|
On September 08 2013 08:18 ysnake wrote:
Maybe I'm biased because I loved WoL Zerg to a certain point (I shall explain this in detail later), but here's my standing about the game.
T1 Terran beats T1 Zerg, or at least has the capacity to be very cost-effective against Zerg. T1 Protoss and T1 Zerg has kinda the same going, but +1 attack on Zealots changes everything, also, if you have more Roaches than they have "stuff", it's kinda imbalanced. But let me get to the point.
I liked to play Zerg in WoL simply because of this reason: You are trying to survive to reach your ultimate units (namely Broodlords, which I still don't like today) and then you can actually inflict damage on the enemy. Now, here's where the problem rises, Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 of Terran can pretty much deal with Tier 3 of Zerg (namely, Vikings, Marines and Marauders). I kinda feel if I survive the initial onslaught that Terran brings, I should feel comfortable having "beefy" units out. However, now, if I (somehow) got 1.5k gas banked I just pump out Ultras or Brood Lords and I still do not feel comfortable with that setup (namely, because Terrans learned that if someone goes for Brood Lords, just drop him to death, and ironically, that has been buffed in HotS).
Currently, I hate playing Zerg (I cannot play Terran as I do not have the mechanics, nor can I play Protoss as I do not like allins - no pun intended, but last 14 ZvPs I've played, Protoss tried an allin) simply because I do not feel "rewarded" for surviving that long with crappy units, or I am forced into one techpath that I particularly do not like (ling/bling/muta against Terran). Against Protoss, I like it, but the thing is, as Zerg, I (somehow) do not feel comfortable harassing anything. The only time I harass a Terran is if they are painfully bad and are just slow on everything in general. I cannot tell you how many ZvPs I've lost just due to the fact that I look at his army and say "yeah, I should've built Swarm Hosts" and I absolutely hate that unit. That doesn't feel like Zerg to me, it just doesn't fit. They've tried to make Zerg being able to "contain" someone with their units, but the only "techpath" I can contain someone is if they go mech, and mech is really bad to play against as it is a 30minute turtlefest.
Currently, I am a little biased towards Zerg (I like the fact that you have fast units, I like their macro and I like that you're slowly gaining ground as the game continues) but is Zerg ever going to feel Zerg again in terms of gameplay? I am not talking to Zerg players out there, but Terran and Protoss as well, do you feel that Zerg is actually just being Zerg or do is it a one-Bo-sidefest that I've been seeing on ladder?
I do not want to compare my games to pro-players, as their mechanics are so much better than mine (I'm Diamond, playing with low/mid Masters and losing a ZvP to Platinum DT rush etc), but does the game itself feel "stale" to you? I've kept track of all threads on TL and reddit and community feels like it's awaiting armageddon of some sort.
Edit: What I wanted to say is, do you think the games should progress from Tier 1 to Tier 3 units actively? As, for now, Terran's "lategame units" suck, unless you get the massive air deathball, but that really rarely happens, especially not in pro games. Currently, Terrans are just pumping out the same units from the get-go. I kinda feel that if you're pumping out Tier 1 units, you should be able to have the edge most of the game, but if the opponent somehow reaches his higher Tier units, you need to change your strategy and build other units.
Things having more armor would be the most effective way of disincentivizing tier 1 spam. It could also slow the game down a tiny bit, giving players the ability to react strategically. The AoE counter can correspondingly be scaled back if armor is too effective.
|
On September 07 2013 20:29 Ghanburighan wrote:
A bit of food for thought, I counted the MU maps wins in the IEM KR/TW qualifier so far (not concluded yet). While it's tiny sample, it is a new indication of trends in the MUs. Note that it is not the top level (no Innovation, Bomber, Flash, Soulkey) but quite a few of the famous guys (Rain, Life, etc). This is to be analyzed in conjunction with other information that we have, and not for jumping to conclusions.
P v T
21-15: 58% (with this much variance, perfect)
Z v P
17-26: 60% (see above)
Z v T
12-2: 86% (Only Heart and Fantasy took a map off the zergs, but note that it was only 14 games!)
If anyone can be bothered to do the same for the other regions, I would be very glad.
The second cup is concluded, the results are:
P v T
12-2: 86% (Pretty bad, but VERY low numbers)
Z v P
21-24: 47% (Still trending towards P, but way less than in the last cup)
Z v T
7-6: 54% (The trend from the last time has been considerably reduced, yet even lower numbers)
Aggregated:
P v T
33-17: 66%
Z v P
38-50: 43%
Z v T
19-8: 70%
Friendly reminder, this is at best indicative of trends due to the very low sample size. Do not take it as an outright comment on balance as, for example, in the PvT MU, another win by T would reduce the winrate by a whole percentage point!
I also did the IEM international qualifiers, I aggregated US,AM,EU:
P v T
37-36: 51%
P v Z
39-38: 51%
Z v T:
32-48: 40%
Aggregation of KR/TW and International:
P v T
70-53: 57%
P v Z
77-88: 47%
Z v T
51-56: 48%
Notice that, in this small sample size, ZvT is way T favoured internationally, and way Z favoured in Korea.
As the second stage concluded in KR/TW, here are the results:
P v T
7-5: 58%
P v Z
14-8: 64%
Z v T
4-3: 57%
As you can see, the numbers were very low, but in line with the rest of the Korean bracket. If we aggregate the whole KR/TW:
P v T
40-22: 66%
Z v P
46-64: 42%
Z v T
23-11: 68%
The only MU that has a sizeable MU count is Z v P.
|
On September 08 2013 23:29 Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 08:18 ysnake wrote:
Maybe I'm biased because I loved WoL Zerg to a certain point (I shall explain this in detail later), but here's my standing about the game.
T1 Terran beats T1 Zerg, or at least has the capacity to be very cost-effective against Zerg. T1 Protoss and T1 Zerg has kinda the same going, but +1 attack on Zealots changes everything, also, if you have more Roaches than they have "stuff", it's kinda imbalanced. But let me get to the point.
I liked to play Zerg in WoL simply because of this reason: You are trying to survive to reach your ultimate units (namely Broodlords, which I still don't like today) and then you can actually inflict damage on the enemy. Now, here's where the problem rises, Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 of Terran can pretty much deal with Tier 3 of Zerg (namely, Vikings, Marines and Marauders). I kinda feel if I survive the initial onslaught that Terran brings, I should feel comfortable having "beefy" units out. However, now, if I (somehow) got 1.5k gas banked I just pump out Ultras or Brood Lords and I still do not feel comfortable with that setup (namely, because Terrans learned that if someone goes for Brood Lords, just drop him to death, and ironically, that has been buffed in HotS).
Currently, I hate playing Zerg (I cannot play Terran as I do not have the mechanics, nor can I play Protoss as I do not like allins - no pun intended, but last 14 ZvPs I've played, Protoss tried an allin) simply because I do not feel "rewarded" for surviving that long with crappy units, or I am forced into one techpath that I particularly do not like (ling/bling/muta against Terran). Against Protoss, I like it, but the thing is, as Zerg, I (somehow) do not feel comfortable harassing anything. The only time I harass a Terran is if they are painfully bad and are just slow on everything in general. I cannot tell you how many ZvPs I've lost just due to the fact that I look at his army and say "yeah, I should've built Swarm Hosts" and I absolutely hate that unit. That doesn't feel like Zerg to me, it just doesn't fit. They've tried to make Zerg being able to "contain" someone with their units, but the only "techpath" I can contain someone is if they go mech, and mech is really bad to play against as it is a 30minute turtlefest.
Currently, I am a little biased towards Zerg (I like the fact that you have fast units, I like their macro and I like that you're slowly gaining ground as the game continues) but is Zerg ever going to feel Zerg again in terms of gameplay? I am not talking to Zerg players out there, but Terran and Protoss as well, do you feel that Zerg is actually just being Zerg or do is it a one-Bo-sidefest that I've been seeing on ladder?
I do not want to compare my games to pro-players, as their mechanics are so much better than mine (I'm Diamond, playing with low/mid Masters and losing a ZvP to Platinum DT rush etc), but does the game itself feel "stale" to you? I've kept track of all threads on TL and reddit and community feels like it's awaiting armageddon of some sort.
Edit: What I wanted to say is, do you think the games should progress from Tier 1 to Tier 3 units actively? As, for now, Terran's "lategame units" suck, unless you get the massive air deathball, but that really rarely happens, especially not in pro games. Currently, Terrans are just pumping out the same units from the get-go. I kinda feel that if you're pumping out Tier 1 units, you should be able to have the edge most of the game, but if the opponent somehow reaches his higher Tier units, you need to change your strategy and build other units. Things having more armor would be the most effective way of disincentivizing tier 1 spam. It could also slow the game down a tiny bit, giving players the ability to react strategically. The AoE counter can correspondingly be scaled back if armor is too effective.
Brood War saw marine use in the TvZ match-up that was pervasive throughout all phases of the game. Zealots and dragoons were the core army units in all protoss match-ups. And even zerglings were fearsome until the late game.
I don't think that tier 1 spam is a bad idea, we're talking about core units that have the most potential for sparking dynamic gameplay. I think instead of trying to force some sort of transition into higher tech units we would be better off if we could discover new dimensions in the core units. For instance, high templar would be a flawed unit if they outright prevented any sort of tier 1 unit from being viable, it's the interaction between bio and psionic storm that creates interesting dynamics and which uncovers the potential that bio units have.
My concern with bio play is that it's too ..thematic, the gameflow never really changes and we always see the same aspects of the units highlighted. Small balance changes to discourage the parade pushes could suffice to fix TvZ, just so we could see some different scenarios.
|
In defense of tier 1 units, maybe this is a bizarre perspective, but just as an example, see this video and pretend it's an RTS game. It wouldn't be interesting without the ants, the butterflies and wasps would have nothing to interact with.
|
On September 10 2013 19:27 Grumbels wrote:In defense of tier 1 units, maybe this is a bizarre perspective, but just as an example, see this video and pretend it's an RTS game. It wouldn't be interesting without the ants, the butterflies and wasps would have nothing to interact with.
Well, the thing with T1 units in SC2 is that they will get used massively anyways, because there is no way around using them for pure income reasons.
Also I think nobody wants bad T1 units, as that's what you get in other RTS games and it sucks that there are units that just become useless. But it's kind of ridicolous that the best way to play against siege lines, expensive/powerful splash casters and huge Beasts/Mechs/Tripods is often to just "send more units".
I think the game would be more interesting with little tweaks that actually encourage people to switch up their play when they encounter certain barriers.
|
I actually think strong t1 units is amazing. I just wish protoss t1 units were stronger without gimics such as blink or force field.
|
On September 10 2013 21:46 bo1b wrote:
I actually think strong t1 units is amazing. I just wish protoss t1 units were stronger without gimics such as blink or force field.
what makes those things gimmicks, but stim and medivac pick ups and baneling landmines not? Nothing.
|
On September 09 2013 22:11 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 23:29 Cloak wrote:On September 08 2013 08:18 ysnake wrote:
Maybe I'm biased because I loved WoL Zerg to a certain point (I shall explain this in detail later), but here's my standing about the game.
T1 Terran beats T1 Zerg, or at least has the capacity to be very cost-effective against Zerg. T1 Protoss and T1 Zerg has kinda the same going, but +1 attack on Zealots changes everything, also, if you have more Roaches than they have "stuff", it's kinda imbalanced. But let me get to the point.
I liked to play Zerg in WoL simply because of this reason: You are trying to survive to reach your ultimate units (namely Broodlords, which I still don't like today) and then you can actually inflict damage on the enemy. Now, here's where the problem rises, Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 of Terran can pretty much deal with Tier 3 of Zerg (namely, Vikings, Marines and Marauders). I kinda feel if I survive the initial onslaught that Terran brings, I should feel comfortable having "beefy" units out. However, now, if I (somehow) got 1.5k gas banked I just pump out Ultras or Brood Lords and I still do not feel comfortable with that setup (namely, because Terrans learned that if someone goes for Brood Lords, just drop him to death, and ironically, that has been buffed in HotS).
Currently, I hate playing Zerg (I cannot play Terran as I do not have the mechanics, nor can I play Protoss as I do not like allins - no pun intended, but last 14 ZvPs I've played, Protoss tried an allin) simply because I do not feel "rewarded" for surviving that long with crappy units, or I am forced into one techpath that I particularly do not like (ling/bling/muta against Terran). Against Protoss, I like it, but the thing is, as Zerg, I (somehow) do not feel comfortable harassing anything. The only time I harass a Terran is if they are painfully bad and are just slow on everything in general. I cannot tell you how many ZvPs I've lost just due to the fact that I look at his army and say "yeah, I should've built Swarm Hosts" and I absolutely hate that unit. That doesn't feel like Zerg to me, it just doesn't fit. They've tried to make Zerg being able to "contain" someone with their units, but the only "techpath" I can contain someone is if they go mech, and mech is really bad to play against as it is a 30minute turtlefest.
Currently, I am a little biased towards Zerg (I like the fact that you have fast units, I like their macro and I like that you're slowly gaining ground as the game continues) but is Zerg ever going to feel Zerg again in terms of gameplay? I am not talking to Zerg players out there, but Terran and Protoss as well, do you feel that Zerg is actually just being Zerg or do is it a one-Bo-sidefest that I've been seeing on ladder?
I do not want to compare my games to pro-players, as their mechanics are so much better than mine (I'm Diamond, playing with low/mid Masters and losing a ZvP to Platinum DT rush etc), but does the game itself feel "stale" to you? I've kept track of all threads on TL and reddit and community feels like it's awaiting armageddon of some sort.
Edit: What I wanted to say is, do you think the games should progress from Tier 1 to Tier 3 units actively? As, for now, Terran's "lategame units" suck, unless you get the massive air deathball, but that really rarely happens, especially not in pro games. Currently, Terrans are just pumping out the same units from the get-go. I kinda feel that if you're pumping out Tier 1 units, you should be able to have the edge most of the game, but if the opponent somehow reaches his higher Tier units, you need to change your strategy and build other units. Things having more armor would be the most effective way of disincentivizing tier 1 spam. It could also slow the game down a tiny bit, giving players the ability to react strategically. The AoE counter can correspondingly be scaled back if armor is too effective. Brood War saw marine use in the TvZ match-up that was pervasive throughout all phases of the game. Zealots and dragoons were the core army units in all protoss match-ups. And even zerglings were fearsome until the late game. I don't think that tier 1 spam is a bad idea, we're talking about core units that have the most potential for sparking dynamic gameplay. I think instead of trying to force some sort of transition into higher tech units we would be better of if we could discover new dimensions in the core units. For instance, high templar would be a flawed unit if they outright prevented any sort of tier 1 unit from being viable, it's the interaction between bio and psionic storm that creates interesting dynamics and which uncovers the potential that bio units have. My concern with bio play is that it's too ..thematic, the gameflow never really changes and we always see the same aspects of the units highlighted. Small balance changes to discourage the parade pushes could suffice to fix TvZ, just so we could see some different scenarios.
I don't want to exclude tier 1 from certain phases of the game, but that thematic flow you mention is directly tied to unit potency. If something is too prevalent, then you have to assess why that dynamic dominates other potential dynamics. I'll pick on the Marine, and say that it's the dps/cost for him. The only way to meaningfully counter that dps is with more dps (AoE). The entertainment comes from the positioning (chasing/dodging).
That dynamic has been exhausted, so naturally we're craving something different. You have to negate that dps/cost somehow, otherwise the solution will just be a bigger ratio and accomplish what Storm/Banes/Tanks already do. Since it's in the context of enabling tier 2 and 3, we can look at the characteristics of those units and find where they are better and where tier 1 suffers too. Not by a significant amount, but if tier 1 is phased out enough where higher units see use, like Carriers for example, then you could see a cyclical transitioning back to tier 1, or any permutation. Also, by making a new backbone, you're opening up a new phylum of possibilities. The key element is that it remains cyclical, rather than 1 uber comp.
Armor upgrades or buffs to certain units seemed like a natural alternative that would fit those qualifications. The game would probably do better if battles lasted longer, but not by a significant margin. As a spectator or player you want to tease out as much as possible, and SC2 has always had that complaint. The pathing ship has sailed, but we can use more conventional means to accomplish better tendencies. Unit size is also a valid way. I just see it as a battle per deadtime ratio. Battles that resolve quickly aren't going to be as engaging precisely because the dynamics need that time to elaborate. Things can get stupid and both sides just stand there trading blows, but that is avoidable, just requires good balance judgement.
I'm going to go against my last paragraph and say that BW despite its slower battle resolution was still stagnant compositionally. It had a lot of great dynamics, but rarely any deviation. Lurker, Goliath, Scourge, Vulture and Corsair were great units for their dynamics and are sorely missed. My point is that there is no silver bullet and while adding new units will add dynamics, I think we still got plenty of room with the existing pieces.
|
On September 10 2013 22:25 Cloak wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 09 2013 22:11 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 23:29 Cloak wrote:On September 08 2013 08:18 ysnake wrote:
Maybe I'm biased because I loved WoL Zerg to a certain point (I shall explain this in detail later), but here's my standing about the game.
T1 Terran beats T1 Zerg, or at least has the capacity to be very cost-effective against Zerg. T1 Protoss and T1 Zerg has kinda the same going, but +1 attack on Zealots changes everything, also, if you have more Roaches than they have "stuff", it's kinda imbalanced. But let me get to the point.
I liked to play Zerg in WoL simply because of this reason: You are trying to survive to reach your ultimate units (namely Broodlords, which I still don't like today) and then you can actually inflict damage on the enemy. Now, here's where the problem rises, Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 of Terran can pretty much deal with Tier 3 of Zerg (namely, Vikings, Marines and Marauders). I kinda feel if I survive the initial onslaught that Terran brings, I should feel comfortable having "beefy" units out. However, now, if I (somehow) got 1.5k gas banked I just pump out Ultras or Brood Lords and I still do not feel comfortable with that setup (namely, because Terrans learned that if someone goes for Brood Lords, just drop him to death, and ironically, that has been buffed in HotS).
Currently, I hate playing Zerg (I cannot play Terran as I do not have the mechanics, nor can I play Protoss as I do not like allins - no pun intended, but last 14 ZvPs I've played, Protoss tried an allin) simply because I do not feel "rewarded" for surviving that long with crappy units, or I am forced into one techpath that I particularly do not like (ling/bling/muta against Terran). Against Protoss, I like it, but the thing is, as Zerg, I (somehow) do not feel comfortable harassing anything. The only time I harass a Terran is if they are painfully bad and are just slow on everything in general. I cannot tell you how many ZvPs I've lost just due to the fact that I look at his army and say "yeah, I should've built Swarm Hosts" and I absolutely hate that unit. That doesn't feel like Zerg to me, it just doesn't fit. They've tried to make Zerg being able to "contain" someone with their units, but the only "techpath" I can contain someone is if they go mech, and mech is really bad to play against as it is a 30minute turtlefest.
Currently, I am a little biased towards Zerg (I like the fact that you have fast units, I like their macro and I like that you're slowly gaining ground as the game continues) but is Zerg ever going to feel Zerg again in terms of gameplay? I am not talking to Zerg players out there, but Terran and Protoss as well, do you feel that Zerg is actually just being Zerg or do is it a one-Bo-sidefest that I've been seeing on ladder?
I do not want to compare my games to pro-players, as their mechanics are so much better than mine (I'm Diamond, playing with low/mid Masters and losing a ZvP to Platinum DT rush etc), but does the game itself feel "stale" to you? I've kept track of all threads on TL and reddit and community feels like it's awaiting armageddon of some sort.
Edit: What I wanted to say is, do you think the games should progress from Tier 1 to Tier 3 units actively? As, for now, Terran's "lategame units" suck, unless you get the massive air deathball, but that really rarely happens, especially not in pro games. Currently, Terrans are just pumping out the same units from the get-go. I kinda feel that if you're pumping out Tier 1 units, you should be able to have the edge most of the game, but if the opponent somehow reaches his higher Tier units, you need to change your strategy and build other units. Things having more armor would be the most effective way of disincentivizing tier 1 spam. It could also slow the game down a tiny bit, giving players the ability to react strategically. The AoE counter can correspondingly be scaled back if armor is too effective. Brood War saw marine use in the TvZ match-up that was pervasive throughout all phases of the game. Zealots and dragoons were the core army units in all protoss match-ups. And even zerglings were fearsome until the late game. I don't think that tier 1 spam is a bad idea, we're talking about core units that have the most potential for sparking dynamic gameplay. I think instead of trying to force some sort of transition into higher tech units we would be better of if we could discover new dimensions in the core units. For instance, high templar would be a flawed unit if they outright prevented any sort of tier 1 unit from being viable, it's the interaction between bio and psionic storm that creates interesting dynamics and which uncovers the potential that bio units have. My concern with bio play is that it's too ..thematic, the gameflow never really changes and we always see the same aspects of the units highlighted. Small balance changes to discourage the parade pushes could suffice to fix TvZ, just so we could see some different scenarios. I don't want to exclude tier 1 from certain phases of the game, but that thematic flow you mention is directly tied to unit potency. If something is too prevalent, then you have to assess why that dynamic dominates other potential dynamics. I'll pick on the Marine, and say that it's the dps/cost for him. The only way to meaningfully counter that dps is with more dps (AoE). The entertainment comes from the positioning (chasing/dodging). That dynamic has been exhausted, so naturally we're craving something different. You have to negate that dps/cost somehow, otherwise the solution will just be a bigger ratio and accomplish what Storm/Banes/Tanks already do. Since it's in the context of enabling tier 2 and 3, we can look at the characteristics of those units and find where they are better and where tier 1 suffers too. Not by a significant amount, but if tier 1 is phased out enough where higher units see use, like Carriers for example, then you could see a cyclical transitioning back to tier 1, or any permutation. Also, by making a new backbone, you're opening up a new phylum of possibilities. The key element is that it remains cyclical, rather than 1 uber comp. Armor upgrades or buffs to certain units seemed like a natural alternative that would fit those qualifications. The game would probably do better if battles lasted longer, but not by a significant margin. As a spectator or player you want to tease out as much as possible, and SC2 has always had that complaint. The pathing ship has sailed, but we can use more conventional means to accomplish better tendencies. Unit size is also a valid way. I just see it as a battle per deadtime ratio. Battles that resolve quickly aren't going to be as engaging precisely because the dynamics need that time to elaborate. Things can get stupid and both sides just stand there trading blows, but that is avoidable, just requires good balance judgement. I'm going to go against my last paragraph and say that BW despite its slower battle resolution was still stagnant compositionally. It had a lot of great dynamics, but rarely any deviation. Lurker, Goliath, Scourge, Vulture and Corsair were great units for their dynamics and are sorely missed. My point is that there is no silver bullet and while adding new units will add dynamics, I think we still got plenty of room with the existing pieces.
I think we should be very careful with our core units. If marines become weaker than marauders the game suffers as a result, because you lose out on much of the micro/positional requirements for marines. I've seen games where one player only cares about building mutalisks, void rays, phoenixes, ravens, infestors, colossi, promoting one of those to core unit and while it's occasionally interesting, if it's repeated it quickly results in a degenerate match-up. (not going to offer any proof for this statement, but it seems obvious to me)
It's not even that marines are well designed. I don't think you can even talk about good or bad design, since marines serve as fodder for other units to interact with. You can call a lurker well designed because of the way it interacts with the marine, but you can't say the same thing the other way around because a marine is more fundamental to the game.
That's not to say that I think only the marine, zergling, zealot should be allowed to be a core army unit, it's okay if you can cycle between several of them (upgrades make this more difficult of course), but it's also something that can easily go wrong. I think it's safer to designate most units to support roles and to keep the basic units featured heavily in all phases of all match-ups. It's an extreme point of view, I won't completely stand by it, but I think there's something to it.
And at the very least, everyone that complains that marines can kill ultralisks should reconsider their opinion. I mean, would they be happy if only mass thors had a chance vs mass ultra? Enjoy your horribly boring games.
|
BW Protoss was amazing despite all their games being dragoon/Zealot spamming.
How often a composition is used is not what determines whether it is interesting. How those units are used is much more interesting. What made Protoss fun to watch in BW was how the addition of a few tech units forced Protoss to play completely differently. High Templars meant you tried to ball up your army so your enemy had to clump up to fight you--and then get hit by storms. If you used reavers you then had to spread your forces to stretch the enemy line thin so that reaver drops could snipe straggling enemy units and there wouldn't be enough anti-air to stop shuttle play. So even though all games spammed the same Dragoon/Zealot composition, and many times a pure dragoon only composition, it was interesting to watch how constantly different the composition played.
MMMM play does not play very differently from MMM play, most low tier strats in sc2 doesn't play very differently from each other. What is needed is not tech switches what is needed is tactical variety.
The easiest way to do it is to make AOE ridiculously strong and ridiculously immobile. Go back to the core of a strategy game. Cheap units can hit everywhere but strong units can't keep up. That will create tactical variety. You the. Slow the game down, so we can better see what happens when a deathball smashes into each other. Then reduce the number of mineral patches, that way 4 bases is needed for efficient saturation but actually stretches your defenses too thin--this will bring back the turtle>aggression>greedy dynamic. Right now, turtling and greedy are the same thing since you turtle on three bases and you're greedy on three bases. Turtling should be something that allows you to hold less bases than greedy play. But when you turtle, you should have a near impregnable defense so that aggressive play can almost never break you.
|
On September 10 2013 22:54 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 22:25 Cloak wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 09 2013 22:11 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 23:29 Cloak wrote:On September 08 2013 08:18 ysnake wrote:
Maybe I'm biased because I loved WoL Zerg to a certain point (I shall explain this in detail later), but here's my standing about the game.
T1 Terran beats T1 Zerg, or at least has the capacity to be very cost-effective against Zerg. T1 Protoss and T1 Zerg has kinda the same going, but +1 attack on Zealots changes everything, also, if you have more Roaches than they have "stuff", it's kinda imbalanced. But let me get to the point.
I liked to play Zerg in WoL simply because of this reason: You are trying to survive to reach your ultimate units (namely Broodlords, which I still don't like today) and then you can actually inflict damage on the enemy. Now, here's where the problem rises, Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 of Terran can pretty much deal with Tier 3 of Zerg (namely, Vikings, Marines and Marauders). I kinda feel if I survive the initial onslaught that Terran brings, I should feel comfortable having "beefy" units out. However, now, if I (somehow) got 1.5k gas banked I just pump out Ultras or Brood Lords and I still do not feel comfortable with that setup (namely, because Terrans learned that if someone goes for Brood Lords, just drop him to death, and ironically, that has been buffed in HotS).
Currently, I hate playing Zerg (I cannot play Terran as I do not have the mechanics, nor can I play Protoss as I do not like allins - no pun intended, but last 14 ZvPs I've played, Protoss tried an allin) simply because I do not feel "rewarded" for surviving that long with crappy units, or I am forced into one techpath that I particularly do not like (ling/bling/muta against Terran). Against Protoss, I like it, but the thing is, as Zerg, I (somehow) do not feel comfortable harassing anything. The only time I harass a Terran is if they are painfully bad and are just slow on everything in general. I cannot tell you how many ZvPs I've lost just due to the fact that I look at his army and say "yeah, I should've built Swarm Hosts" and I absolutely hate that unit. That doesn't feel like Zerg to me, it just doesn't fit. They've tried to make Zerg being able to "contain" someone with their units, but the only "techpath" I can contain someone is if they go mech, and mech is really bad to play against as it is a 30minute turtlefest.
Currently, I am a little biased towards Zerg (I like the fact that you have fast units, I like their macro and I like that you're slowly gaining ground as the game continues) but is Zerg ever going to feel Zerg again in terms of gameplay? I am not talking to Zerg players out there, but Terran and Protoss as well, do you feel that Zerg is actually just being Zerg or do is it a one-Bo-sidefest that I've been seeing on ladder?
I do not want to compare my games to pro-players, as their mechanics are so much better than mine (I'm Diamond, playing with low/mid Masters and losing a ZvP to Platinum DT rush etc), but does the game itself feel "stale" to you? I've kept track of all threads on TL and reddit and community feels like it's awaiting armageddon of some sort.
Edit: What I wanted to say is, do you think the games should progress from Tier 1 to Tier 3 units actively? As, for now, Terran's "lategame units" suck, unless you get the massive air deathball, but that really rarely happens, especially not in pro games. Currently, Terrans are just pumping out the same units from the get-go. I kinda feel that if you're pumping out Tier 1 units, you should be able to have the edge most of the game, but if the opponent somehow reaches his higher Tier units, you need to change your strategy and build other units. Things having more armor would be the most effective way of disincentivizing tier 1 spam. It could also slow the game down a tiny bit, giving players the ability to react strategically. The AoE counter can correspondingly be scaled back if armor is too effective. Brood War saw marine use in the TvZ match-up that was pervasive throughout all phases of the game. Zealots and dragoons were the core army units in all protoss match-ups. And even zerglings were fearsome until the late game. I don't think that tier 1 spam is a bad idea, we're talking about core units that have the most potential for sparking dynamic gameplay. I think instead of trying to force some sort of transition into higher tech units we would be better of if we could discover new dimensions in the core units. For instance, high templar would be a flawed unit if they outright prevented any sort of tier 1 unit from being viable, it's the interaction between bio and psionic storm that creates interesting dynamics and which uncovers the potential that bio units have. My concern with bio play is that it's too ..thematic, the gameflow never really changes and we always see the same aspects of the units highlighted. Small balance changes to discourage the parade pushes could suffice to fix TvZ, just so we could see some different scenarios. I don't want to exclude tier 1 from certain phases of the game, but that thematic flow you mention is directly tied to unit potency. If something is too prevalent, then you have to assess why that dynamic dominates other potential dynamics. I'll pick on the Marine, and say that it's the dps/cost for him. The only way to meaningfully counter that dps is with more dps (AoE). The entertainment comes from the positioning (chasing/dodging). That dynamic has been exhausted, so naturally we're craving something different. You have to negate that dps/cost somehow, otherwise the solution will just be a bigger ratio and accomplish what Storm/Banes/Tanks already do. Since it's in the context of enabling tier 2 and 3, we can look at the characteristics of those units and find where they are better and where tier 1 suffers too. Not by a significant amount, but if tier 1 is phased out enough where higher units see use, like Carriers for example, then you could see a cyclical transitioning back to tier 1, or any permutation. Also, by making a new backbone, you're opening up a new phylum of possibilities. The key element is that it remains cyclical, rather than 1 uber comp. Armor upgrades or buffs to certain units seemed like a natural alternative that would fit those qualifications. The game would probably do better if battles lasted longer, but not by a significant margin. As a spectator or player you want to tease out as much as possible, and SC2 has always had that complaint. The pathing ship has sailed, but we can use more conventional means to accomplish better tendencies. Unit size is also a valid way. I just see it as a battle per deadtime ratio. Battles that resolve quickly aren't going to be as engaging precisely because the dynamics need that time to elaborate. Things can get stupid and both sides just stand there trading blows, but that is avoidable, just requires good balance judgement. I'm going to go against my last paragraph and say that BW despite its slower battle resolution was still stagnant compositionally. It had a lot of great dynamics, but rarely any deviation. Lurker, Goliath, Scourge, Vulture and Corsair were great units for their dynamics and are sorely missed. My point is that there is no silver bullet and while adding new units will add dynamics, I think we still got plenty of room with the existing pieces. I think we should be very careful with our core units. If marines become weaker than marauders the game suffers as a result, because you lose out on much of the micro/positional requirements for marines. I've seen games where one player only cares about building mutalisks, void rays, phoenixes, ravens, infestors, colossi, promoting one of those to core unit and while it's occasionally interesting, if it's repeated it quickly results in a degenerate match-up. (not going to offer any proof for this statement, but it seems obvious to me) It's not even that marines are well designed. I don't think you can even talk about good or bad design, since marines serve as fodder for other units to interact with. You can call a lurker well designed because of the way it interacts with the marine, but you can't say the same thing the other way around because a marine is more fundamental to the game. That's not to say that I think only the marine, zergling, zealot should be allowed to be a core army unit, it's okay if you can cycle between several of them (upgrades make this more difficult of course), but it's also something that can easily go wrong. I think it's safer to designate most units to support roles and to keep the basic units featured heavily in all phases of all match-ups. It's an extreme point of view, I won't completely stand by it, but I think there's something to it. And at the very least, everyone that complains that marines can kill ultralisks should reconsider their opinion. I mean, would they be happy if only mass thors had a chance vs mass ultra? Enjoy your horribly boring games.
Well, but wouldn't it be better if those basic units had a role, but wouldn't be THE main combat units? Like the marine is an amazing harassment unit regardless and even in games when the marine actually could be countered very hard (like a TvT with siege tanks or in WoL against BL/Infestor) it was still used excessively.
Same can be said about the zergling. Like, even with 4M on the field which just rapes zerglings, and even with Protoss usually having those deathballs that zerglings can't really kill, it is such a versatile unit that still everybody plays it. It's just not the unit you need to win battles. (similarily Zealots, which is mostly strong because of its use as damage tank for other units and its use as reinforcement/harass unit with warp ins).
Like, with how starcraft works there is hardly any way around using low tier units excessively anyways, just due to the income (mineral heavy), production facilities (once you built them, you will use them) and timings (no way around to build a solid amount of T1 early on to survive). Then add the unit designs which are in a way that you actually have to use those units to a certain degree or your race will suffer as it will lack crucial roles.
So I do believe that T1 units will be used regardless to a huge degree. Mass Thor vs mass ultras would maybe make for the deciding battle (though that would again be a design fail. This antiground role should go to the Tank and the Marauder, as the Thor like the marine is more versatile), but the way to get there would still be paved with marines, mines, hellions, zerglings, roaches, banelings and all that good stuff. There would just be that point when your lowtech units would not be your main combat units anymore.
|
On September 08 2013 23:29 Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 08:18 ysnake wrote:
Maybe I'm biased because I loved WoL Zerg to a certain point (I shall explain this in detail later), but here's my standing about the game.
T1 Terran beats T1 Zerg, or at least has the capacity to be very cost-effective against Zerg. T1 Protoss and T1 Zerg has kinda the same going, but +1 attack on Zealots changes everything, also, if you have more Roaches than they have "stuff", it's kinda imbalanced. But let me get to the point.
I liked to play Zerg in WoL simply because of this reason: You are trying to survive to reach your ultimate units (namely Broodlords, which I still don't like today) and then you can actually inflict damage on the enemy. Now, here's where the problem rises, Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 of Terran can pretty much deal with Tier 3 of Zerg (namely, Vikings, Marines and Marauders). I kinda feel if I survive the initial onslaught that Terran brings, I should feel comfortable having "beefy" units out. However, now, if I (somehow) got 1.5k gas banked I just pump out Ultras or Brood Lords and I still do not feel comfortable with that setup (namely, because Terrans learned that if someone goes for Brood Lords, just drop him to death, and ironically, that has been buffed in HotS).
Currently, I hate playing Zerg (I cannot play Terran as I do not have the mechanics, nor can I play Protoss as I do not like allins - no pun intended, but last 14 ZvPs I've played, Protoss tried an allin) simply because I do not feel "rewarded" for surviving that long with crappy units, or I am forced into one techpath that I particularly do not like (ling/bling/muta against Terran). Against Protoss, I like it, but the thing is, as Zerg, I (somehow) do not feel comfortable harassing anything. The only time I harass a Terran is if they are painfully bad and are just slow on everything in general. I cannot tell you how many ZvPs I've lost just due to the fact that I look at his army and say "yeah, I should've built Swarm Hosts" and I absolutely hate that unit. That doesn't feel like Zerg to me, it just doesn't fit. They've tried to make Zerg being able to "contain" someone with their units, but the only "techpath" I can contain someone is if they go mech, and mech is really bad to play against as it is a 30minute turtlefest.
Currently, I am a little biased towards Zerg (I like the fact that you have fast units, I like their macro and I like that you're slowly gaining ground as the game continues) but is Zerg ever going to feel Zerg again in terms of gameplay? I am not talking to Zerg players out there, but Terran and Protoss as well, do you feel that Zerg is actually just being Zerg or do is it a one-Bo-sidefest that I've been seeing on ladder?
I do not want to compare my games to pro-players, as their mechanics are so much better than mine (I'm Diamond, playing with low/mid Masters and losing a ZvP to Platinum DT rush etc), but does the game itself feel "stale" to you? I've kept track of all threads on TL and reddit and community feels like it's awaiting armageddon of some sort.
Edit: What I wanted to say is, do you think the games should progress from Tier 1 to Tier 3 units actively? As, for now, Terran's "lategame units" suck, unless you get the massive air deathball, but that really rarely happens, especially not in pro games. Currently, Terrans are just pumping out the same units from the get-go. I kinda feel that if you're pumping out Tier 1 units, you should be able to have the edge most of the game, but if the opponent somehow reaches his higher Tier units, you need to change your strategy and build other units. Things having more armor would be the most effective way of disincentivizing tier 1 spam. It could also slow the game down a tiny bit, giving players the ability to react strategically. The AoE counter can correspondingly be scaled back if armor is too effective.
Well, if you want to make t1 Zerg similar in strength to t1 terrans and t3 for both races much stronger than t1. You basically have to redo the whole Zerg inject larvae vs Terran infrastructure and build time. Because the Zerg has a MUCH easier time tech switching. How long does it take a mid game Zerg to make 11 BLs vs a mid game Terran making 11 BCs?
|
On September 10 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 21:46 bo1b wrote:
I actually think strong t1 units is amazing. I just wish protoss t1 units were stronger without gimics such as blink or force field. what makes those things gimmicks, but stim and medivac pick ups and baneling landmines not? Nothing.
You really think stim medivac pick ups and baneling landmines are even remotely comparible to the gimck level of forcefield or blink?
Gonna have to agree to disagree if thats what you truly believe.
|
On September 10 2013 23:23 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:On September 10 2013 21:46 bo1b wrote:
I actually think strong t1 units is amazing. I just wish protoss t1 units were stronger without gimics such as blink or force field. what makes those things gimmicks, but stim and medivac pick ups and baneling landmines not? Nothing. You really think stim medivac pick ups and baneling landmines are even remotely comparible to the gimck level of forcefield or blink? Gonna have to agree to disagree if thats what you truly believe.
I think he is pointing out that the measurement of gimmick is totally subjective. Stim is just as "gimmicky" as blink for some people. Its is totally what about what you like and dislike in the game.
|
This is silly even arguing such a point, nvm
|
On September 10 2013 23:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 23:23 bo1b wrote:On September 10 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:On September 10 2013 21:46 bo1b wrote:
I actually think strong t1 units is amazing. I just wish protoss t1 units were stronger without gimics such as blink or force field. what makes those things gimmicks, but stim and medivac pick ups and baneling landmines not? Nothing. You really think stim medivac pick ups and baneling landmines are even remotely comparible to the gimck level of forcefield or blink? Gonna have to agree to disagree if thats what you truly believe. I think he is pointing out that the measurement of gimmick is totally subjective. Stim is just as "gimmicky" as blink for some people. Its is totally what about what you like and dislike in the game.
yup. I mean, I can agree that forcefield is very different from basically anything else in the game, as it is the only real terraforming ability. (all comparable abilities that create something usually still give you the choice to walk through it and just have a negative effect on your units when you do it)
For blink I really don't see your issue. I mean, a blink allin is by no means conceptually different from a doom drop. You use an ability (drop/blink) to evade Terrain with units that else couldn't go there.
Or pick ups aren't conceptually different from blink away play: escaping out of situations that the unit "usually" couldn't escape from.
The differences are not in design, they are simply in useability. It's just much easier (and differently balanced) to blink down a cliff to chase a unit, then to pick up 20marines in 5medivacs and speed them over the cliff and drop them out to do the same. But conceptually, you did the same: you used an ability to reach a point faster than if the unit had just walked there.
|
On September 10 2013 23:33 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 23:29 Plansix wrote:On September 10 2013 23:23 bo1b wrote:On September 10 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:On September 10 2013 21:46 bo1b wrote:
I actually think strong t1 units is amazing. I just wish protoss t1 units were stronger without gimics such as blink or force field. what makes those things gimmicks, but stim and medivac pick ups and baneling landmines not? Nothing. You really think stim medivac pick ups and baneling landmines are even remotely comparible to the gimck level of forcefield or blink? Gonna have to agree to disagree if thats what you truly believe. I think he is pointing out that the measurement of gimmick is totally subjective. Stim is just as "gimmicky" as blink for some people. Its is totally what about what you like and dislike in the game. I love reading stuff like this. I guess that while the vast majority of people enjoy watching a game of tvz circa 2011-early 2012, some people like watching 2 base pvz timings, or ramp forcefields. Oh well.
That is exactly what personal preference is, people like different things. I find it more amusing when people try to pass off their personal preferences off as fact or assume that their feelings are the same as the majority. Or use totally subjective word like "gimmicky" to describe an ability they personally don't like and pass that off as "fact."
|
On September 10 2013 23:37 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 23:29 Plansix wrote:On September 10 2013 23:23 bo1b wrote:On September 10 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:On September 10 2013 21:46 bo1b wrote:
I actually think strong t1 units is amazing. I just wish protoss t1 units were stronger without gimics such as blink or force field. what makes those things gimmicks, but stim and medivac pick ups and baneling landmines not? Nothing. You really think stim medivac pick ups and baneling landmines are even remotely comparible to the gimck level of forcefield or blink? Gonna have to agree to disagree if thats what you truly believe. I think he is pointing out that the measurement of gimmick is totally subjective. Stim is just as "gimmicky" as blink for some people. Its is totally what about what you like and dislike in the game. yup. I mean, I can agree that forcefield is very different from basically anything else in the game, as it is the only real terraforming ability. (all comparable abilities that create something usually still give you the choice to walk through it and just have a negative effect on your units when you do it) For blink I really don't see your issue. I mean, a blink allin is by no means conceptually different from a doom drop. You use an ability (drop/blink) to evade Terrain with units that else couldn't go there. Or pick ups aren't conceptually different from blink away play: escaping out of situations that the unit "usually" couldn't escape from. The differences are not in design, they are simply in useability. It's just much easier (and differently balanced) to blink down a cliff to chase a unit, then to pick up 20marines in 5medivacs and speed them over the cliff and drop them out to do the same. But conceptually, you did the same: you used an ability to reach a point faster than if the unit had just walked there.
Agreed and I think we are slowly moving away from the era of force fields. If anything the MSC come close to freeing protoss from their need to have an easy to defend natural and third base. The new map sets have way more interesting bases and I think we should encourage that more. We need to get away from maps that are immune to all forms of harassment and get back to maps that have flaws that must be addressed in each match up.
|
On September 10 2013 23:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 23:37 Big J wrote:On September 10 2013 23:29 Plansix wrote:On September 10 2013 23:23 bo1b wrote:On September 10 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:On September 10 2013 21:46 bo1b wrote:
I actually think strong t1 units is amazing. I just wish protoss t1 units were stronger without gimics such as blink or force field. what makes those things gimmicks, but stim and medivac pick ups and baneling landmines not? Nothing. You really think stim medivac pick ups and baneling landmines are even remotely comparible to the gimck level of forcefield or blink? Gonna have to agree to disagree if thats what you truly believe. I think he is pointing out that the measurement of gimmick is totally subjective. Stim is just as "gimmicky" as blink for some people. Its is totally what about what you like and dislike in the game. yup. I mean, I can agree that forcefield is very different from basically anything else in the game, as it is the only real terraforming ability. (all comparable abilities that create something usually still give you the choice to walk through it and just have a negative effect on your units when you do it) For blink I really don't see your issue. I mean, a blink allin is by no means conceptually different from a doom drop. You use an ability (drop/blink) to evade Terrain with units that else couldn't go there. Or pick ups aren't conceptually different from blink away play: escaping out of situations that the unit "usually" couldn't escape from. The differences are not in design, they are simply in useability. It's just much easier (and differently balanced) to blink down a cliff to chase a unit, then to pick up 20marines in 5medivacs and speed them over the cliff and drop them out to do the same. But conceptually, you did the same: you used an ability to reach a point faster than if the unit had just walked there. Agreed and I think we are slowly moving away from the era of force fields. If anything the MSC come close to freeing protoss from their need to have an easy to defend natural and third base. The new map sets have way more interesting bases and I think we should encourage that more. We need to get away from maps that are immune to all forms of harassment and get back to maps that have flaws that must be addressed in each match up.
yeah, there aren't many forcefield heavy strategies around anymore. The soultrain and some gateway allins. Most Protoss players spend their gas on other stuff these days.
The new maps are interesting for sure and way to many people (including myself) were quite fast on categorizing Yeonsu and Frost as "too standard". Not to mention Polar Night (which way too many players veto I think ; at least I get very few games on it  )
|
On September 10 2013 23:52 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 23:42 Plansix wrote:On September 10 2013 23:37 Big J wrote:On September 10 2013 23:29 Plansix wrote:On September 10 2013 23:23 bo1b wrote:On September 10 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:On September 10 2013 21:46 bo1b wrote:
I actually think strong t1 units is amazing. I just wish protoss t1 units were stronger without gimics such as blink or force field. what makes those things gimmicks, but stim and medivac pick ups and baneling landmines not? Nothing. You really think stim medivac pick ups and baneling landmines are even remotely comparible to the gimck level of forcefield or blink? Gonna have to agree to disagree if thats what you truly believe. I think he is pointing out that the measurement of gimmick is totally subjective. Stim is just as "gimmicky" as blink for some people. Its is totally what about what you like and dislike in the game. yup. I mean, I can agree that forcefield is very different from basically anything else in the game, as it is the only real terraforming ability. (all comparable abilities that create something usually still give you the choice to walk through it and just have a negative effect on your units when you do it) For blink I really don't see your issue. I mean, a blink allin is by no means conceptually different from a doom drop. You use an ability (drop/blink) to evade Terrain with units that else couldn't go there. Or pick ups aren't conceptually different from blink away play: escaping out of situations that the unit "usually" couldn't escape from. The differences are not in design, they are simply in useability. It's just much easier (and differently balanced) to blink down a cliff to chase a unit, then to pick up 20marines in 5medivacs and speed them over the cliff and drop them out to do the same. But conceptually, you did the same: you used an ability to reach a point faster than if the unit had just walked there. Agreed and I think we are slowly moving away from the era of force fields. If anything the MSC come close to freeing protoss from their need to have an easy to defend natural and third base. The new map sets have way more interesting bases and I think we should encourage that more. We need to get away from maps that are immune to all forms of harassment and get back to maps that have flaws that must be addressed in each match up. yeah, there aren't many forcefield heavy strategies around anymore. The soultrain and some gateway allins. Most Protoss players spend their gas on other stuff these days. The new maps are interesting for sure and way to many people (including myself) were quite fast on categorizing Yeonsu and Frost as "too standard". Not to mention Polar Night (which way too many players veto I think ; at least I get very few games on it )
Yeah, don't get me started about professional players and vetoing maps. I get the dislike for maps that allow for a strong 2 base all in, but the game is never going to develop if we don't have more interesting maps. Half the fun of watching SC2 is seeing the players be creative and they won't do that if all the maps are dull as shit and just let them play as greedy as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
