gimmicky grid system and building balancing (units can shoot through them, high HP, cheap - try to do that in one of the fundamental RTS games like Dune2 or CnC).
Starcrafts map design is extremly gimmicky... Basically no other RTS games relies that heavily on concepts like "main bases", "natural expansions", "third bases", "expansions" and "chokes". Most RTS games just design the races in ways that they turn out equal on any map.
And I'm pretty sure that Grubby is a real RTS player and that he enjoys Protoss. I'm not an English native speaker so maybe I'm wrong, but “gimmicky” does not mean “weird”. There is a notion of “relying on novelty” in the word. I thus fail to see how “building walls” is “a supergimmicky concept”?...
I'm not a native speaker either and I absolutly didn't want to put it like those things are "weird". But such concepts are not core RTS fundamentals and when stuff like building walls first came up in WC2 (or maybe WC1... never played that), I'd say they were seen as kind of "new and tricky" or however you can best paraphrase gimmicky.
In all honesty, I don't see how Protoss is more "gimmicky" at all than the other races. Doing a timing attack seems to be one of the most core strategies in RTS games. Abusing the lack of information ("cheese") is a core concept of any game with finite information. Deathballs/big armies are the reason why many casual players even try RTS games "cool, I can control a whole army in this game and not just one guy with a gun".
All of those things are being used in nearly every Terran/Zerg game we see as well.
|
On June 27 2013 01:34 vNmMasterT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:12 dargul wrote:Meanwhile in Korean GML: Top10 - 1 zerg 3 terr 6 toss Top25 - 5 zerg 6 terr 14 toss Top50 - 10 zerg 15 terr 25 toss Yeh sure toss is the weakest and need buff ) It's really hard to balance Protoss since the whole race is based on gimmicks and broken RTS fundamentals. I don't believe real RTS players would enjoy the gameplay of Protoss, which mainly consists of cheese/gimmicks, timing attacks, or camping to deathballs. Maybe that's a reason Protoss isn't doing so great in tournaments. Successful protoss play is about doing the “wrong” things right, which inhibits the development and longer term success of the race.
If you think that cheesing, timing attacks and deathballs are not RTS fundamentals, you need to watch some Brood War.
|
On June 27 2013 03:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:03 prOxySC2 wrote:If you watched NaNiWa vs ThorZaiN game 1 at EsportSM you would probably take that back I heard about this game, do you know if there is a VOD and if yes, where?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 27 2013 03:52 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:09 TheDwf wrote:On June 27 2013 03:03 prOxySC2 wrote:If you watched NaNiWa vs ThorZaiN game 1 at EsportSM you would probably take that back I heard about this game, do you know if there is a VOD and if yes, where? + Show Spoiler +
Thank you!
|
On June 27 2013 03:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:09 TheDwf wrote:On June 27 2013 02:57 Big J wrote:
Every race is built upon stuff that you can call gimmick in one way or another. Core Starcraft principles like building walls are supergimmicky concepts that only work due to Starcrafts gimmicky grid system and building balancing (units can shoot through them, high HP, cheap - try to do that in one of the fundamental RTS games like Dune2 or CnC).
Starcrafts map design is extremly gimmicky... Basically no other RTS games relies that heavily on concepts like "main bases", "natural expansions", "third bases", "expansions" and "chokes". Most RTS games just design the races in ways that they turn out equal on any map.
And I'm pretty sure that Grubby is a real RTS player and that he enjoys Protoss. I'm not an English native speaker so maybe I'm wrong, but “gimmicky” does not mean “weird”. There is a notion of “relying on novelty” in the word. I thus fail to see how “building walls” is “a supergimmicky concept”?... I'm not a native speaker either and I absolutly didn't want to put it like those things are "weird". But such concepts are not core RTS fundamentals and when stuff like building walls first came up in WC2 (or maybe WC1... never played that), I'd say they were seen as kind of "new and tricky" or however you can best paraphrase gimmicky. In all honesty, I don't see how Protoss is more "gimmicky" at all than the other races. Doing a timing attack seems to be one of the most core strategies in RTS games. Abusing the lack of information ("cheese") is a core concept of any game with finite information. Deathballs/big armies are the reason why many casual players even try RTS games "cool, I can control a whole army in this game and not just one guy with a gun". All of those things are being used in nearly every Terran/Zerg game we see as well.
The gimmicky part of protoss is their army composition. Their army might consist of 100-140 army supply, but their dmg dealers consist of only up to about 40 army supply. That means that if the opponent actually counters that 40 army supply well enough, the 60-100 army supply protoss is pretty much screwed. The only real exception to this is blink stalkers, where 100% of your army is doing the dps and tanking.
Terran and zerg units are for the most part not only tanks but an active force and a threat. The closest to being a tank are roaches, but zerg players phase them out for the most part through the game, while a protoss can't just phase out building gateway units.
The side effect of the protoss power unit design is also the fact that you don't split up the protoss units. Zerg and terran units do better split up, but as we all know, protoss units don't. This prevents multitasking and harass for the most part.
Freedictionarie's definition of gimmick is: "a. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus".
From this definition, your definition of gimmick just doesn't make sense. Sure a wall is "deceiving" as in preventing information, but that information only matters for cheese and allins, which I think everyone can concede, allins and cheese is pretty much the definition of gimmicky. Standard playstyle of terran however does not rely on the wall to deceive, and I'd argue it'd only be gimmicky if it was actually some investment into doing it rather than being done byfar most the time.
While neither terran or zerg wants to be scouted, unless you are doing an allin, it hardly matters. The protoss is pretty much expected to know the army composition the opponent is doing. A terran or zerg scouting what the protoss is doing can however be devistating. Both races can then adjust their composition to counter the power unit that the protoss picked to start off with, which can prevent a 3rd from going down or give the z/t a econ advantage if the protoss stays defensive.
Lastly due to all of this, I feel protoss is forced down the path of timing attacks, where the protoss has to use their advantage of power units not being countered perfectly yet. This makes timing attacks, such as fx. 2 colossi timing attack TvP and immo busts so strong. Then there is also the heavy gateway styles which rely on being up 1 production of units(such as TvP's 4 gate, where you have up to +100% army supply compared to terran due to WG). This is what protoss has been balanced around. That means against players with exceptional skill that can smell these kind of plays better, they can defend them way easier(since most of them it's not about skill of defending, but seeing them in advance to put up the defenses). Then in a straight up game, z/t units are better to multitask.
Edit: I think the biggest thing to consider about gimmicky play is which race would be the least comfortable without fog of war? In TvZ I don't think either player would have a big advantage, in TvP and ZvP I think T/Z would be quite delighted and protoss sad.
|
On June 27 2013 05:03 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:30 Big J wrote:On June 27 2013 03:09 TheDwf wrote:On June 27 2013 02:57 Big J wrote:
Every race is built upon stuff that you can call gimmick in one way or another. Core Starcraft principles like building walls are supergimmicky concepts that only work due to Starcrafts gimmicky grid system and building balancing (units can shoot through them, high HP, cheap - try to do that in one of the fundamental RTS games like Dune2 or CnC).
Starcrafts map design is extremly gimmicky... Basically no other RTS games relies that heavily on concepts like "main bases", "natural expansions", "third bases", "expansions" and "chokes". Most RTS games just design the races in ways that they turn out equal on any map.
And I'm pretty sure that Grubby is a real RTS player and that he enjoys Protoss. I'm not an English native speaker so maybe I'm wrong, but “gimmicky” does not mean “weird”. There is a notion of “relying on novelty” in the word. I thus fail to see how “building walls” is “a supergimmicky concept”?... I'm not a native speaker either and I absolutly didn't want to put it like those things are "weird". But such concepts are not core RTS fundamentals and when stuff like building walls first came up in WC2 (or maybe WC1... never played that), I'd say they were seen as kind of "new and tricky" or however you can best paraphrase gimmicky. In all honesty, I don't see how Protoss is more "gimmicky" at all than the other races. Doing a timing attack seems to be one of the most core strategies in RTS games. Abusing the lack of information ("cheese") is a core concept of any game with finite information. Deathballs/big armies are the reason why many casual players even try RTS games "cool, I can control a whole army in this game and not just one guy with a gun". All of those things are being used in nearly every Terran/Zerg game we see as well. The gimmicky part of protoss is their army composition. Their army might consist of 100-140 army supply, but their dmg dealers consist of only up to about 40 army supply. That means that if the opponent actually counters that 40 army supply well enough, the 60-100 army supply protoss is pretty much screwed. The only real exception to this is blink stalkers, where 100% of your army is doing the dps and tanking. Terran and zerg units are for the most part not only tanks but an active force and a threat. The closest to being a tank are roaches, but zerg players phase them out for the most part through the game, while a protoss can't just phase out building gateway units.
I disagree completely with both, notion that a unit that is more on the health than on the damage side is gimmicky - that just doesn't make sense.
Neither do I agree with the notion that Protoss is "generally" like that. Everything but the stalker and the sentry has generally a high damage potential. It's just simply the fact that though those units are good damage dealers, their enemy lowtier counterparts are designed to be direct counters to them. So Protoss is forced to go for antilowtier units like colossi/templar - while their general design does not support a hightier only army (so a playstyle with hardly any gatewayunits) for the most parts of the game.
Also you are way overexaggerating this. Highlevel Terrans and Zergs for the most part do counter Colossi and Templar close to perfectly already. It's not like most of the Protoss wins come from "he should have just had a few vikings more, which he could have easily had if he had scouted it a little faster". In fact I rather believe that there is a colossus count - like 3 - that is basically uncounterable by just adding AtA units to a ground army, due to how the Colossis still will kill stuff, while the AtA units are an expensive investment that don't help you to win the fight after the Colossi are down.
This is not so much a problem of protoss design, but a problem of unit balance. If e.g. the marine/marauder, roach/hydra wouldn't counter the zealot/sentry/stalker, a Protoss would not have to rely on Colossi. The game would just need a slightly adapted balancing for that, but it's not a matter of "Protoss" but just as much a matter of "Zerg" and "Terran". In fact ZvT has a similar dynamic of how in current bio vs zerg gameplay, it usually just comes down to the baneling hits. If they can thin out the marines, the rest can get cleaned up by troops that are inferior to the Terran in equal numbers. The zerglings and mutas are mostly just to tank the hits and clean up what's left after the mines/banelings went of. (the interesting part comes from both of those armies being very splitable due to unitspeed and medivacs)
On June 27 2013 05:03 Zarahtra wrote:
The side effect of the protoss power unit design is also the fact that you don't split up the protoss units. Zerg and terran units do better split up, but as we all know, protoss units don't. This prevents multitasking and harass for the most part.
The core problem is not splitting the army for the Protoss. The core problem is that the units are too slow to run away. Just watch a Protoss play with phoenixes. Those are always split from the army. Same often goes for blink stalkers. At the toplevel, many Protoss players poke around against Terrans with them, because they can get away. However most other units cannot get away. It's once again a problem of relations where the Protoss army is simply inferior, this time speed. A Protoss simply can't run from MMMVG with Colossi that poke forward, and he can't pick up and boost away his immortals and sentries against nearly anything zerg.
A Protoss can harass pretty well with zealots and warpins and DTs. He just can't do it without commiting like a zerg who just runs away with little losses or a Terran that just picks up and escapes more often than not.
On June 27 2013 05:03 Zarahtra wrote:Freedictionarie's definition of gimmick is: "a. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus".
From this definition, your definition of gimmick just doesn't make sense. Sure a wall is "deceiving" as in preventing information, but that information only matters for cheese and allins, which I think everyone can concede, allins and cheese is pretty much the definition of gimmicky. Standard playstyle of terran however does not rely on the wall to deceive, and I'd argue it'd only be gimmicky if it was actually some investment into doing it rather than being done byfar most the time.
First of, I don't get why "the Protoss composition is gimmicky..." part of your post fills this definition at all.
Secondly, I was replying to a guy who was talking about how Protoss is gimmicky in the light of "RTS fundamentals". Originally in RTS your buildings were the stuff you wanted to guard with your units and that you did not want your opponent to reach. That's why I say that using buildings to guard your units is actually a quite "gimmicky" concept. It simply does not come naturally to an RTS game and is only useful if you have a lot of special circumstances.
I guess my main objective with saying that is just to shit upon that guy's post who has no clue about the genre RTS and generalizes the statement "this was not how Protoss was in Starcraft1" to "it's against fundamential RTS design". Well, no it's not. In essence SC:BW <<<<<<<<<<<<<< RTS.
On June 27 2013 05:03 Zarahtra wrote:
While neither terran or zerg wants to be scouted, unless you are doing an allin, it hardly matters. The protoss is pretty much expected to know the army composition the opponent is doing. A terran or zerg scouting what the protoss is doing can however be devistating. Both races can then adjust their composition to counter the power unit that the protoss picked to start off with, which can prevent a 3rd from going down or give the z/t a econ advantage if the protoss stays defensive.
Lastly due to all of this, I feel protoss is forced down the path of timing attacks, where the protoss has to use their advantage of power units not being countered perfectly yet. This makes timing attacks, such as fx. 2 colossi timing attack TvP and immo busts so strong. Then there is also the heavy gateway styles which rely on being up 1 production of units(such as TvP's 4 gate, where you have up to +100% army supply compared to terran due to WG). This is what protoss has been balanced around. That means against players with exceptional skill that can smell these kind of plays better, they can defend them way easier(since most of them it's not about skill of defending, but seeing them in advance to put up the defenses). Then in a straight up game, z/t units are better to multitask.
Edit: I think the biggest thing to consider about gimmicky play is which race would be the least comfortable without fog of war? In TvZ I don't think either player would have a big advantage, in TvP and ZvP I think T/Z would be quite delighted and protoss sad.
To a certain extend I agree with you on this. But then again there are and have always been very standard ways to play Protoss that the opponent can prepare pretty blindly for, but he does not really get ahead against. Especially in TvP, where there are just rocksolid 2base tech/upgrade builds from which you just take a third and play a standard macro game.
@the fog of war thing. Well, you'd still not have perfect information with only that. I'd argue that Protoss players would be much more delighted about seeing a Zerg production tab and resource bank then the other way around ("oh, you actually can't afford a muta switch right now." against "what a surprise, you use that robo to build robo-units one at a time")
And for every hidden pylon revealed like that, a Protoss would just be able to catch every drop and never miss a forcefield or flank.
|
On June 27 2013 01:00 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 22:47 Charon1979 wrote:On June 26 2013 20:54 Karpfen wrote:On June 26 2013 15:17 Rabiator wrote:On June 26 2013 14:34 Salient wrote:On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically. I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play. No it shouldnt ... because higher level players can cope with more stuff and faster stuff while wood league players would have no chance to deal with a Hellbat drop or whatever ... unless they specifically prepared for that (and then they get beaten by some other strat they didnt prepare for). This is a GAME and it is supposed to be FUN TO PLAY. It isnt fun if you lose to stuff you are incapable of dealing with. "l2p" doesnt work, because people will not be motivated enough to learn to improve. So ... design the game for FUN has to be the first rule and balancing it for progamers is secondary to that. There is League of Legends for that. I don't want THE esports to get slaughtered because of some babbies wanting the game to be balanced around their level. Those who made the effort to improve with constant playing (or with sheer talent) DESERVE to have the game balanced around them: they are the best ones. If it isn't fun to play for you just quit, don't expect to have the whole game balanced around your laziness and stupidity. Sorry but this is one of the most stupid statements I had to read here. First of all, yes League does that. And guess what? League already SLAUGHTERS SC2 as an e-sport title. Why? Because they balance at EVERY level (sure its easier to balance for everyone because of the number of champs). Do you even realize that your mindset kills SC2 as an e-sports title? Where do you think your average spectator, subsciber or donator comes from? From High Master and Grandmaster? If you lose your base of Bronzies - Diamonds you also lose so much money in this part of the industry... and you just do that in your post by saying "we dont need you playing, we just need you paying!". A core balance should be achieved at any level. League achieves that by having low skillcap champs and high skillcap champs and getting both adjusted according to their relative strenght. In SC2 you just have a "few" units. You have no real "choice" between high skillcap units and low skillcap units. So if one race core units rely on "a-move" to get 80% effect while the other race achieves just 30% wit "a-move" but can go to 150% with "pro-micro" you have a huge balance issue on both levels of play, which WILL cost you players and ultimately viewers. The 3 only reasons why League is more popular: a) it's free, b) it's not as difficult to start off with in terms of mechanics and c) you have a team to blame. SC2 has an insane mechanical requirement compared to League. If you have bad mechanics in SC2, you'll lose. Especially because the ladder is designed to push you to your limits - you'll be playing people who are as good as you according to their MMR. If you have terrible mechanics in League you might still do well if your team is good and you profit from them. If your team does badly, just blame the others. Simple as that. A game like 1v1 SC2 that a) demands more from you mechanically and b) throws it in your face by having nobody else to blame when you lose will never be as popular. Because most people are simpletons and like to think they're good at things they're not actually good at. That's when they have fun. SC2 should not be balanced around being fun. Unit concepts, race concepts, abilities, etc., short: the FUNDAMENTALS should be designed to be fun. After that balance it around the best of the best. The solution for everybody who's not one of the best is to ummm... get better if they want to do better. It's the same with League except that the team concept allows people to continue being ignorant idiots who think they're better than they are for much longer. If you're not having fun because you feel that certain things are too strong at your level then either grind games and get better or shut up and accept the fact that you're not good enough. If you can't do either of those then a 1v1 strategy game is the wrong type of game for you in the first place.
I really do not like the "you have a team to blame" argument at all. You can use any excuse for your losses in either LoL or SC2, whether it be your team, or the game itself; and a team is nothing without every individual, including yourself, playing with coordination which makes the "easier because it's a team game" argument invalid.
I believe there's a misconception about balance having to be around the best of the best. It's not that the game is balanced around the best players, but it's the best players just playing the best. You can say BW is the most balanced game, but it's not just because it is made balanced, but it is a better designed RTS. The mechanics in BW gave a lot more room for improvement and smaller, but a large amount of "skill gaps (worker management, mining, macro, multitask, etc.)" to get over which lead to many innovating in the highest level, and "mechanically balanced" for lower levels. And with that saying leads to this:
"SC2 has an insane mechanical requirement" That's where I find the problem. I don't think SC2 is mechanically inclined ENOUGH. Let's compare SC2 and BW again; BW, like I said, had a lot more room for improvement for mechanics and individual skill, with more "skill gaps" (or whatever less awkward term you want to use, but I'm sticking with that). With the amount of skill gaps in BW, you would have to achieve much more and a lot harder to make a difference between the lowest skill level and to the next skill level. This is where the game becomes mechanically balanced, because of the smaller things you have to do and the smaller things you're probably missing keeping you down with everyone else working on those same mechanics.
Also, I find the 12 unit limit and no MBS alot more fun because it so euphoric getting the feel of running all over your keyboard with "flawless" macro in a much more demanding. Makes me feel like I'm actually a pro . But, I guess that's more of a preference, but it still supports my argument above.
SC2's mechanics being lesser than BW's (unlimited selection, MBS, macro boosts, mining, etc) gives players much bigger gaps with a sturdy iron bridge and crossing one would make a huge "difference in skill level". There are also some smaller gaps that you can walk over but they would not really matter. The flawed race design in SC2 determines these "gaps". That's why, for example, you see the Terran become weak in one league, but very powerful in another while Protoss streamlines. Yes, it's balanced at the highest level but that's only because they are best players. If you look at lower leagues, it's completely different and that turns people away from playing an unbalanced, and not fun game.
I also find the mechanics in SC2 less fun than in BW, but that's just me.
I also don't like how Protoss armor looks very brown and rusty.
|
On June 27 2013 03:37 PeggyHill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:34 vNmMasterT wrote:On June 26 2013 23:12 dargul wrote:Meanwhile in Korean GML: Top10 - 1 zerg 3 terr 6 toss Top25 - 5 zerg 6 terr 14 toss Top50 - 10 zerg 15 terr 25 toss Yeh sure toss is the weakest and need buff ) It's really hard to balance Protoss since the whole race is based on gimmicks and broken RTS fundamentals. I don't believe real RTS players would enjoy the gameplay of Protoss, which mainly consists of cheese/gimmicks, timing attacks, or camping to deathballs. Maybe that's a reason Protoss isn't doing so great in tournaments. Successful protoss play is about doing the “wrong” things right, which inhibits the development and longer term success of the race. If you think that cheesing, timing attacks and deathballs are not RTS fundamentals, you need to watch some Brood War.
Funny you should mention brood war. How about you go watch some brood war to see how protoss gameplay has been severely degraded in sc2?
Also, to give some examples of how Protoss is made of broken fundamentals:
Warp ins: broke the fundamental of defenders advantage, map control, unit positioning (wow! gj browder for this innovative idea)
Force fields: broke the fundamental of using map terrain
Recall: broke the fundamental of travel distance/unit positioning
these are just the most obvious ones on top of my head
On June 27 2013 06:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:03 Zarahtra wrote:On June 27 2013 03:30 Big J wrote:On June 27 2013 03:09 TheDwf wrote:On June 27 2013 02:57 Big J wrote:
Every race is built upon stuff that you can call gimmick in one way or another. Core Starcraft principles like building walls are supergimmicky concepts that only work due to Starcrafts gimmicky grid system and building balancing (units can shoot through them, high HP, cheap - try to do that in one of the fundamental RTS games like Dune2 or CnC).
Starcrafts map design is extremly gimmicky... Basically no other RTS games relies that heavily on concepts like "main bases", "natural expansions", "third bases", "expansions" and "chokes". Most RTS games just design the races in ways that they turn out equal on any map.
And I'm pretty sure that Grubby is a real RTS player and that he enjoys Protoss. I'm not an English native speaker so maybe I'm wrong, but “gimmicky” does not mean “weird”. There is a notion of “relying on novelty” in the word. I thus fail to see how “building walls” is “a supergimmicky concept”?... I'm not a native speaker either and I absolutly didn't want to put it like those things are "weird". But such concepts are not core RTS fundamentals and when stuff like building walls first came up in WC2 (or maybe WC1... never played that), I'd say they were seen as kind of "new and tricky" or however you can best paraphrase gimmicky. In all honesty, I don't see how Protoss is more "gimmicky" at all than the other races. Doing a timing attack seems to be one of the most core strategies in RTS games. Abusing the lack of information ("cheese") is a core concept of any game with finite information. Deathballs/big armies are the reason why many casual players even try RTS games "cool, I can control a whole army in this game and not just one guy with a gun". All of those things are being used in nearly every Terran/Zerg game we see as well. The gimmicky part of protoss is their army composition. Their army might consist of 100-140 army supply, but their dmg dealers consist of only up to about 40 army supply. That means that if the opponent actually counters that 40 army supply well enough, the 60-100 army supply protoss is pretty much screwed. The only real exception to this is blink stalkers, where 100% of your army is doing the dps and tanking. Terran and zerg units are for the most part not only tanks but an active force and a threat. The closest to being a tank are roaches, but zerg players phase them out for the most part through the game, while a protoss can't just phase out building gateway units. I disagree completely with both, notion that a unit that is more on the health than on the damage side is gimmicky - that just doesn't make sense. Neither do I agree with the notion that Protoss is "generally" like that. Everything but the stalker and the sentry has generally a high damage potential. It's just simply the fact that though those units are good damage dealers, their enemy lowtier counterparts are designed to be direct counters to them. So Protoss is forced to go for antilowtier units like colossi/templar - while their general design does not support a hightier only army (so a playstyle with hardly any gatewayunits) for the most parts of the game. Also you are way overexaggerating this. Highlevel Terrans and Zergs for the most part do counter Colossi and Templar close to perfectly already. It's not like most of the Protoss wins come from "he should have just had a few vikings more, which he could have easily had if he had scouted it a little faster". In fact I rather believe that there is a colossus count - like 3 - that is basically uncounterable by just adding AtA units to a ground army, due to how the Colossis still will kill stuff, while the AtA units are an expensive investment that don't help you to win the fight after the Colossi are down. This is not so much a problem of protoss design, but a problem of unit balance. If e.g. the marine/marauder, roach/hydra wouldn't counter the zealot/sentry/stalker, a Protoss would not have to rely on Colossi. The game would just need a slightly adapted balancing for that, but it's not a matter of "Protoss" but just as much a matter of "Zerg" and "Terran". In fact ZvT has a similar dynamic of how in current bio vs zerg gameplay, it usually just comes down to the baneling hits. If they can thin out the marines, the rest can get cleaned up by troops that are inferior to the Terran in equal numbers. The zerglings and mutas are mostly just to tank the hits and clean up what's left after the mines/banelings went of. (the interesting part comes from both of those armies being very splitable due to unitspeed and medivacs) Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:03 Zarahtra wrote:
The side effect of the protoss power unit design is also the fact that you don't split up the protoss units. Zerg and terran units do better split up, but as we all know, protoss units don't. This prevents multitasking and harass for the most part. The core problem is not splitting the army for the Protoss. The core problem is that the units are too slow to run away. Just watch a Protoss play with phoenixes. Those are always split from the army. Same often goes for blink stalkers. At the toplevel, many Protoss players poke around against Terrans with them, because they can get away. However most other units cannot get away. It's once again a problem of relations where the Protoss army is simply inferior, this time speed. A Protoss simply can't run from MMMVG with Colossi that poke forward, and he can't pick up and boost away his immortals and sentries against nearly anything zerg. A Protoss can harass pretty well with zealots and warpins and DTs. He just can't do it without commiting like a zerg who just runs away with little losses or a Terran that just picks up and escapes more often than not. Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:03 Zarahtra wrote:Freedictionarie's definition of gimmick is: "a. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus".
From this definition, your definition of gimmick just doesn't make sense. Sure a wall is "deceiving" as in preventing information, but that information only matters for cheese and allins, which I think everyone can concede, allins and cheese is pretty much the definition of gimmicky. Standard playstyle of terran however does not rely on the wall to deceive, and I'd argue it'd only be gimmicky if it was actually some investment into doing it rather than being done byfar most the time. First of, I don't get why "the Protoss composition is gimmicky..." part of your post fills this definition at all. Secondly, I was replying to a guy who was talking about how Protoss is gimmicky in the light of "RTS fundamentals". Originally in RTS your buildings were the stuff you wanted to guard with your units and that you did not want your opponent to reach. That's why I say that using buildings to guard your units is actually a quite "gimmicky" concept. It simply does not come naturally to an RTS game and is only useful if you have a lot of special circumstances. I guess my main objective with saying that is just to shit upon that guy's post who has no clue about the genre RTS and generalizes the statement "this was not how Protoss was in Starcraft1" to "it's against fundamential RTS design". Well, no it's not. In essence SC:BW <<<<<<<<<<<<<< RTS.Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:03 Zarahtra wrote:
While neither terran or zerg wants to be scouted, unless you are doing an allin, it hardly matters. The protoss is pretty much expected to know the army composition the opponent is doing. A terran or zerg scouting what the protoss is doing can however be devistating. Both races can then adjust their composition to counter the power unit that the protoss picked to start off with, which can prevent a 3rd from going down or give the z/t a econ advantage if the protoss stays defensive.
Lastly due to all of this, I feel protoss is forced down the path of timing attacks, where the protoss has to use their advantage of power units not being countered perfectly yet. This makes timing attacks, such as fx. 2 colossi timing attack TvP and immo busts so strong. Then there is also the heavy gateway styles which rely on being up 1 production of units(such as TvP's 4 gate, where you have up to +100% army supply compared to terran due to WG). This is what protoss has been balanced around. That means against players with exceptional skill that can smell these kind of plays better, they can defend them way easier(since most of them it's not about skill of defending, but seeing them in advance to put up the defenses). Then in a straight up game, z/t units are better to multitask.
Edit: I think the biggest thing to consider about gimmicky play is which race would be the least comfortable without fog of war? In TvZ I don't think either player would have a big advantage, in TvP and ZvP I think T/Z would be quite delighted and protoss sad. To a certain extend I agree with you on this. But then again there are and have always been very standard ways to play Protoss that the opponent can prepare pretty blindly for, but he does not really get ahead against. Especially in TvP, where there are just rocksolid 2base tech/upgrade builds from which you just take a third and play a standard macro game. @the fog of war thing. Well, you'd still not have perfect information with only that. I'd argue that Protoss players would be much more delighted about seeing a Zerg production tab and resource bank then the other way around ("oh, you actually can't afford a muta switch right now." against "what a surprise, you use that robo to build robo-units one at a time") And for every hidden pylon revealed like that, a Protoss would just be able to catch every drop and never miss a forcefield or flank.
Hey man, this wall of text did nothing but shit on your own intelligence. If you think terran walling is "gimmicky" I don't know what to say as you have totally misinterpreted the word's meaning. What I mean by gimmicky is what happens when the opponent knows exactly what you are doing. If the strategy would fail badly each time your opponent has perfect intel, it is gimmicky. Compared to Flash, for example, with solid play which still works vs a maphack opponent. Solid macro play that can adapt and react well vs any opponent response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
