On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
It should be quite obvious that you have to re-balance everything to make such a big change possible. An easier solution without this requirement would be to reduce the game-speed to "fast" instead of "faster". Big battles feel quite different with slower game speed.
Beta test of LotV will last for 4-6 months I think. That is plenty of time to balance big changes.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
Economic part needs huge overhaul if we are going to cut dps in half. Or the game will quickly reach the stage when supply is always 200/200 and mineral/gas are stockpiling.
Agreed, it's no silver bullet but I definitely saw potential there, even it'd require a lot of changes to make work. I'd personally still like less of a hardcounter system too(so fx. a stalker wouldn't get assraped as bad by a rauder).
On September 05 2013 17:42 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 17:33 Zarahtra wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:59 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
we have that, it's called Protoss.
Huh? Protoss fights normally last long? I haven't noticed.
Protoss units have half the damage. And yeah, PvP or PvRoach fights do last very long. Especially with combat slowers like Forcefield and Blink. With our experience, it's just very clear who will win the combat and we usually call the winner long before the units are actually dead.
I agree that protoss would need to be looked at, but I'd argue if blizzard was smart they should've done that a long time ago. Protoss relies to much on AoE which makes it an insanely gimmicky race. I however disagree completely that fights last long in PvZ, sure it isn't quite the 1 second fight such as TvP, but it's still rather short imo, normally max length of 2x force fields.
Protoss relies as much on AoE against Terran/Zerg as Zerg relies on AoE against Terran. Which has the simple reason that MMM is the strongest, and roach/hydra/zergling the second strongest singlefire composition in the game and the only way to beat a singlefire composition that is stronger than your own strongest singlefire composition is to go AoE.
The actual combats last much longer. You just don't have all those small skirmishes and poking before the combats (like in 4M vs ling/bling/muta) as there are usually no interesting position/unit interactions. Apart from Templar vs Viper/Ghost. The actual ling/bling/muta vs 4M or tank/marine vs tank/marine, ling/bling vs ling/bling combats are over in seconds. The excitement comes from everything that is delaying the combat to get an advantage that you can press with the combat.
I just said that protoss would also need to be looked at separately in the sense to buff actual protoss single target units. I believe I've actually said this to you before and it went over your head then too, but right now say MMM is 100% stronger than protoss without AoE. I recommend it'd be say 50% stronger and in turn the AoE of protoss would be toned down. One side would still have a stronger single target army, but the disparity wouldn't be as wide. This in turn would actually make fighting for position better and the lead up to the fight wouldn't be the same as it currently is.
I honestly don't see your issue with fights lasting longer in PvZ than say TvP. If you think fights in SC2 are so boring I wonder why you play the game. Less damage would actually lead to you being able to take better fights and micro your units better. It'd be less about a single action/fight and more about your overall gameplay.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
Economic part needs huge overhaul if we are going to cut dps in half. Or the game will quickly reach the stage when supply is always 200/200 and mineral/gas are stockpiling.
Agreed, it's no silver bullet but I definitely saw potential there, even it'd require a lot of changes to make work. I'd personally still like less of a hardcounter system too(so fx. a stalker wouldn't get assraped as bad by a rauder).
On September 05 2013 17:42 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 17:33 Zarahtra wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:59 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
we have that, it's called Protoss.
Huh? Protoss fights normally last long? I haven't noticed.
Protoss units have half the damage. And yeah, PvP or PvRoach fights do last very long. Especially with combat slowers like Forcefield and Blink. With our experience, it's just very clear who will win the combat and we usually call the winner long before the units are actually dead.
I seem to fail to understand your point. What exactly are you saying?
A Stalker has less dps vs armored than a Marauder vs light (not to mention armored...), or a single Marine vs everything. A Zealot has less dps than 2 zerglings. A Colossus has roughly as much dps as a single siege tank. A Void Ray has less dps vs armored with Prismatic Alignment activated than two Vikings An Immortal has basically the same dps vs armored that 2hydralisks have vs everything
Protoss units have SHIT dps. They completely rely on having double the health as their equivalents.
You mean protoss needs to be dealt differently rather than raw cut in half dps? I agree. But I'm saying generally, the idea is great, when dps is lower game seems to be more interesting.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
Economic part needs huge overhaul if we are going to cut dps in half. Or the game will quickly reach the stage when supply is always 200/200 and mineral/gas are stockpiling.
Agreed, it's no silver bullet but I definitely saw potential there, even it'd require a lot of changes to make work. I'd personally still like less of a hardcounter system too(so fx. a stalker wouldn't get assraped as bad by a rauder).
On September 05 2013 17:42 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 17:33 Zarahtra wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:59 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
we have that, it's called Protoss.
Huh? Protoss fights normally last long? I haven't noticed.
Protoss units have half the damage. And yeah, PvP or PvRoach fights do last very long. Especially with combat slowers like Forcefield and Blink. With our experience, it's just very clear who will win the combat and we usually call the winner long before the units are actually dead.
I agree that protoss would need to be looked at, but I'd argue if blizzard was smart they should've done that a long time ago. Protoss relies to much on AoE which makes it an insanely gimmicky race. I however disagree completely that fights last long in PvZ, sure it isn't quite the 1 second fight such as TvP, but it's still rather short imo, normally max length of 2x force fields.
Protoss relies as much on AoE against Terran/Zerg as Zerg relies on AoE against Terran. Which has the simple reason that MMM is the strongest, and roach/hydra/zergling the second strongest singlefire composition in the game and the only way to beat a singlefire composition that is stronger than your own strongest singlefire composition is to go AoE.
The actual combats last much longer. You just don't have all those small skirmishes and poking before the combats (like in 4M vs ling/bling/muta) as there are usually no interesting position/unit interactions. Apart from Templar vs Viper/Ghost. The actual ling/bling/muta vs 4M or tank/marine vs tank/marine, ling/bling vs ling/bling combats are over in seconds. The excitement comes from everything that is delaying the combat to get an advantage that you can press with the combat.
I just said that protoss would also need to be looked at separately in the sense to buff actual protoss single target units. I believe I've actually said this to you before and it went over your head then too, but right now say MMM is 100% stronger than protoss without AoE. I recommend it'd be say 50% stronger and in turn the AoE of protoss would be toned down. One side would still have a stronger single target army, but the disparity wouldn't be as wide. This in turn would actually make fighting for position better and the lead up to the fight wouldn't be the same as it currently is.
I honestly don't see your issue with fights lasting longer in PvZ than say TvP. If you think fights in SC2 are so boring I wonder why you play the game. Less damage would actually lead to you being able to take better fights and micro your units better. It'd be less about a single action/fight and more about your overall gameplay.
Excuse me? Where did I say I don't like how the game is being played? I'm not the one proposing the game should be remade from scratch by changing every unit in the game and then rebalancing from there...
I'm also not saying that I have an issue with fights lasting longer, but I don't believe that this will make things better. Lots of current micro can only be done because you can snipe stuff very fast. If Marines had half the damage, can you actually run forward with a small sqaud to pick off something? Come in with a pack of mutas to kill a tank, mine, medivac? Or generally harass workers, when all your units have the damageoutput of a stalker?
If you want longer fights and valuable fights, have you guys check out One Goal The Project? I really think the guys involved understand what it takes to make Sc2 a better game. Incorporating BW characteristics too so SC2 and BW would not fight. Also the forcefield hate people will like it and the true fans of carriers, battle cruisers.
Check them out, im sad to see that there are only a small number of people in their chat. lets give it a try and make blizzard learn from these heroes.
On September 05 2013 11:06 Schism wrote: The BW idea is so stupid it makes my head hurt. Want to instantly have most of the SC2 player base walk away? Re-instate a BW style control scheme.
You have a huge majority of players in SC2 used to using 1, maybe 2 control groups, and using somewhere from zero micro to a little bit of micro. Then all of a sudden you ask them to individually click on temps to storm, and to move across the map or engage an enemy go from 1a to 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a... ? Come on. You'd lose everyone below diamond to MOBA games in the blink of an eye.
One solution is to add 4 or 5 units to each race in LOTV. It would require constant balance tweaks probably for at least a couple of years, but at least the builds would be all over the place. New builds and strats would be hitting the scene all the time.
Also, the maps suck. Every map is the same. Ramped main. Easy access, easily defended natural. reasonably easy 3rd. Every single map is like this. Where are the island maps? Where are the open main maps? Where are the maps with no easy expansions?
90% of the games i've seen lately go like this: both players mass expand with little or no aggression for up to 15 minutes. Then a few little battles with small armies because both players have most of their supply locked up in workers. Someone makes a mistake. GG. The game doesn't allow for play from 1 base behind. Rinse and repeat.
SC2 is not popular because it has easy controls, it's easy controls makes it more popular than it would have been with harder controls, but the essence of SC2 does not come from controls.
Much like BW did not fail outside Korea because of difficult controls. It was less popular than it could have been due to the controls, but the essence of BW does not come from the controls.
SC2 is popular because it is a strategy game that is difficult to master but easy enough to give the illusion that you can mimic what you see pros do. This shrinks the overall viewer base because, for the most part, people who LOVE watching SC2 are people who want to be the best they can be in SC2.
League of Legends is popular because it has a forgiving interface and pacing system that allows bad players to legitimately stay in the game no matter how good the opponents are. This grows the player base because people who watch LoL are people who play LoL both passively and actively.
Think about it this way, because turrets prevents cheese, all LoL games last at least 20-30 minutes and usually 45-60. At worse, you can always run back to the Turret for at least the first 10 or so levels of gameplay. Once the turrets die everything snowballs and you will lose in less than ten minutes, but it will take about 10 minutes to get to that point.
In SC2, a bad player who dies to stalker poke will die at the 3 minute mark. In SC2, the worse you are at the game the easier you die to the "dumbest" of things without fallback. In order to stop dying in SC2 you need to literally be on your toes and never skipping a beat, ever. It requires a different type of mindset to enjoy. It's what gives the illusion that all it takes is 1 engagement to end the game. But this is only true in lower levels of play. In all matchups in the GSL we constantly see games go back and forth with battles happening all over the map, one player winning and then the other. But in order to do that you need to be *good enough* to do it. Most players are not Parting, most players are not Soulkey, or Innovation, or Keen. Most players don't have the macro, the micro, the game sense to minimize losses while maximizing production, while tactically striking the opponent.
However, any player no matter what skill level can hug a turret at level 1-5. Any player, no matter how bad, can run away from the enemy heroes and smack minions on the other side of the map.
Programming a champion AI is much easier than programming a Zerg AI. Casuals can have fun smacking the LoL bots much more than casuals have fun smacking the SC2 AI.
Because of that, more people play League that most any other game out there. Because their player base is so huge, they don't need to pull in a large portion of their base to reach 100k viewerships. There's only a few hundred thousand active SC2 players. When a stream reaches 60k-70k viewers, that's almost 1/3 of the player base. Could you imagine if 30% of all LoL players watched a daily tournament? Could you imagine a single stream with 2-3million live viewers? Twitch would die.
I think you misunderstood what i was saying. I didn't say SC2 is popular because of the easy controls (they're not that easy, just easier than bw). I said that implementing a BW control scheme would decimate the player base. A massive majority either a) don't want to go back to that, or b) have never even played BW.
As regards LOL/MOBA, i said all this previously. Those games are simplistic and players that can't bust out of bronze or silver in SC2 can probably become elite in LOL. That is why Blizzard needs to be so careful with how they proceed. Not to mention they might bleed their own player base when BaS is released.
As i said, personally i would like to see a spanner or two thrown into the works. Some original and creative ladder maps (take the veto away, people will just have to man up). Throw a bunch of new units at us. It might all get a little bit chaotic and...you know...fun. Remember in BW on some maps when as a terran you had to build your first raxes and depots virtually on top of your minerals and cc and just box right in to help defend rushes on open/small maps? When you could, with smart and economic play, survive off one base against 3 for a while until you finally crept out to take an expo? See, that was fun. Throwing down 2 cc/nex/hatch before you've made 5 units, then GG'ing when one of them gets stomped,there is something inherently wrong with the game when that is happening.
I don't know who you are responding to that is suggesting that we introduce BW control schemes Right Now. The point is that changes made to the game since BW have consequences, and some of the negative aspects of SC2 can be directly traced back to removal of control limits.
You have to evaluate different solutions on their merits. And this evaluation changes when you're three years into the game, because it is usually inadvisable to make a game more difficult at this point. It can also be inadvisable to make the game easier, see the backlash that happened when they constantly simplified WoW. I quit playing for one.
I once again want to take a look at the hellbat, because it is yet another unit that does terrible damage. Ideally this unit should be the damage-tank of the terran race. It should be a unit you use as buffer while the rest of your army does the damage. Instead of placing it above the roach and zealot in health and below them in dps blizzard once again did the opposite and went down the typical terran route ---->higher dps/lower health
Imagine more sturdy hellbats with lower damage combined with a immunity to friendly-fire from siegetanks.
On top of that split the attack in two to make it stronger against immortals and replace the bio-tag with some kind of out of combat regeneration in the normal hellion form.
If all this was implemented battles involving HBs would be longer, HB-drops would do less "burst-damage" and be less volatile, and in the end mech would be a more viable option because tank-HB would be a unit composition that is slow but strong in ground to ground fights.
On September 05 2013 19:37 Grumbels wrote: I don't know who you are responding to that is suggesting that we introduce BW control schemes Right Now. The point is that changes made to the game since BW have consequences, and some of the negative aspects of SC2 can be directly traced back to removal of control limits.
You have to evaluate different solutions on their merits. And this evaluation changes when you're three years into the game, because it is usually inadvisable to make a game more difficult at this point. It can also be inadvisable to make the game easier, see the backlash that happened when they constantly simplified WoW. I quit playing for one.
Obviously....it's a different game. Personally i see the removal of the 12 unit limit as progression, not regression. It improves the gameplay from a playing perspective (for the average player).
I'm not an expert player but for me, watching the top end players, the biggest problem i can identify is that as soon as one player loses an expansion, the game is effectively over. This produces the illusion of imbalance as a 3 base player in SC2 just monsters a 2 base player, or even on equal bases, just losing a few workers can effectively end the game. I guess it's why we see so many attempted base trades.
I don't think a 12 unit selection limit would work for Starcraft 2. The game is so fast paced... imagine if your army was almost running into some banelings or a psionic storm, and you had to redirect all your units. It would just be annoying. The pathfinding and the economy together create dense, large armies that need to be properly controllable for the game to be fun, in my opinion. Just to say that you can't isolate one factor, really.
I think the selection limit was mostly fine in Brood War though -- personally I think it should have been 16 units maybe, but otherwise I'm happy with it since besides the drawbacks it has lots of beneficial effects too.
This game made my skin crawl in excitement. As much as the guy's passive comment of "not to take away from Parting's..." is a subtle snark at the results of the match, I LOVE how the matched played on screen and I absolutely believe its because of the lowered game speed.
This game made my skin crawl in excitement. As much as the guy's passive comment of "not to take away from Parting's..." is a subtle snark at the results of the match, I LOVE how the matched played on screen and I absolutely believe its because of the lowered game speed.
You noticed game being around 15% slower? Also, that game was failed speedling stuff, if my memory serves me right, and no matter what game speed it is, all-in defense is always exciting.
This game made my skin crawl in excitement. As much as the guy's passive comment of "not to take away from Parting's..." is a subtle snark at the results of the match, I LOVE how the matched played on screen and I absolutely believe its because of the lowered game speed.
You noticed game being around 15% slower? Also, that game was failed speedling stuff, if my memory serves me right, and no matter what game speed it is, all-in defense is always exciting.
I didn't notice it at all, I just recall the game being so close because of *how* the defense happened. Big difference between "My cannon finished in time" and what happened in that game.
Any other player and they still would have died. It took Parting PLUS a lower game speed to make that happen.
I'm not suggesting Blizz slow the game down, I'm saying that GSL could be improved, right now, just by pressing lowering the speed by one or two clicks. No patch, no balance, just the game as is made better.
Widow Mines become easier to dodge. Worker splits become more effective We see more Maru-esque marine splits (recent Ro32) Mutalisk sniping Mines become more common Blink Micro becomes more impressive etc...
No balance changes, no design changes, just the game as is, right now, with tournaments changing the game speed to be different from ladder (It's what we did in BW, except the opposite, ie we sped things up in BW)
You know the original SC1 WOL Battle Report was on slower speed? I think this is it:
Apparently the game speed was increased after feedback from the community. If so, that would be ironic yet unsurprising. I think there are virtues to playing the game at a slightly slower speed, but at the same time the speed of the game does impose a sort of mechanical requirement to play - especially at the highest level. Although it can be frustrating too, of course.
Wish terrans still had that yellow scorpion's tail for construction...
On another note, TvP has reached an all-time low today in terms of entertainment value. SCV pulls galore. I think it will soon be the MU with the most frustrations on both sides.
On September 06 2013 05:22 Ghanburighan wrote: Wish terrans still had that yellow scorpion's tail for construction...
On another note, TvP has reached an all-time low today in terms of entertainment value. SCV pulls galore. I think it will soon be the MU with the most frustrations on both sides.
I don't understand your comment.
Are you talking about how 2 terrans lost in a group stage or are you talking about the pre-storm timing trend Innovation invented?
Are you talking about the Maru v Rain match where Maru won macro games and rush games or are you talking about Innovation losing to Naniwa?
On September 06 2013 05:22 Ghanburighan wrote: Wish terrans still had that yellow scorpion's tail for construction...
On another note, TvP has reached an all-time low today in terms of entertainment value. SCV pulls galore. I think it will soon be the MU with the most frustrations on both sides.
I don't understand your comment.
Are you talking about how 2 terrans lost in a group stage or are you talking about the pre-storm timing trend Innovation invented?
Are you talking about the Maru v Rain match where Maru won macro games and rush games or are you talking about Innovation losing to Naniwa?
Please be more specific.
Fairly sure SCV pulls existed in TvP long before Bogus even touched the game.
On September 06 2013 05:22 Ghanburighan wrote: Wish terrans still had that yellow scorpion's tail for construction...
On another note, TvP has reached an all-time low today in terms of entertainment value. SCV pulls galore. I think it will soon be the MU with the most frustrations on both sides.
I don't understand your comment.
Are you talking about how 2 terrans lost in a group stage or are you talking about the pre-storm timing trend Innovation invented?
Are you talking about the Maru v Rain match where Maru won macro games and rush games or are you talking about Innovation losing to Naniwa?
Please be more specific.
I think he is referring to Jjajki winning with SCV pulls and Mvp losing with SCV pulls. Whether it is balanced or not is not the main issue. It just isn't entertaining to watch over and over again.
EPT
