|
On July 29 2013 19:05 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 18:47 pt wrote:On July 29 2013 18:46 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 29 2013 18:43 pt wrote:On July 29 2013 18:32 Sissors wrote:On July 29 2013 18:13 pt wrote:On July 29 2013 18:12 Sissors wrote:On July 29 2013 18:10 pt wrote:On July 29 2013 17:49 Sissors wrote:On July 29 2013 17:44 blade55555 wrote:
[quote]
The game is balanced at diamond level. The reason they lose isn't because of balance, they lose because they need to improve on x part of their play. If it's balanced at pro level, then the games balanced below, they just need to improve. So why shouldn't pros just suck it up and improve if they lose? It isn't like they are anywhere near the theoretical potential of a race. they are the closest. besides, that's a pretty fallacious argument... No telling one group they should just improve, while telling another group the game should be adjusted for them, without a proper reason for the difference, is a fallacious argument. diamond players lack basic skills. they are just learning the game. Right everyone outside the top 2-3% lack basic skills and are just learning the game. Can they tie their own shoe laces, or do they also need help with that according to you? And this completely arbitrary line is based on what? Why not include masters players? Or why not include everyone? Wouldn't that be easy? Then we can completely ignore balance since everyone is still learning the game and lack basic skills. You're saying that balance isn't necessary. Why are you in this thread? I think your sarcasm-radar is malfunctioning. Trolling is so 2005. Or is he serious? Even if he was being sarcastic, I don't get his logic. Let me attempt this... On July 29 2013 17:49 Sissors wrote:On July 29 2013 17:44 blade55555 wrote:
The game is balanced at diamond level. The reason they lose isn't because of balance, they lose because they need to improve on x part of their play. If it's balanced at pro level, then the games balanced below, they just need to improve. So why shouldn't pros just suck it up and improve if they lose? It isn't like they are anywhere near the theoretical potential of a race. I think you're trying to say: Pros can improve too. They should improve before we balance anything. Balance is unnecessary. Correct? Yet it is exactly the same as your logic. You draw a completely arbitrary line, and then you tell that balance is irrelevant under that line (funny part is then you complain I don't want balance...). So I did exactly the same as you did, only I placed the completely arbitrary line somewhere else. Ghanburgan (you need easier name  ) described it well. Only I don't want to go back to only using premier tournaments, but I want it balanced for everyone. Of course that is easier said than done, and on some levels some balance issues are more acceptable than on other levels. But contrary to you (pt) I don't want to tell 98% of the players that they are ignored for balancing since they should just get better. It is a line of reasoning that makes no sense whatsoever since you can tell that to everyone. If Hyun would get automaton 2000 bot level of micro he would be alot better. Yes that is completely unrealistic. Telling noobslayer335 who is ranked gold that he should just Hyun level micro is however just as unrealistic. Edit: And no I wasn't trolling. Sarcasm/reductio ad absurdum is not trolling.
Most people just call me Ghan. And sorry for misrepresenting the last bit of your point.
Edit: It's funny reading Big J's posts. We used to have such long fierce arguments, and now I agree with almost every point.
|
On July 29 2013 21:05 willstertben wrote:
it will never be a very fun experience for viewers or players that take the game seriously at all.
still, it's the best competitive game out there, which is saying more about the current game market than sc2....
I think it's a lot of fun and I am sure there are enough fans out there who think alike. Of course there is and always be something you can improve.
Regarding the linked post on the B-net forums I always ask myself who the hell cares if you stop playing the game? Stop beeing so egocentric.
|
On July 29 2013 21:07 HerrHorst wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 21:05 willstertben wrote:
it will never be a very fun experience for viewers or players that take the game seriously at all.
still, it's the best competitive game out there, which is saying more about the current game market than sc2....
I think it's a lot of fun and I am sure there are enough fans out there who think alike. Of course there is and always be something you can improve. Regarding the linked post on the B-net forums I always ask myself who the hell cares if you stop playing the game? Stop beeing so egocentric.
i just thought i'd give my opinion on hots while people were discussing it.
good for you if you're having fun.
also apparently that guy was some kind of community figure there from what i understood so naturally people are gonna care
that he's quitting.
|
On July 29 2013 21:06 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 19:05 Sissors wrote:On July 29 2013 18:47 pt wrote:On July 29 2013 18:46 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 29 2013 18:43 pt wrote:On July 29 2013 18:32 Sissors wrote:On July 29 2013 18:13 pt wrote:On July 29 2013 18:12 Sissors wrote:On July 29 2013 18:10 pt wrote:On July 29 2013 17:49 Sissors wrote:
[quote]
So why shouldn't pros just suck it up and improve if they lose? It isn't like they are anywhere near the theoretical potential of a race. they are the closest. besides, that's a pretty fallacious argument... No telling one group they should just improve, while telling another group the game should be adjusted for them, without a proper reason for the difference, is a fallacious argument. diamond players lack basic skills. they are just learning the game. Right everyone outside the top 2-3% lack basic skills and are just learning the game. Can they tie their own shoe laces, or do they also need help with that according to you? And this completely arbitrary line is based on what? Why not include masters players? Or why not include everyone? Wouldn't that be easy? Then we can completely ignore balance since everyone is still learning the game and lack basic skills. You're saying that balance isn't necessary. Why are you in this thread? I think your sarcasm-radar is malfunctioning. Trolling is so 2005. Or is he serious? Even if he was being sarcastic, I don't get his logic. Let me attempt this... On July 29 2013 17:49 Sissors wrote:On July 29 2013 17:44 blade55555 wrote:
The game is balanced at diamond level. The reason they lose isn't because of balance, they lose because they need to improve on x part of their play. If it's balanced at pro level, then the games balanced below, they just need to improve. So why shouldn't pros just suck it up and improve if they lose? It isn't like they are anywhere near the theoretical potential of a race. I think you're trying to say: Pros can improve too. They should improve before we balance anything. Balance is unnecessary. Correct? Yet it is exactly the same as your logic. You draw a completely arbitrary line, and then you tell that balance is irrelevant under that line (funny part is then you complain I don't want balance...). So I did exactly the same as you did, only I placed the completely arbitrary line somewhere else. Ghanburgan (you need easier name ) described it well. Only I don't want to go back to only using premier tournaments, but I want it balanced for everyone. Of course that is easier said than done, and on some levels some balance issues are more acceptable than on other levels. But contrary to you (pt) I don't want to tell 98% of the players that they are ignored for balancing since they should just get better. It is a line of reasoning that makes no sense whatsoever since you can tell that to everyone. If Hyun would get automaton 2000 bot level of micro he would be alot better. Yes that is completely unrealistic. Telling noobslayer335 who is ranked gold that he should just Hyun level micro is however just as unrealistic. Edit: And no I wasn't trolling. Sarcasm/reductio ad absurdum is not trolling. Most people just call me Ghan. And sorry for misrepresenting the last bit of your point. Edit: It's funny reading Big J's posts. We used to have such long fierce arguments, and now I agree with almost every point.
Hehe, I think we have both become a little more careful in our argumentation as well as our views over time. 
|
On July 29 2013 17:49 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 17:44 blade55555 wrote:On July 29 2013 03:01 Thruth wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene. The game is balanced at diamond level. The reason they lose isn't because of balance, they lose because they need to improve on x part of their play. If it's balanced at pro level, then the games balanced below, they just need to improve. So why shouldn't pros just suck it up and improve if they lose? It isn't like they are anywhere near the theoretical potential of a race.
I would be interested to know more about that "theoretical potential of the races" ... and since you seem to know where that lies you could explain it.
Otherwise I would rather consider it as an empty phrase which you use to convince yourself that the opinion of the person you are talking to is invalid.
Personally I believe that there is no real solid skill ceiling for pros and a rather fluctuating importance of unit X or unit Y for a time. The skill ceiling simply doesnt exist because success in the game is too dependant upon split second reactions of your opponent ... in short you have to rely upon your opponet screwing up and thus you arent the master of your own destiny. In BW all the effort to win in a tough and evenly matched situation - breaking through a solid siege line for example - lies with the attacker, but in SC2 you have Banelings for example and the reactions of the defender determine if your useage of them is a resounding success or a waste of gas and larvae. Sure enough there are units which can be used offensively to push for a win yourself - stuff like good useage of Fungal or Forcefield can make or break an attack - but those are only very minimal portions of an army and directly controlling your own fate is not possible ... you need the cooperation of the "lack of talent" of your opponent.
---
In general any "l2p" comments - such as the one made by blade55555 - in a balance thread are rather terrible, because that just means the game is NOT balanced for low level players ... and that should never be the case. His claim that the game is balanced for lowbies if it is balanced for pros is rather ignorant, because it totally ignores the change of power of a unit - such as the Oracle - when it is faced with longer reaction time. At that level of play such units usually become rather OP, but it isnt only limited to certain unity but also the big clumpy deathball allows an attacker to win more easily than a defender, because usually attacking requires far less effort than defending. It needs to be the other way round for "skill at using units" to have a meaning.
Personally I would say that for low level players the game becomes more and more coinflip game because the potentially super efficient harrassment units like the Oracle cant be defended against that easily if your response time is high. From a mathematical standpoint it is "balanced" but that isnt really the case, because it isnt a strategy game anymore and rather more dependant upon luck and "drawing the gun first".
|
On July 29 2013 23:19 Rabiator wrote:
In general any "l2p" comments - such as the one made by blade55555 - in a balance thread are rather terrible, because that just means the game is NOT balanced for low level players ... and that should never be the case. His claim that the game is balanced for lowbies if it is balanced for pros is rather ignorant, because it totally ignores the change of power of a unit - such as the Oracle - when it is faced with longer reaction time. At that level of play such units usually become rather OP, but it isnt only limited to certain unity but also the big clumpy deathball allows an attacker to win more easily than a defender, because usually attacking requires far less effort than defending. It needs to be the other way round for "skill at using units" to have a meaning.
Personally I would say that for low level players the game becomes more and more coinflip game because the potentially super efficient harrassment units like the Oracle cant be defended against that easily if your response time is high. From a mathematical standpoint it is "balanced" but that isnt really the case, because it isnt a strategy game anymore and rather more dependant upon luck and "drawing the gun first".
I usually disagree with Rabiator, but I agree with this.
Just take example of Marines and Marauders vs. Zerglings and Banelings. At top level, you see constant battles with units like these, players with better micro, splitting and engagements wins. Now, take a look at the lower levels(bronze, silver, gold). Players barely micro there, and Banelings are obvious winners, since they eat clumped units for breakfast, especially Marines, their favorite food. If Terran player has to improve his play from Silver to Gold or Platinum level to be able to beat Silver league Zerg, I don't see better indication of imbalance at lower levels.
|
On July 29 2013 23:58 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 23:19 Rabiator wrote:
In general any "l2p" comments - such as the one made by blade55555 - in a balance thread are rather terrible, because that just means the game is NOT balanced for low level players ... and that should never be the case. His claim that the game is balanced for lowbies if it is balanced for pros is rather ignorant, because it totally ignores the change of power of a unit - such as the Oracle - when it is faced with longer reaction time. At that level of play such units usually become rather OP, but it isnt only limited to certain unity but also the big clumpy deathball allows an attacker to win more easily than a defender, because usually attacking requires far less effort than defending. It needs to be the other way round for "skill at using units" to have a meaning.
Personally I would say that for low level players the game becomes more and more coinflip game because the potentially super efficient harrassment units like the Oracle cant be defended against that easily if your response time is high. From a mathematical standpoint it is "balanced" but that isnt really the case, because it isnt a strategy game anymore and rather more dependant upon luck and "drawing the gun first". I usually disagree with Rabiator, but I agree with this. Just take example of Marines and Marauders vs. Zerglings and Banelings. At top level, you see constant battles with units like these, players with better micro, splitting and engagements wins. Now, take a look at the lower levels(bronze, silver, gold). Players barely micro there, and Banelings are obvious winners, since they eat clumped units for breakfast, especially Marines, their favorite food. If Terran player has to improve his play from Silver to Gold or Platinum level to be able to beat Silver league Zerg, I don't see better indication of imbalance at lower levels.
or a silver player not scouting cloak banshee and losing the game or not scouting mass BF helions or not scouting DTs or dying to a move colossus or storm or mass tanks. every race has those OP stuff at lower levels so it evens out. if you would want to take away the stuff thats OP on low level you would have to basically remove all AoE and cloak/burrowed stuff since thats the real problem for low level players since those are the units that require special micro against, good scouting and positioning etc.
|
On July 29 2013 19:23 SsDrKosS wrote:People! Is there a thread talking about design in team liquid? I got gradually bored with the current gameplays. I'm not saying that starcraft 2 is a wreck, but it could have been better. I thought the problem was rooted in balance but now I realise that is a secondary issue. But as time passes and watching the pro games, I realised some problems (esp terran and protoss) and this guy in bnet raised fairly reasonable point (I didn't know that he was that famous though :D) http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9561436447
I sort of stopped reading at the point where he said WoL was a better game...
|
On July 29 2013 23:19 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 17:49 Sissors wrote:On July 29 2013 17:44 blade55555 wrote:On July 29 2013 03:01 Thruth wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene. The game is balanced at diamond level. The reason they lose isn't because of balance, they lose because they need to improve on x part of their play. If it's balanced at pro level, then the games balanced below, they just need to improve. So why shouldn't pros just suck it up and improve if they lose? It isn't like they are anywhere near the theoretical potential of a race. I would be interested to know more about that "theoretical potential of the races" ... and since you seem to know where that lies you could explain it. Otherwise I would rather consider it as an empty phrase which you use to convince yourself that the opinion of the person you are talking to is invalid. Personally I believe that there is no real solid skill ceiling for pros and a rather fluctuating importance of unit X or unit Y for a time. The skill ceiling simply doesnt exist because success in the game is too dependant upon split second reactions of your opponent ... in short you have to rely upon your opponet screwing up and thus you arent the master of your own destiny. In BW all the effort to win in a tough and evenly matched situation - breaking through a solid siege line for example - lies with the attacker, but in SC2 you have Banelings for example and the reactions of the defender determine if your useage of them is a resounding success or a waste of gas and larvae. Sure enough there are units which can be used offensively to push for a win yourself - stuff like good useage of Fungal or Forcefield can make or break an attack - but those are only very minimal portions of an army and directly controlling your own fate is not possible ... you need the cooperation of the "lack of talent" of your opponent. --- In general any "l2p" comments - such as the one made by blade55555 - in a balance thread are rather terrible, because that just means the game is NOT balanced for low level players ... and that should never be the case. His claim that the game is balanced for lowbies if it is balanced for pros is rather ignorant, because it totally ignores the change of power of a unit - such as the Oracle - when it is faced with longer reaction time. At that level of play such units usually become rather OP, but it isnt only limited to certain unity but also the big clumpy deathball allows an attacker to win more easily than a defender, because usually attacking requires far less effort than defending. It needs to be the other way round for "skill at using units" to have a meaning. Personally I would say that for low level players the game becomes more and more coinflip game because the potentially super efficient harrassment units like the Oracle cant be defended against that easily if your response time is high. From a mathematical standpoint it is "balanced" but that isnt really the case, because it isnt a strategy game anymore and rather more dependant upon luck and "drawing the gun first".
Because of the way MMR works you will always be matched up against people who are just about as bad as you are and thus you will win or lose about 50% of the time. If you're getting better you'll win more than 50% and if you're getting worse (in each case relative to your opponents) you will lose more than 50% of the time. Because of this structure balance is completely unnecessary at the lower levels of play; the game will balance itself out -- you will eventually lose enough that you'll get matched up with someone just as bad as you are. Even at the GM level if there is a balance issue, as a practical matter, who cares unless it impacts tournament results? I'm sure it sucks to lose on ladder but those are the breaks.
The only reason why the opinions of anyone other than the very best players in the world (the top 50-100 or so) should be consulted at all is that they are the consumer, and thus if the game isn't fun for the casual players this is an issue. Balance is completely and absolutely irrelevant. Imagine if Blizzard actually listened to a "Rabiator" about balance. The game would be such an irredeemable pile of garbled nonsense that it wouldn't even, I'd guess, appeal to you. So Blizzard should consult casual players, who make up 99.999% of the player population about what they think is fun or not so fun. They should also consult viewers (who are usually also players) about what they find entertaining or not so entertaining about pro grames. Lastly, they should consult pros for potential balance issues, but really you can only take what the pros say with a grain of salt, since they're usually quite transparently biased about balance issues. For obvious reasons Blizzard can't consult your average run of the mill players for balance suggestions since what they say is almost always tied to his or her own playing experiences and thus meaningless or simply ignorant.
|
On July 30 2013 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 19:23 SsDrKosS wrote:People! Is there a thread talking about design in team liquid? I got gradually bored with the current gameplays. I'm not saying that starcraft 2 is a wreck, but it could have been better. I thought the problem was rooted in balance but now I realise that is a secondary issue. But as time passes and watching the pro games, I realised some problems (esp terran and protoss) and this guy in bnet raised fairly reasonable point (I didn't know that he was that famous though :D) http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9561436447 I sort of stopped reading at the point where he said WoL was a better game...
this is a matter of opinion and some people (including me) genuinely think WOL was a better game.
everything people hated about wol (50 min turtle fest, deathballs, strength of allins, coinflip factor, bad balance) is still there and in most cases even worse.
really don't understand why anyone would think hots is better, but i'll try to respect your opinion, cause in the end that's what it's about when discussing what's a better game.
|
HAHAHAHA at @willstertben Dude ppl that liked WOL were zerg players.... end of discussion hahahaha
|
On July 30 2013 02:06 willstertben wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 29 2013 19:23 SsDrKosS wrote:People! Is there a thread talking about design in team liquid? I got gradually bored with the current gameplays. I'm not saying that starcraft 2 is a wreck, but it could have been better. I thought the problem was rooted in balance but now I realise that is a secondary issue. But as time passes and watching the pro games, I realised some problems (esp terran and protoss) and this guy in bnet raised fairly reasonable point (I didn't know that he was that famous though :D) http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9561436447 I sort of stopped reading at the point where he said WoL was a better game... this is a matter of opinion and some people (including me) genuinely think WOL was a better game. everything people hated about wol (50 min turtle fest, deathballs, strength of allins, coinflip factor, bad balance) is still there and in most cases even worse.
Are we watching the same game? I don't see Zerg turtling every single P/TvZ to an unbeatable Infestor/BL/Spine/Spore/Queen composition that just kills everything. I don't see Protoss players Soul Training literally every PvZ in order to break even. I don't see Terran players playing as greedily as physically possible (even allowing themselves to be all-inned) in order to offset the Queen buff which made early pressure not worthwhile.
Seriously, there's no matchup that isn't better than it was at the end of WoL. Maybe TvT? But other than that, not one matchup is worse.
really don't understand why anyone would think hots is better, but i'll try to respect your opinion, cause in the end that's what it's about when discussing what's a better game.
Because HotS killed most of the utterly retarded/boring stuff in WoL (Infestor/BL, Soul Train, warp on high ground) and gave people actual aggressive options that aren't all-in and that promote actually doing something in the midgame. The only matchup that still has some problems in this regard is PvT, which is pretty much identical to WoL but even more passive. PvZ is worlds better, even if it still sucks, because nobody goes Infestor/BL anymore (thank the fucking Starcraft gods).
|
I don't understand why they don't put the pylon radius back to the size it used to be. They changed it so it was harder to warp in on the high ground and then they took away warping in on the high ground but didn't revert the pylon radius.
|
On July 30 2013 02:13 Pirfiktshon wrote:
HAHAHAHA at @willstertben Dude ppl that liked WOL were zerg players.... end of discussion hahahaha
actually that guy who wrote about why he hates hots plays terran and says widow mines are op.
i provided way more reasons than balance why i think hots is a worse game too.
maybe you should read before posting shit?
also i didn't play infestor BL cause i thought it was imbalanced.
any more to say to me?
|
On July 30 2013 02:06 willstertben wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 29 2013 19:23 SsDrKosS wrote:People! Is there a thread talking about design in team liquid? I got gradually bored with the current gameplays. I'm not saying that starcraft 2 is a wreck, but it could have been better. I thought the problem was rooted in balance but now I realise that is a secondary issue. But as time passes and watching the pro games, I realised some problems (esp terran and protoss) and this guy in bnet raised fairly reasonable point (I didn't know that he was that famous though :D) http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9561436447 I sort of stopped reading at the point where he said WoL was a better game... this is a matter of opinion and some people (including me) genuinely think WOL was a better game. everything people hated about wol (50 min turtle fest, deathballs, strength of allins, coinflip factor, bad balance) is still there and in most cases even worse. really don't understand why anyone would think hots is better, but i'll try to respect your opinion, cause in the end that's what it's about when discussing what's a better game.
I think it's pretty clear that wol is NOT a better game than hots. Otherwise, ppl proly wouldn't have come back to sc2, like select.
|
On July 30 2013 02:24 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 02:06 willstertben wrote:On July 30 2013 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 29 2013 19:23 SsDrKosS wrote:People! Is there a thread talking about design in team liquid? I got gradually bored with the current gameplays. I'm not saying that starcraft 2 is a wreck, but it could have been better. I thought the problem was rooted in balance but now I realise that is a secondary issue. But as time passes and watching the pro games, I realised some problems (esp terran and protoss) and this guy in bnet raised fairly reasonable point (I didn't know that he was that famous though :D) http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9561436447 I sort of stopped reading at the point where he said WoL was a better game... this is a matter of opinion and some people (including me) genuinely think WOL was a better game. everything people hated about wol (50 min turtle fest, deathballs, strength of allins, coinflip factor, bad balance) is still there and in most cases even worse. Are we watching the same game? I don't see Zerg turtling every single P/TvZ to an unbeatable Infestor/BL/Spine/Spore/Queen composition that just kills everything. I don't see Protoss players Soul Training literally every PvZ in order to break even. I don't see Terran players playing as greedily as physically possible (even allowing themselves to be all-inned) in order to offset the Queen buff which made early pressure not worthwhile. Seriously, there's no matchup that isn't better than it was at the end of WoL. Maybe TvT? But other than that, not one matchup is worse. Show nested quote +really don't understand why anyone would think hots is better, but i'll try to respect your opinion, cause in the end that's what it's about when discussing what's a better game. Because HotS killed most of the utterly retarded/boring stuff in WoL (Infestor/BL, Soul Train, warp on high ground) and gave people actual aggressive options that aren't all-in and that promote actually doing something in the midgame. The only matchup that still has some problems in this regard is PvT, which is pretty much identical to WoL but even more passive. PvZ is worlds better, even if it still sucks, because nobody goes Infestor/BL anymore (thank the fucking Starcraft gods).
turtle issues:
zergs turtling EVEN HARDER with swarm hosts vs protoss (explain to me why you like swarm host turtle bullshit more than infestor bl turtle bullshit please. infestor bl at least required micro on the zerg part, swarm hosts require none).
zergs are FORCED to hardcore turtle vs terran with never leaving base vs terran without roach bling allin
harassing is impossible for zerg thanks to turrets and pf (AWFUL idea, whoever actually put this thing in the game should never work on a rts again)
zerg leaves his base before 500 spines spores and huge bank? terran drops zerg lost.
protoss turtles with air ht
pf still exists
terran greed:
you see terran still greeding just like before.
soul train:
soul train still exists in many versions and is even stronger cause MSC, and terran has a build similar to it in 3 bases 65 scv marine rally
pvt is exactly the same shit matchup it was in WOL except protoss now is 100% unbreakable early game and has way more allins/cheeses.
also:
late game protoss and terran are now unattackable for zerg cause bl arent viable and everything else can't attack into building walls (outside of swarm hosts)
late game protoss armies are now straight up unbeatable for zerg without mass SH turtle and spine support cause there is no counter to void rays + ht, therefore FORCING zerg to allin before ht or hardcore turtle SH bullshit.
65 scv marine rally is NOT possible to hold as zerg without suffering critical damage when terran does it correctly.
|
On July 30 2013 02:06 willstertben wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 29 2013 19:23 SsDrKosS wrote:People! Is there a thread talking about design in team liquid? I got gradually bored with the current gameplays. I'm not saying that starcraft 2 is a wreck, but it could have been better. I thought the problem was rooted in balance but now I realise that is a secondary issue. But as time passes and watching the pro games, I realised some problems (esp terran and protoss) and this guy in bnet raised fairly reasonable point (I didn't know that he was that famous though :D) http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9561436447 I sort of stopped reading at the point where he said WoL was a better game... this is a matter of opinion and some people (including me) genuinely think WOL was a better game. everything people hated about wol (50 min turtle fest, deathballs, strength of allins, coinflip factor, bad balance) is still there and in most cases even worse. really don't understand why anyone would think hots is better, but i'll try to respect your opinion, cause in the end that's what it's about when discussing what's a better game.
I enjoyed wings quite a bit, but the last 6 months or so was frankly a joke. Bl/infestor made many of my friends quit and Zerg ruined the SC2 experience for me.
I like HOTS more because it seems like it rewards the better, more mechanically gifted player. The fact that the gap between foreigners and Koreans is larger now than it has ever been is a good sign, it means that HOTS increased the skillcap. Protoss has much more harass options now, as does Terran, and Zerg has options besides Bl/infestor.
|
On July 30 2013 03:02 Rhaegal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 02:06 willstertben wrote:On July 30 2013 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 29 2013 19:23 SsDrKosS wrote:People! Is there a thread talking about design in team liquid? I got gradually bored with the current gameplays. I'm not saying that starcraft 2 is a wreck, but it could have been better. I thought the problem was rooted in balance but now I realise that is a secondary issue. But as time passes and watching the pro games, I realised some problems (esp terran and protoss) and this guy in bnet raised fairly reasonable point (I didn't know that he was that famous though :D) http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9561436447 I sort of stopped reading at the point where he said WoL was a better game... this is a matter of opinion and some people (including me) genuinely think WOL was a better game. everything people hated about wol (50 min turtle fest, deathballs, strength of allins, coinflip factor, bad balance) is still there and in most cases even worse. really don't understand why anyone would think hots is better, but i'll try to respect your opinion, cause in the end that's what it's about when discussing what's a better game. I like HOTS more because it seems like it rewards the better, more mechanically gifted player.
explain to me why hyun and jaedong aren't crushing everyone then.
and why life lost to sjow.
i hope you guys realize though that there is no basis other than opinion to argue which game is better?
there will never be a conclusion. if you really want to argue with me though i can keep going and tell you why you are wrong.
: )
|
On July 30 2013 03:11 willstertben wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 03:02 Rhaegal wrote:On July 30 2013 02:06 willstertben wrote:On July 30 2013 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 29 2013 19:23 SsDrKosS wrote:People! Is there a thread talking about design in team liquid? I got gradually bored with the current gameplays. I'm not saying that starcraft 2 is a wreck, but it could have been better. I thought the problem was rooted in balance but now I realise that is a secondary issue. But as time passes and watching the pro games, I realised some problems (esp terran and protoss) and this guy in bnet raised fairly reasonable point (I didn't know that he was that famous though :D) http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9561436447 I sort of stopped reading at the point where he said WoL was a better game... this is a matter of opinion and some people (including me) genuinely think WOL was a better game. everything people hated about wol (50 min turtle fest, deathballs, strength of allins, coinflip factor, bad balance) is still there and in most cases even worse. really don't understand why anyone would think hots is better, but i'll try to respect your opinion, cause in the end that's what it's about when discussing what's a better game. I like HOTS more because it seems like it rewards the better, more mechanically gifted player. explain to me why hyun and jaedong aren't crushing everyone then. and why life lost to sjow.
LoL, I love these comments, they are the best. Life has a bad series and Sjow wins because he is on fire, yet somehow its a flaw with the game that caused Life to lose. Jaedong and Hyun get beaten by other high level players and its clearly the fault of SC2 and not that their opponents played well.
|
On July 30 2013 03:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 03:11 willstertben wrote:On July 30 2013 03:02 Rhaegal wrote:On July 30 2013 02:06 willstertben wrote:On July 30 2013 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On July 29 2013 19:23 SsDrKosS wrote:People! Is there a thread talking about design in team liquid? I got gradually bored with the current gameplays. I'm not saying that starcraft 2 is a wreck, but it could have been better. I thought the problem was rooted in balance but now I realise that is a secondary issue. But as time passes and watching the pro games, I realised some problems (esp terran and protoss) and this guy in bnet raised fairly reasonable point (I didn't know that he was that famous though :D) http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9561436447 I sort of stopped reading at the point where he said WoL was a better game... this is a matter of opinion and some people (including me) genuinely think WOL was a better game. everything people hated about wol (50 min turtle fest, deathballs, strength of allins, coinflip factor, bad balance) is still there and in most cases even worse. really don't understand why anyone would think hots is better, but i'll try to respect your opinion, cause in the end that's what it's about when discussing what's a better game. I like HOTS more because it seems like it rewards the better, more mechanically gifted player. explain to me why hyun and jaedong aren't crushing everyone then. and why life lost to sjow. LoL, I love these comments, they are the best. Life has a bad series and Sjow wins because he is on fire, yet somehow its a flaw with the game that caused Life to lose. Jaedong and Hyun get beaten by other high level players and its clearly the fault of SC2 and not that their opponents played well.
you simply ignore the context? great. you don't get a real response then.
edit: ok whatever: life lost mainly because of hellbats. the power of these against lings were (actually they still are, they still 2shot lings and force drones to evacuate, but don't tell terrans please, they somehow think it doesn't work anymore thank god) a flaw in the game.
saying sjow played better in that series when life almost beat him from being 3 base vs 3 and 2-2 vs 3-3 is laughable.
also nice macro floating 2k minerals on 2 base then make 5 hellbats at once and allin.
hyun and jaedong are 2 of the best mechanical players ever period. both aren't close to what innovation is, and are more or less the same level as in WOL.
so saying it rewards the mechanically superior player more than WOL is just wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
