On August 20 2013 08:02 aZealot wrote: I'm ashamed to say this, but I like Starcraft 2. I know, I know, stone me now...
I'm with you on that. I like playing it, I really like watching it. Since HotS fixed PvP, there actually aren't any matchups I hate. There are lot of players of all 3 races who I enjoy watching.
The number of people who devote tons of timing to watching, playing and analyzing a game they apparently despise sort of baffles me.
That would be a case of the vocal minority and the silent majority. You would think that with tournaments like WCS EU (which pulled over 100k viewers in season 1), the vast majority of those 100k are actually watching because they enjoy the game. There are always people who make you feel like the scene is dying, the game is fundamentally flawed, and there is no enjoyment to be had.
The scene has is somewhat dying incase you didn't know as LoL/Dota is literally taking over. Its also the case when you look at the real life crowds at the tournaments and see empty seats/barely filling up the stadium compared to what is was before in the days of BW. Its not an exaggeration because Ive witnessed it personally.
The game is fundamentally flawed hence why the term "one-dimensional" gets thrown around alot. Ive never seen KeSPA players complain about the game being boring, or that its just a job, or retiring because theres no fun in it unlike BW. It isn't a coincidence or some act of anti-blizzardism. It's the truth. Diablo 3 is a prime example of this and hence why its being re-vamped as we speak.. yet they won't do it with SC2.
Let me ask you. Do you think this game can be popular for 10+ years? BW was able to do it (still drawing huge numbers even after years) and even after the 1000th TvP/TvT/TvZ/PvZ witnessed on the screen, it NEVER got boring. That is the key difference.
So what if LoL/Dota are taking over? What relevance has that to SC2? They are different genres of game. But, again, this is a discussion I don't want to get into, because I really do not see the point. (Largely, because I think you really don't have one). Some games have their time - maybe the time of RTS was with BW? And even then, these magnificent tournaments were in one country. Where was the international scene for this exciting game? And, even if the scene does die, so what? LoL/Dota will die too in their own time. So what? I've had a damned good run with SC2. Haven't you?
A lot of terms get thrown around a lot. "One dimensional" is one of them. That does not make it true. As to KESPA players which ones? The ones, maybe, who are not succeeding or not succeeding as much as they used to in BW? Has there been a poll that I've missed? Is Flash unhappy? He needs to harden up. Maybe he does not like not being God anymore? Maybe the drive to be at the top is missing from his SC2 play? If so, what is strange in that. Sports (indeed any area of human activity) is full of people who having once achieved something, lack the energy to repeat that same effort again.
Will this game be popular in ten years? I don't know and I don't care. (Neither is BW able to do it - what huge crowds and where?) More to the point, it does not matter. Believe me, lying on my deathbed I won't be thinking, "Fuck you Blizzard design team, you ruined my life!" People need to take a deep breath, step back, and get some perspective.
Enjoy the game for what it is. If it stops giving you any enjoyment, move on. There are more important things than Starcraft.
Yet your on TL how strange. I love when people make comments like "more important things than starcraft" straw-men arguments on TL.
Yeah, I'm on TL because I like SC2. I like playing it. I like watching it. I like Protoss. Did you not see my comment earlier?
I have little patience with design whine. And I'm someone who when he first joined TL did moan about Protoss and cry because I thought WG made Protoss "weak". I like to think I've made some progress since then.
So yeah. I enjoy SC2. When I stop enjoying it, I'll stop playing and leave TL. With thanks to Blizzard for a fun game, lots of good times, and no regrets (other than wishing I had gotten over my ladder anxiety earlier and played more games!).
On August 20 2013 10:01 YyapSsap wrote: Its quite sad actually that most people who put time and effort into design discussion really care for this game because there is potential to be better yet their voice isn't heard by the devs.
The thing you don't realize is that "their voice" can't be heard. People complain about SC2 for reason x, y and z. If the devs were to pay attention to every single complaint by the community, their game would be reduced to next to nothing.
Quick example. You probably think your post summarizes quite well the problems that people have with the design of SC2. Well, it does, but it also doesn't. You're the first one I've seen complaining about protoss overwhelming his opponent, mainly because that claim is just wrong: you almost always have a supply deficit as protoss because you're teching for the more powerful, more alien-y technology. Moreso, it's been a while since I watched the Day9 BW casts, but I remember seeing a lot of games where the protoss had large supply advantage (especially in PvT I think), and it was just standard gameplay? I'm sorry if I'm wrong about this but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
I could do the same thing about the archon "engagement" issue that you mention. First time I see this mentioned, and first time I see anyone mention that something as marginal as this could ever matter.
That's why you have a problem. You're being outraged that devs don't "fix" things, but there is no actual consensus on what to fix. A ton of people tell you they enjoy protoss in SC2 right there on this thread, and I do too myself. Why shouldn't the devs hear us as well?
4 gate all ins aren't overwhelming your opponent with shear warp ins? Blink stalkers? If you carefully observe those warp in based rushes, its basically getting as many warp-ins possible (building workers have stopped along time ago) and then simply overwhelming your opponents one bunker or a few spine crawlers etc. Its not strange to see 20+ stalkers in your base after failing to hold the blink rush.. since the numbers keep piling up.
You're just illustrating why it's a good thing that the devs do NOT jump in to fix every complaint. You've taken one build in the protoss gameplay and you're arbitrarily stating that the whole race design revolves around it. It doesn't, at all. The macro builds revolve around teching to powerful units that usually aren't massed, just like you claimed they don't. Even most of the viable all-ins rely on getting specific tech units, like oracle or immortal. You've taken the exception and made it the rule because you wanted to see something. People always see what they want to see.
On August 20 2013 10:01 YyapSsap wrote: Its quite sad actually that most people who put time and effort into design discussion really care for this game because there is potential to be better yet their voice isn't heard by the devs.
The thing you don't realize is that "their voice" can't be heard. People complain about SC2 for reason x, y and z. If the devs were to pay attention to every single complaint by the community, their game would be reduced to next to nothing.
Quick example. You probably think your post summarizes quite well the problems that people have with the design of SC2. Well, it does, but it also doesn't. You're the first one I've seen complaining about protoss overwhelming his opponent, mainly because that claim is just wrong: you almost always have a supply deficit as protoss because you're teching for the more powerful, more alien-y technology. Moreso, it's been a while since I watched the Day9 BW casts, but I remember seeing a lot of games where the protoss had large supply advantage (especially in PvT I think), and it was just standard gameplay? I'm sorry if I'm wrong about this but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
I could do the same thing about the archon "engagement" issue that you mention. First time I see this mentioned, and first time I see anyone mention that something as marginal as this could ever matter.
That's why you have a problem. You're being outraged that devs don't "fix" things, but there is no actual consensus on what to fix. A ton of people tell you they enjoy protoss in SC2 right there on this thread, and I do too myself. Why shouldn't the devs hear us as well?
4 gate all ins aren't overwhelming your opponent with shear warp ins? Blink stalkers? If you carefully observe those warp in based rushes, its basically getting as many warp-ins possible (building workers have stopped along time ago) and then simply overwhelming your opponents one bunker or a few spine crawlers etc. Its not strange to see 20+ stalkers in your base after failing to hold the blink rush.. since the numbers keep piling up.
You're just illustrating why it's a good thing that the devs do NOT jump in to fix every complaint. You've taken one build in the protoss gameplay and you're arbitrarily stating that the whole race design revolves around it. It doesn't, at all. The macro builds revolve around teching to powerful units that usually aren't massed, just like you claimed they don't. Even most of the viable all-ins rely on getting specific tech units, like oracle or immortal. You've taken the exception and made it the rule because you wanted to see something. People always see what they want to see.
One build? Oh the irony. All the all-ins are off the warp gate mechanic. 4 gate, 3/4 gate robo all in, stargate 3/4 gate all in, xxx + xx gate all in. I think your the one thats being blind. Just look at the army value graph at the end of the game. Every all in protoss does will have a sudden peak (chrono warp gate, warp in many units as possible and then overwhelm the defense). Sure which will have that unique unit (immortal/voidray w.e) but primarily the protoss needs to spam as many gateway units possible for the attack. Terran needs to build units from the start for an all in. Zerg is sort of like protoss in this case but they need to spawn them from larvae en mass.
"The macro builds revolve around teching to powerful units that usually aren't massed" What so your protoss deathball is just gateway based?? You'd want as many HTs/Colossus as possible with a decent meat/tanking units at the front.
On August 20 2013 12:46 aZealot wrote: Yeah, I'm on TL because I like SC2. I like playing it. I like watching it. I like Protoss. Did you not see my comment earlier?
I have little patience with design whine. And I'm someone who when he first joined TL did moan about Protoss and cry because I thought WG made Protoss "weak". I like to think I've made some progress since then.
So yeah. I enjoy SC2. When I stop enjoying it, I'll stop playing and leave TL. With thanks to Blizzard for a fun game, lots of good times, and no regrets (other than wishing I had gotten over my ladder anxiety earlier and played more games!).
Can you say the same?
Why do you think its bad to express your concerns on the design of the game?
From a negative perspective, I could just may well say that you gave up and started hypnotising yourself that its a "good" game and that your supposedly enjoying it. What a load of rubbish. If its bad it is bad. If you think WG made protoss weak, so be it and dont be ashamed because more than half the protoss players would support you on that one.
Fact of the matter is that we are blizzards customers. We all know deep inside that this game could be worlds better and more interesting. The sad thing is that the devs wont acknowledge this or admit to their mistakes (Just look at how many times the bunker was patched, or the out of nowhere queen patch what?) warhounds??? As a customer, you have the right to express your opinion on the service or the goods provided. Thats why i really envy Riot devs or even the valve dota team because they listen to the community even if its over +100,000 suggestions that the community is making.
On August 20 2013 12:46 aZealot wrote: Yeah, I'm on TL because I like SC2. I like playing it. I like watching it. I like Protoss. Did you not see my comment earlier?
I have little patience with design whine. And I'm someone who when he first joined TL did moan about Protoss and cry because I thought WG made Protoss "weak". I like to think I've made some progress since then.
So yeah. I enjoy SC2. When I stop enjoying it, I'll stop playing and leave TL. With thanks to Blizzard for a fun game, lots of good times, and no regrets (other than wishing I had gotten over my ladder anxiety earlier and played more games!).
Can you say the same?
Why do you think its bad to express your concerns on the design of the game?
From a negative perspective, I could just may well say that you gave up and started hypnotising yourself that its a "good" game and that your supposedly enjoying it. What a load of rubbish. If its bad it is bad. If you think WG made protoss weak, so be it and dont be ashamed because more than half the protoss players would support you on that one.
Fact of the matter is that we are blizzards customers. We all know deep inside that this game could be worlds better and more interesting. The sad thing is that the devs wont acknowledge this or admit to their mistakes (Just look at how many times the bunker was patched, or the out of nowhere queen patch what?) warhounds??? As a customer, you have the right to express your opinion on the service or the goods provided. Thats why i really envy Riot devs or even the valve dota team because they listen to the community even if its over +100,000 suggestions that the community is making.
I don't think we can really have a further discussion as I don't think it will be constructive. So, I'll just respond to your points briefly and let it go at that; agree to disagree etc.
I don't. Not necessarily. But certainly when the critique is repetitive and asks for a fundamental rework of the game for no clear end result. My overall stance on the design issues of SC2 is a conservative one - not a radical one. In other words, I believe the game is, at least good enough, and aiming to make it "perfect" risks ruining it entirely.
That is presumptuous. I changed my mind not because I was hypnotised but because I was wrong. If half of all Protoss players in the world (again I don't know where you get these numbers from) think that gateway units are weak and that WG makes them weak, then they are all wrong. The perceived weakness of gateway units is a function of the production system in SC2 and the counter system (both in terms of units and abilities). It has nothing to do with Warpgate.
As a Blizzard customer, I am happy with my purchase of SC2. I've rarely had better value for money from a game. Your experience of BW may make you come to SC2 in a different way. And, as such, it seems to me that you feel some bitterness or resentment that the game is not what you thoughht it might be. Maybe, if I had felt and experienced what you did from BW I would feel the same. Or, maybe I am glad I didn't because it gives me a perspective you seem to lack.
That is my response. Take it for what you will. GLHF, mate.
On August 20 2013 06:23 Grumbels wrote: Btw, my definition of abusive: reducing the outcome of the game to one factor that feels like it should not be this significant. You can outplay someone in all facets of the game but one and it won't matter because you can't kill the death ball or because defensive positions are unbreakable or because you can't punish a race that can freely tech up or build up economy etc. There is always the response that, yeah, you did get outplayed because you failed to take this one thing into account, but it seems like it's exploiting a flaw in race/map design more so than excelling at the game.
(I just thought of it, there are probably better definitions. The key idea is that you find aspects of the game that are stronger than they have a right to be and to base your wins on them rather than outplaying your opponent in more acceptable fashion.)
Not only "one factor", but also "one moment in time". There have been many games where one player is slowly pressuring his opponent with a clear advantage, but then he makes one single mistake and that opens up the opportunity for the opponent - who was clearly the worse player - to rush towards the better players base and win.
On August 20 2013 07:40 HowTroublesome wrote: Proposal: Make larger maps with greater distances between expansions
Games tend to be heavy death-ball favoured in some match ups where X and Y race turtle and 'dance' around for final battle. However with expansions having greater distances between each other, this promotes harassment options and run-bys more. This will show spectators the players priorities (base defending, attack committing, etc) and how important scouting/map control/vision is. Another thing to note is that unit compositions will be diverse and will force players to use certain units with their roles in defending/harassing/attacking
Some considerations that will be needed If bases are actually significantly further apart, races must be balanced in such a way that each race can get their army to respective expansion Zergs would utilize nydus networks more instead of an all-in perspective moving units from base to base. The current cost of nydus networks is rather expensive to be supporting unit transportation. So the cost should be reduced Protosses carry warp-in capabilities so I don't see much issue here. Terrans should have building movement speed increased (?) or they can use speed-boosts to move units to expansions.
What are your thoughts? Zzzz
Bad idea for a game which focuses too much on mobility and speed already. The defender on such larger maps would have a much greater advantage in any battle due to the much smaller reinforcement distance. Zerg could use Nydus, Protoss have their Warp-ins ... and Terrans are screwed.
On August 20 2013 07:16 Grumbels wrote: About that thread, I don't know why this 'redesign protoss' thing suddenly came up, I've seen lots of it the last few months on reddit. Is protoss in a particularly awful state at the moment that I don't know of? What has changed?
Reddit being reddit upvotes eye catching if bad suggestions that were taken from previous threads about the same topic, as if we need more evidence that one shouldn't do game design by community vote, so it's not really productive but still worth checking out for LaLush's contributions.
David Kim was on Climbing the Ladder the other day and did he give any indication whatsoever that they were going to replace warpgates, sentries and colossi with different mechanics? (hint: he didn't) At some point we have to give up complaining, it's one thing to do analysis/discussion of game mechanics, but quite another to try and create some sort of movement to get Blizzard to overhaul protoss design.
Its been around forever, it will not die. Its is one of those endless discussion points that people bring up when they don't have much really to say. Its like saying "positional play" or "defenders advantage", which are just these vague overly broad comments people make about the game that don't really mean anything. Much like, "fix warpage", they will never go away as long at there are people complaining about SC2 rather than playing it.
Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot "elegant solution" and "elegant design". Those come up a lot too in the land of balance buzzwords.
That is the core of all design arguments. It is used to begin every argument. It says so much, while saying nothing at all.
Oh come on ... its really simple math you need to show the flaws in some of the general design aspects.
- Marines have roughly the same dps as Stalkers + Marines are much smaller than Stalkers =>> Marines can stack tighter than Stalkers =>>>> Marine clump dps is much higher than that of a Stalker clump and since you get 3 Marines for every Stalker you both sides have roughly the same amount of hit points. So who wins this in a straight up "no running around fight"? The only solution is to limit the unit density artificially and that is what BW did (possibly unintentionally, but it nevertheless helped) with its clunky movement mechanics and 12 unit selection limitation. Easy enough to understand, right? If you do see something wrong with this chain of conclusions then put it on the table.
Oh and .... as a consequence you NEED Forcefield and Blink to make Stalkers viable, but this is a bad idea IMO because it adds a skill requirement to playing the race which the other two races dont have.
On August 20 2013 10:25 ChristianS wrote: @YyapSsap: I'm not exactly an expert on BW, but my understanding is Terran was the more "powerful" race than Protoss in BW. As in, Terran had a really strong deathball, and the Protoss had to be more mobile, take more bases, and "overwhelm" the Terran opponent. Protoss could also fall back on the superior late-game tech, but a lot of people think Protoss has a stronger late-game anyway (Terran has to stick on mass T1 w/ support while Protoss moves to higher tech). If anything, that's the relationship that's switched – in BW Terran had to defend and make a big mass of mech and then do a big push, while Protoss tried to move around the edges and flank and expand. In SC2, Terran has to be mobile and drop and expand, while Protoss makes a big ball and defends and then moves out in a death push.
As for the "backbone" stuff, zealot stalker is still the "backbone." Gateway units are beefy but don't trade that efficiently (just like BW TvP); higher tech is expensive and does good damage, but it's fragile (just like BW TvP). And Plansix should add "gimmicky units/spells" to his list of obnoxious and vague comments people always make about the game that are clearly not constructive or useful or even especially meaningful, but people still never stop talking about them.
Deathball in BW? With 12 unit selection limit? Usually the armies in a BW game are spread across several screens compared to SC2 where it is just one.
Terran had a very strong conrnerstone unit in the Siege Tank and I can remember one of the most awesome games ever, where the Terran sieged and blocked the Protoss in his "core bases" with a very wide and deep stacked array of Siege Tanks, Turrets and a few bunkers as well. That went on for 10 minutes or so with the Protoss trying unsuccessfully to break out of the containment. In the end the Protoss won with one move from an Arbiter where he simply recalled a group of Stalkers right into the production of the Terran.
The thing is that in BW you had to work as the attacker to win, but in SC2 you can win sometimes by simply waiting for your opponent to make a mistake ... ONE mistake in a game of 30+ minutes.
On August 20 2013 15:18 Rabiator wrote: Terran had a very strong conrnerstone unit in the Siege Tank and I can remember one of the most awesome games ever, where the Terran sieged and blocked the Protoss in his "core bases" with a very wide and deep stacked array of Siege Tanks, Turrets and a few bunkers as well. That went on for 10 minutes or so with the Protoss trying unsuccessfully to break out of the containment. In the end the Protoss won with one move from an Arbiter where he simply recalled a group of Stalkers right into the production of the Terran.
Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? Arbiters and Stalkers coexisting?
On August 20 2013 10:25 ChristianS wrote: @YyapSsap: I'm not exactly an expert on BW, but my understanding is Terran was the more "powerful" race than Protoss in BW. As in, Terran had a really strong deathball, and the Protoss had to be more mobile, take more bases, and "overwhelm" the Terran opponent. Protoss could also fall back on the superior late-game tech, but a lot of people think Protoss has a stronger late-game anyway (Terran has to stick on mass T1 w/ support while Protoss moves to higher tech). If anything, that's the relationship that's switched – in BW Terran had to defend and make a big mass of mech and then do a big push, while Protoss tried to move around the edges and flank and expand. In SC2, Terran has to be mobile and drop and expand, while Protoss makes a big ball and defends and then moves out in a death push.
As for the "backbone" stuff, zealot stalker is still the "backbone." Gateway units are beefy but don't trade that efficiently (just like BW TvP); higher tech is expensive and does good damage, but it's fragile (just like BW TvP). And Plansix should add "gimmicky units/spells" to his list of obnoxious and vague comments people always make about the game that are clearly not constructive or useful or even especially meaningful, but people still never stop talking about them.
Deathball in BW? With 12 unit selection limit? Usually the armies in a BW game are spread across several screens compared to SC2 where it is just one.
Terran had a very strong conrnerstone unit in the Siege Tank and I can remember one of the most awesome games ever, where the Terran sieged and blocked the Protoss in his "core bases" with a very wide and deep stacked array of Siege Tanks, Turrets and a few bunkers as well. That went on for 10 minutes or so with the Protoss trying unsuccessfully to break out of the containment. In the end the Protoss won with one move from an Arbiter where he simply recalled a group of Stalkers right into the production of the Terran.
The thing is that in BW you had to work as the attacker to win, but in SC2 you can win sometimes by simply waiting for your opponent to make a mistake ... ONE mistake in a game of 30+ minutes.
Deathball in BW did not exist only because of pathing. At some level of mechnics 12 unit selection limit becomes irrelevant to a-clicking, as you may end up being fast enough to select all parts of army and send 'em attacking in the same time. To some extent mech in BW did function as really slow deathball afaik. I even remember one such game, where Flash simply turtled up, maxed out (and that is great achivement of his to max out at 15 minute mark as meching player... or did he?) and moved out. Rest of game took approximately 4 minutes of struggles by toss and gg. Also, calling dragoons as stalkers is an insult.... to stalkers.
On August 20 2013 12:46 aZealot wrote: Yeah, I'm on TL because I like SC2. I like playing it. I like watching it. I like Protoss. Did you not see my comment earlier?
I have little patience with design whine. And I'm someone who when he first joined TL did moan about Protoss and cry because I thought WG made Protoss "weak". I like to think I've made some progress since then.
So yeah. I enjoy SC2. When I stop enjoying it, I'll stop playing and leave TL. With thanks to Blizzard for a fun game, lots of good times, and no regrets (other than wishing I had gotten over my ladder anxiety earlier and played more games!).
Can you say the same?
Why do you think its bad to express your concerns on the design of the game?
From a negative perspective, I could just may well say that you gave up and started hypnotising yourself that its a "good" game and that your supposedly enjoying it. What a load of rubbish. If its bad it is bad. If you think WG made protoss weak, so be it and dont be ashamed because more than half the protoss players would support you on that one.
Fact of the matter is that we are blizzards customers. We all know deep inside that this game could be worlds better and more interesting. The sad thing is that the devs wont acknowledge this or admit to their mistakes (Just look at how many times the bunker was patched, or the out of nowhere queen patch what?) warhounds??? As a customer, you have the right to express your opinion on the service or the goods provided. Thats why i really envy Riot devs or even the valve dota team because they listen to the community even if its over +100,000 suggestions that the community is making.
I don't think we can really have a further discussion as I don't think it will be constructive. So, I'll just respond to your points briefly and let it go at that; agree to disagree etc.
I don't. Not necessarily. But certainly when the critique is repetitive and asks for a fundamental rework of the game for no clear end result. My overall stance on the design issues of SC2 is a conservative one - not a radical one. In other words, I believe the game is, at least good enough, and aiming to make it "perfect" risks ruining it entirely.
That is presumptuous. I changed my mind not because I was hypnotised but because I was wrong. If half of all Protoss players in the world (again I don't know where you get these numbers from) think that gateway units are weak and that WG makes them weak, then they are all wrong. The perceived weakness of gateway units is a function of the production system in SC2 and the counter system (both in terms of units and abilities). It has nothing to do with Warpgate.
As a Blizzard customer, I am happy with my purchase of SC2. I've rarely had better value for money from a game. Your experience of BW may make you come to SC2 in a different way. And, as such, it seems to me that you feel some bitterness or resentment that the game is not what you thoughht it might be. Maybe, if I had felt and experienced what you did from BW I would feel the same. Or, maybe I am glad I didn't because it gives me a perspective you seem to lack.
That is my response. Take it for what you will. GLHF, mate.
The problem is that Blizzards design philosophy and expansion philosophy is rather terrible and leaves no room for the future. Units are getting faster and longer ranged and whatnot. Do you think they could keep that up for a potential 4th, 5th and 6th expansion? Not really. The whole concept focusing around massive and densely packed armies is flawed as I have explained many times for anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge at math. The same problem is the reason for "critical numbers" becoming an issue in the game, because AoE had to be nerfed to allow for these densely packed armies to be viable.
What is the point of pushing SC2 to become an eSport if you dont want to give it a lifespan of more than "last expansion + 2 years"? Thus you really NEED a flexible system where you can add more units and where the balance of the races is stable AND where the result of a game is not decided by one tiny mistake you made at 29 minutes. The faster the game is - and I am not talking about game speed or movement speed - the smaller your time allowed for a reacting to a threat gets and the more random will the results be. Are "chance driven results" really what you would want? Where you win because your opponent wasnt looking and started to spread his Marines half a second too late against your Banelings? That wouldnt be YOUR SKILL to give you the victory and that is bad game design which makes it boring.
There are too many units on one screen in SC2, which increases the "clump dps" too far and thus the opponent has no time to react. Both players need to be "in control" of their destiny to make the better player win and in SC2 this isnt the case many times, because mistakes are "absolute" due to the super high clump dps.
Due to the super high clump dps the unit design needs to be bland and "average damage" instead of extreme and overpowered like the Siege Tank, the Reaver, ... in BW. That was ok because you didnt lose your whole army if you stumbled into one of them and the low economy in that game balanced the numbers of those expensive units on the battlefield too. SC2 has a lot of easy to see and easy to fix problems which would not require a full rebalancing of the game because Marines and Stalkers are pretty equally balanced IN LOW NUMBERS and the same is true for most other units. Sure enough the chances of Blizzard changing their general design are close to zero because they think that speed and more aggression makes a better game, but you can nevertheless explain many problems (or counter "Forcefields/MULEs are OP" whines) by explaining the basics behind the problem.
On August 20 2013 10:25 ChristianS wrote: @YyapSsap: I'm not exactly an expert on BW, but my understanding is Terran was the more "powerful" race than Protoss in BW. As in, Terran had a really strong deathball, and the Protoss had to be more mobile, take more bases, and "overwhelm" the Terran opponent. Protoss could also fall back on the superior late-game tech, but a lot of people think Protoss has a stronger late-game anyway (Terran has to stick on mass T1 w/ support while Protoss moves to higher tech). If anything, that's the relationship that's switched – in BW Terran had to defend and make a big mass of mech and then do a big push, while Protoss tried to move around the edges and flank and expand. In SC2, Terran has to be mobile and drop and expand, while Protoss makes a big ball and defends and then moves out in a death push.
As for the "backbone" stuff, zealot stalker is still the "backbone." Gateway units are beefy but don't trade that efficiently (just like BW TvP); higher tech is expensive and does good damage, but it's fragile (just like BW TvP). And Plansix should add "gimmicky units/spells" to his list of obnoxious and vague comments people always make about the game that are clearly not constructive or useful or even especially meaningful, but people still never stop talking about them.
Deathball in BW? With 12 unit selection limit? Usually the armies in a BW game are spread across several screens compared to SC2 where it is just one.
Terran had a very strong conrnerstone unit in the Siege Tank and I can remember one of the most awesome games ever, where the Terran sieged and blocked the Protoss in his "core bases" with a very wide and deep stacked array of Siege Tanks, Turrets and a few bunkers as well. That went on for 10 minutes or so with the Protoss trying unsuccessfully to break out of the containment. In the end the Protoss won with one move from an Arbiter where he simply recalled a group of Stalkers right into the production of the Terran.
The thing is that in BW you had to work as the attacker to win, but in SC2 you can win sometimes by simply waiting for your opponent to make a mistake ... ONE mistake in a game of 30+ minutes.
Deathball in BW did not exist only because of pathing. At some level of mechnics 12 unit selection limit becomes irrelevant to a-clicking, as you may end up being fast enough to select all parts of army and send 'em attacking in the same time. To some extent mech in BW did function as really slow deathball afaik. I even remember one such game, where Flash simply turtled up, maxed out (and that is great achivement of his to max out at 15 minute mark as meching player... or did he?) and moved out. Rest of game took approximately 4 minutes of struggles by toss and gg. Also, calling dragoons as stalkers is an insult.... to stalkers.
That still didnt make a deathball, because due to the movement mechanics the units took their bloody time to arrive at the site of battle. Deathball includes the unit density and kinda the "critical number" problem by making it nearly invulnerable. With a decently set up defense in BW you can easily defend against a lot bigger army, but can you do the same against a deathball in SC2? NO ... and that is the difference ... unit density!
The only "real deathball" in BW was probably 2-group Mutalisk, but that was ok because it required skill to execute and thus was kinda rare AND there were such things as irradiate and psi storm to punish them. In SC2 there is no way to "punish the deathball" and that is the problem. The deathball is also easy to pull off and "the standard", so they couldnt put in any counters to it.
On August 20 2013 15:18 Rabiator wrote: Terran had a very strong conrnerstone unit in the Siege Tank and I can remember one of the most awesome games ever, where the Terran sieged and blocked the Protoss in his "core bases" with a very wide and deep stacked array of Siege Tanks, Turrets and a few bunkers as well. That went on for 10 minutes or so with the Protoss trying unsuccessfully to break out of the containment. In the end the Protoss won with one move from an Arbiter where he simply recalled a group of Stalkers right into the production of the Terran.
Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? Arbiters and Stalkers coexisting?
On August 20 2013 15:18 Rabiator wrote: Terran had a very strong conrnerstone unit in the Siege Tank and I can remember one of the most awesome games ever, where the Terran sieged and blocked the Protoss in his "core bases" with a very wide and deep stacked array of Siege Tanks, Turrets and a few bunkers as well. That went on for 10 minutes or so with the Protoss trying unsuccessfully to break out of the containment. In the end the Protoss won with one move from an Arbiter where he simply recalled a group of Stalkers right into the production of the Terran.
Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? Arbiters and Stalkers coexisting?
Yeah yeah ... Dragoons ...
Okay so it happened in BW. You say that in BW, defenders actually required effort to break out... interesting considering you constantly state that SC2 is too aggressive anyway.
What if I flip that around? If I contain you in SC2, one mistake means my contain fails... which means that in SC2, I actually have to work to successfully contain unlike BW, right?
the stupidest part design wise of protoss right now is easily the fact there is no choice when it comes to gateway or warpgate. Warpgate is simply stronger in every aspect. I don't get why they give the option to revert warpgate back to gateway but don't actually give you any reason to ever want a gateway over a warpgate?
Can we please get that decision to put some more skill into protoss because besides hitting forcefields and storms it is honestly lacking in that department
On August 20 2013 16:03 VayneAuthority wrote: the stupidest part design wise of protoss right now is easily the fact there is no choice when it comes to gateway or warpgate. Warpgate is simply stronger in every aspect. I don't get why they give the option to revert warpgate back to gateway but don't actually give you any reason to ever want a gateway over a warpgate?
Can we please get that decision to put some more skill into protoss because besides hitting forcefields and storms it is honestly lacking in that department
Amazing players have done amazing things with Protoss.
Have you hit perfect Forcefields in less than 0.5 seconds like MC? Have you displayed outstanding Blink micro like Puzzle? Have you used Warp Prisms constantly with DTs/Zealots until the enemy breaks like HerO? Have you controlled your Templars perfectly like PartinG? Have you reached 50+ kill Immortals with Warp Prism micro like HerO and Squirtle? Have you kited Marines/Zealots from one base to the other? Have you Storm Dropped like Rain while pulling off beautiful defensive macro? Have you forced 2 spores per base and killed 15 drones + 4 queens with 6 Phoenix? Have you killed 10+ marines with a single oracle?
There is not a single player on this planet that can play well enough for Protoss mastery...
On August 20 2013 16:03 VayneAuthority wrote: the stupidest part design wise of protoss right now is easily the fact there is no choice when it comes to gateway or warpgate. Warpgate is simply stronger in every aspect. I don't get why they give the option to revert warpgate back to gateway but don't actually give you any reason to ever want a gateway over a warpgate?
Can we please get that decision to put some more skill into protoss because besides hitting forcefields and storms it is honestly lacking in that department
Amazing players have done amazing things with Protoss.
Have you hit perfect Forcefields in less than 0.5 seconds like MC? Have you displayed outstanding Blink micro like Puzzle? Have you used Warp Prisms constantly with DTs/Zealots until the enemy breaks like HerO? Have you controlled your Templars perfectly like PartinG? Have you reached 50+ kill Immortals with Warp Prism micro like HerO and Squirtle? Have you kited Marines/Zealots from one base to the other? Have you Storm Dropped like Rain while pulling off beautiful defensive macro? Have you forced 2 spores per base and killed 15 drones + 4 queens with 6 Phoenix? Have you killed 10+ marines with a single oracle?
There is not a single player on this planet that can play well enough for Protoss mastery...
I was expecting a useful reply and I get this instead, sigh its like the b.net forums damit
All you got out of that was the last paragraph, really?
On August 20 2013 16:03 VayneAuthority wrote: the stupidest part design wise of protoss right now is easily the fact there is no choice when it comes to gateway or warpgate. Warpgate is simply stronger in every aspect. I don't get why they give the option to revert warpgate back to gateway but don't actually give you any reason to ever want a gateway over a warpgate?
Can we please get that decision to put some more skill into protoss because besides hitting forcefields and storms it is honestly lacking in that department
Amazing players have done amazing things with Protoss.
Have you hit perfect Forcefields in less than 0.5 seconds like MC? Have you displayed outstanding Blink micro like Puzzle? Have you used Warp Prisms constantly with DTs/Zealots until the enemy breaks like HerO? Have you controlled your Templars perfectly like PartinG? Have you reached 50+ kill Immortals with Warp Prism micro like HerO and Squirtle? Have you kited Marines/Zealots from one base to the other? Have you Storm Dropped like Rain while pulling off beautiful defensive macro? Have you forced 2 spores per base and killed 15 drones + 4 queens with 6 Phoenix? Have you killed 10+ marines with a single oracle?
There is not a single player on this planet that can play well enough for Protoss mastery...
I was expecting a useful reply and I get this instead, sigh its like the b.net forums damit
All you got out of that was the last paragraph, really?
The fact that warpgates are 100% superior to gateways means that Protoss doesn't require enough skill. Right.
On August 20 2013 10:25 ChristianS wrote: @YyapSsap: I'm not exactly an expert on BW, but my understanding is Terran was the more "powerful" race than Protoss in BW. As in, Terran had a really strong deathball, and the Protoss had to be more mobile, take more bases, and "overwhelm" the Terran opponent. Protoss could also fall back on the superior late-game tech, but a lot of people think Protoss has a stronger late-game anyway (Terran has to stick on mass T1 w/ support while Protoss moves to higher tech). If anything, that's the relationship that's switched – in BW Terran had to defend and make a big mass of mech and then do a big push, while Protoss tried to move around the edges and flank and expand. In SC2, Terran has to be mobile and drop and expand, while Protoss makes a big ball and defends and then moves out in a death push.
As for the "backbone" stuff, zealot stalker is still the "backbone." Gateway units are beefy but don't trade that efficiently (just like BW TvP); higher tech is expensive and does good damage, but it's fragile (just like BW TvP). And Plansix should add "gimmicky units/spells" to his list of obnoxious and vague comments people always make about the game that are clearly not constructive or useful or even especially meaningful, but people still never stop talking about them.
Deathball in BW? With 12 unit selection limit? Usually the armies in a BW game are spread across several screens compared to SC2 where it is just one.
Terran had a very strong conrnerstone unit in the Siege Tank and I can remember one of the most awesome games ever, where the Terran sieged and blocked the Protoss in his "core bases" with a very wide and deep stacked array of Siege Tanks, Turrets and a few bunkers as well. That went on for 10 minutes or so with the Protoss trying unsuccessfully to break out of the containment. In the end the Protoss won with one move from an Arbiter where he simply recalled a group of Stalkers right into the production of the Terran.
The thing is that in BW you had to work as the attacker to win, but in SC2 you can win sometimes by simply waiting for your opponent to make a mistake ... ONE mistake in a game of 30+ minutes.
Deathball in BW did not exist only because of pathing. At some level of mechnics 12 unit selection limit becomes irrelevant to a-clicking, as you may end up being fast enough to select all parts of army and send 'em attacking in the same time. To some extent mech in BW did function as really slow deathball afaik. I even remember one such game, where Flash simply turtled up, maxed out (and that is great achivement of his to max out at 15 minute mark as meching player... or did he?) and moved out. Rest of game took approximately 4 minutes of struggles by toss and gg. Also, calling dragoons as stalkers is an insult.... to stalkers.
That still didnt make a deathball, because due to the movement mechanics the units took their bloody time to arrive at the site of battle. Deathball includes the unit density and kinda the "critical number" problem by making it nearly invulnerable. With a decently set up defense in BW you can easily defend against a lot bigger army, but can you do the same against a deathball in SC2? NO ... and that is the difference ... unit density!
The only "real deathball" in BW was probably 2-group Mutalisk, but that was ok because it required skill to execute and thus was kinda rare AND there were such things as irradiate and psi storm to punish them. In SC2 there is no way to "punish the deathball" and that is the problem. The deathball is also easy to pull off and "the standard", so they couldnt put in any counters to it.
Unit density is directly related to retarded pathing. Also, you can defend a much larger army in SC2 too, should it come part by part in a meatgrinder, so all i see is stupid pathing algorithm (that you cannot blame SC:BW for as it turns out, but you can blame SC2 for being better with regard to programming). Also, if you can hard contain P to the extent when his only way of breaking out is to recall right in terran's main, what is that defender's advantage everyone talks about /sarcasm?
On August 20 2013 16:03 VayneAuthority wrote: the stupidest part design wise of protoss right now is easily the fact there is no choice when it comes to gateway or warpgate. Warpgate is simply stronger in every aspect. I don't get why they give the option to revert warpgate back to gateway but don't actually give you any reason to ever want a gateway over a warpgate?
Can we please get that decision to put some more skill into protoss because besides hitting forcefields and storms it is honestly lacking in that department
Amazing players have done amazing things with Protoss.
Have you hit perfect Forcefields in less than 0.5 seconds like MC? Have you displayed outstanding Blink micro like Puzzle? Have you used Warp Prisms constantly with DTs/Zealots until the enemy breaks like HerO? Have you controlled your Templars perfectly like PartinG? Have you reached 50+ kill Immortals with Warp Prism micro like HerO and Squirtle? Have you kited Marines/Zealots from one base to the other? Have you Storm Dropped like Rain while pulling off beautiful defensive macro? Have you forced 2 spores per base and killed 15 drones + 4 queens with 6 Phoenix? Have you killed 10+ marines with a single oracle?
There is not a single player on this planet that can play well enough for Protoss mastery...
I was expecting a useful reply and I get this instead, sigh its like the b.net forums damit
All you got out of that was the last paragraph, really?
The fact that warpgates are 100% superior to gateways means that Protoss doesn't require enough skill. Right.
well no country written down, so I'm just gonna chalk you up to being from Romania.
On August 20 2013 16:03 VayneAuthority wrote: the stupidest part design wise of protoss right now is easily the fact there is no choice when it comes to gateway or warpgate. Warpgate is simply stronger in every aspect. I don't get why they give the option to revert warpgate back to gateway but don't actually give you any reason to ever want a gateway over a warpgate?
Can we please get that decision to put some more skill into protoss because besides hitting forcefields and storms it is honestly lacking in that department
Amazing players have done amazing things with Protoss.
Have you hit perfect Forcefields in less than 0.5 seconds like MC? Have you displayed outstanding Blink micro like Puzzle? Have you used Warp Prisms constantly with DTs/Zealots until the enemy breaks like HerO? Have you controlled your Templars perfectly like PartinG? Have you reached 50+ kill Immortals with Warp Prism micro like HerO and Squirtle? Have you kited Marines/Zealots from one base to the other? Have you Storm Dropped like Rain while pulling off beautiful defensive macro? Have you forced 2 spores per base and killed 15 drones + 4 queens with 6 Phoenix? Have you killed 10+ marines with a single oracle?
There is not a single player on this planet that can play well enough for Protoss mastery...
I was expecting a useful reply and I get this instead, sigh its like the b.net forums damit
All you got out of that was the last paragraph, really?
The fact that warpgates are 100% superior to gateways means that Protoss doesn't require enough skill. Right.
I won't say skill, but definitly more depth if each had their own advantages
EPT
