|
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.
50 speed increase + quadrupled longevity + flight seems more gimmicky than casting temporary forcefields.
Cheap cloak race wide invisibility also seems more gimmicky than blink
So idk what you're talking about.
|
So i was just thinking about how higher level units get hard countered by a lot of the T1 or T2 units in the game.
What if we dropped the "armor" tag from some T3 units like Battlecruisers, Carriers, Ultralisks, Thors, etc ? The armored rating basically serves as a way that they take extra damage from everything. They would simply be "Massive" units.
So rather than just building more Maurauders when the Zerg gets a decent amount of Ultra maybe you have to add Thors (which would be stronger this way) or tech switch to BC (which wont get insta killed by Corruptor anymore and could deal damage from the air) Corruptors still do bonus to massive thanks MstrJinbo
I realize there could be a lot of problems...like if Vikings didnt kill Collosis fast enough this way, etc...but a few of the top units that are underused could benefit from this to make them more powerful.
It would change up the dynamics of the matchups so players have to find new counters or actually tech up/switch compositions. Could adjust their cost/supply/build time so getting to these units is a high risk/high reward situation, and they would require support to be effective still.
|
On September 10 2013 23:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 23:52 Big J wrote: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.
I don't see why you would expect anything from professional players. This conversation has been had many times before: why don't they try out the balance maps? Why are they so conservative with accepting new maps? And so on...
As a group they are useless, it's very rare for any of them to actively consider the health of the game.
|
On September 11 2013 00:17 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 23:55 Plansix wrote:On September 10 2013 23:52 Big J wrote: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. I don't see why you would expect anything from professional players. This conversation has been had many times before: why don't they try out the balance maps? Why are they so conservative with accepting new maps? And so on... As a group they are useless, it's very rare for any of them to actively consider the health of the game.
I don’t really and you are right that they would make me watch 1000 boring games as long as they won them. They love to complain about how they can’t use their standard, fast three base build on a map and that Blink stalkers could somehow enter the main. At this point, I am glad that Blizzard and the map makers seem to be getting away from that and the players will just have to figure it out. The players(profession and otherwise) who just want to do mechanical builds and not try out new things will just have to wait for someone to figure out the map for them.
PS: Except MC, who loves new maps and new builds.
|
On September 11 2013 00:13 Code wrote:
So i was just thinking about how higher level units get hard countered by a lot of the T1 or T2 units in the game.
What if we dropped the "armor" tag from some T3 units like Battlecruisers, Carriers, Ultralisks, Thors, etc ? The armored rating basically serves as a way that they take extra damage from everything. They would simply be "Massive" units.
So rather than just building more Maurauders when the Zerg gets a decent amount of Ultra maybe you have to add Thors (which would be stronger this way) or tech switch to BC (which wont get insta killed by Corruptor anymore and could deal damage from the air)
I realize there could be a lot of problems...like if Vikings didnt kill Collosis fast enough this way, etc...but a few of the top units that are underused could benefit from this to make them more powerful.
It would change up the dynamics of the matchups so players have to find new counters or actually tech up/switch compositions. Could adjust their cost/supply/build time so getting to these units is a high risk/high reward situation, and they would require support to be effective still.
Corruptors do bonus damage to massive units not armored. Void rays do +armor damage.
|
On September 12 2013 02:41 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 00:13 Code wrote:
So i was just thinking about how higher level units get hard countered by a lot of the T1 or T2 units in the game.
What if we dropped the "armor" tag from some T3 units like Battlecruisers, Carriers, Ultralisks, Thors, etc ? The armored rating basically serves as a way that they take extra damage from everything. They would simply be "Massive" units.
So rather than just building more Maurauders when the Zerg gets a decent amount of Ultra maybe you have to add Thors (which would be stronger this way) or tech switch to BC (which wont get insta killed by Corruptor anymore and could deal damage from the air)
I realize there could be a lot of problems...like if Vikings didnt kill Collosis fast enough this way, etc...but a few of the top units that are underused could benefit from this to make them more powerful.
It would change up the dynamics of the matchups so players have to find new counters or actually tech up/switch compositions. Could adjust their cost/supply/build time so getting to these units is a high risk/high reward situation, and they would require support to be effective still. Corruptors do bonus damage to massive units not armored. Void rays do +armor damage.
Don't let tiny details get in the way of what he's truly asking for--for the Massive descriptor to matter to the game outside of Phoenix and Forcefields
That when things are big enough the type of shells you use stop mattering.
Nothing short of the archon will hurt Ultralisks. Thors suddenly gets built for what we imagine giant robots to be built for--to do a pacific rimjob on the enemy massive units!
|
On September 12 2013 02:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 02:41 MstrJinbo wrote:On September 11 2013 00:13 Code wrote:
So i was just thinking about how higher level units get hard countered by a lot of the T1 or T2 units in the game.
What if we dropped the "armor" tag from some T3 units like Battlecruisers, Carriers, Ultralisks, Thors, etc ? The armored rating basically serves as a way that they take extra damage from everything. They would simply be "Massive" units.
So rather than just building more Maurauders when the Zerg gets a decent amount of Ultra maybe you have to add Thors (which would be stronger this way) or tech switch to BC (which wont get insta killed by Corruptor anymore and could deal damage from the air)
I realize there could be a lot of problems...like if Vikings didnt kill Collosis fast enough this way, etc...but a few of the top units that are underused could benefit from this to make them more powerful.
It would change up the dynamics of the matchups so players have to find new counters or actually tech up/switch compositions. Could adjust their cost/supply/build time so getting to these units is a high risk/high reward situation, and they would require support to be effective still. Corruptors do bonus damage to massive units not armored. Void rays do +armor damage. Don't let tiny details get in the way of what he's truly asking for--for the Massive descriptor to matter to the game outside of Phoenix and Forcefields That when things are big enough the type of shells you use stop mattering. Nothing short of the archon will hurt Ultralisks. Thors suddenly gets built for what we imagine giant robots to be built for--to do a pacific rimjob on the enemy massive units!
Lol..yeah. I wouldn't want super OP units...but i think a lot of the battles we have in sc2 are decided by these super hard counters we have due to bonus damage being crazy. We talk about reducing DPS so battles last a little longer...i think having more "soft counters" would be better by changing what units take bonus damage. This way with an inferior composition you may still lose the battle, but with good micro it may not be as one-sided or game ending as it is now.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 12 2013 03:18 Code wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 02:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 12 2013 02:41 MstrJinbo wrote:On September 11 2013 00:13 Code wrote:
So i was just thinking about how higher level units get hard countered by a lot of the T1 or T2 units in the game.
What if we dropped the "armor" tag from some T3 units like Battlecruisers, Carriers, Ultralisks, Thors, etc ? The armored rating basically serves as a way that they take extra damage from everything. They would simply be "Massive" units.
So rather than just building more Maurauders when the Zerg gets a decent amount of Ultra maybe you have to add Thors (which would be stronger this way) or tech switch to BC (which wont get insta killed by Corruptor anymore and could deal damage from the air)
I realize there could be a lot of problems...like if Vikings didnt kill Collosis fast enough this way, etc...but a few of the top units that are underused could benefit from this to make them more powerful.
It would change up the dynamics of the matchups so players have to find new counters or actually tech up/switch compositions. Could adjust their cost/supply/build time so getting to these units is a high risk/high reward situation, and they would require support to be effective still. Corruptors do bonus damage to massive units not armored. Void rays do +armor damage. Don't let tiny details get in the way of what he's truly asking for--for the Massive descriptor to matter to the game outside of Phoenix and Forcefields That when things are big enough the type of shells you use stop mattering. Nothing short of the archon will hurt Ultralisks. Thors suddenly gets built for what we imagine giant robots to be built for--to do a pacific rimjob on the enemy massive units! Lol..yeah. I wouldn't want super OP units...but i think a lot of the battles we have in sc2 are decided by these super hard counters we have due to bonus damage being crazy. We talk about reducing DPS so battles last a little longer...i think having more "soft counters" would be better by changing what units take bonus damage. This way with an inferior composition you may still lose the battle, but with good micro it may not be as one-sided or game ending as it is now.
Having hard counters sometime makes pre-battle dance actually matter. Lack of hard counters most of time will result in AoE like collosi clearly dominating the fight, while keeping currently useless T3 units (like BCs) the same.
|
On September 10 2013 23:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
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.
I recognize that the unit dynamics can be refreshing and entertaining in it of themselves, even if they consist of the same few basic units. I would just argue that SC media has become so readily available and inundating that the BW ways of Zealot/Dragoon isn't enough anymore, and that sometimes obvious visual and dynamic differences from potentially other basic units serves things twofold. One, those who don't appreciate that subtlety will more likely appreciate different units. Two, the subtlety isn't really compromised by having multiple basic unit sets, and that tactical variety can be achieved more easily by just having another set of unique units, like Bio and Mech can both be dynamic without eating each other with design and can very obviously be differentiated. The biggest hurdle is just the logistics and balancing butting heads with incentives of pro players who tend to focus on the easiest win. It would be interesting if Blizzard could cultivate a separate format where SC2 could also be entertainment focused rather than competition focused, make the idea of veto'ing and adhering to orthodox unsavory and letting the MCs flourish.
On September 10 2013 23:22 vthree 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. 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?
This is a more complicated problem that's relevant to any Zerg balance decision that's never really given much thought, because each Zerg strategy has to be balanced with that tech fluidity in mind. I mentioned in an earlier post that it's somewhat solved by generalist units and the fact that Zerg strat variety is low enough to not really stretch the capacity of that. But like any mechanic in the game, there are workarounds. Since Queens already broke hearts (in the card game hearts, you're not allowed to play a heart unless you have to, but then anybody can play hearts after that first one breaks), perhaps Zerg could use a larva-less offensive unit to coincide with the larva-less defensive unit. A little tangential, but Zerg complain about their lack of earlygame aggression and all that, so two birds, one stone, etc. etc. You could also make larva more of a liability and introduce or rework a unit to be more larva intensive, also mitigating that tech switch brokeness.
|
I don't know if it's contrary to the spirit of the game, but maybe the GSL should have had a reward each tournament for "most unique/daring winning strategy".
And I never buy that the game should be like chess, where we are content to watch the same map and the same pieces. In chess the pawn structure is different every game and it changes the nature of the pieces and the nature of the board. Furthermore, there are different objectives: creating a winning endgame, attacking the king, playing solidly defensive because you only want a draw, creating chaotic situations because you are confident in your tactical ability. Starcraft 2 lacks structural differences between games, so we compensate with different maps and different races.
|
On September 12 2013 17:37 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know if it's contrary to the spirit of the game, but maybe the GSL should have had a reward each tournament for "most unique/daring winning strategy".
Well, I've been thinking about it and one way to incentivize unorthodox play with high caliber execution is to make a parallel format to an existing one where only a % of the original participants are chosen by a popularity poll. The players are paid extra for being chosen, so crowd favorites and foreigners could reliably coexist without achieving those Ro4 prize pools. It also engages the audience and just delivers more content in general. If weird GSTL and Proleague can exist, so can something else.
|
I can feel the next wave of ZvT balance discussion will come up.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 16 2013 05:41 larse wrote:
I can feel the next wave of ZvT balance discussion will come up.
It has a good counter measure now
|
Zergs have no right to say that Terran has better T1 units - Zergling/baneling/roach are all a Zerg needs to make to crush in all three matchups. The only way a Terran can utilize marines effectively is with medivac support, along with widowmines/tanks/marauders/vikings depending on matchup.
When has mass marines without any support been a viable (non-cheese) strategy. Whereas Zergs can make only zerglings and still win in all three matchups if the opponent leaves their wall down for just a split second.
|
On September 16 2013 06:01 Lock0n wrote:
Zergs have no right to say that Terran has better T1 units - Zergling/baneling/roach are all a Zerg needs to make to crush in all three matchups. The only way a Terran can utilize marines effectively is with medivac support, along with widowmines/tanks/marauders/vikings depending on matchup.
When has mass marines without any support been a viable (non-cheese) strategy. Whereas Zergs can make only zerglings and still win in all three matchups if the opponent leaves their wall down for just a split second.
lol, nice strat...
mass zerglings and hope that opponent can't defend 
|
On September 16 2013 06:04 GodZo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 06:01 Lock0n wrote:
Zergs have no right to say that Terran has better T1 units - Zergling/baneling/roach are all a Zerg needs to make to crush in all three matchups. The only way a Terran can utilize marines effectively is with medivac support, along with widowmines/tanks/marauders/vikings depending on matchup.
When has mass marines without any support been a viable (non-cheese) strategy. Whereas Zergs can make only zerglings and still win in all three matchups if the opponent leaves their wall down for just a split second. lol, nice strat... mass zerglings and hope that opponent can't defend
Maybe you should check Life's games and count how many he's won with lings only.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 16 2013 06:11 Lock0n wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 06:04 GodZo wrote:On September 16 2013 06:01 Lock0n wrote:
Zergs have no right to say that Terran has better T1 units - Zergling/baneling/roach are all a Zerg needs to make to crush in all three matchups. The only way a Terran can utilize marines effectively is with medivac support, along with widowmines/tanks/marauders/vikings depending on matchup.
When has mass marines without any support been a viable (non-cheese) strategy. Whereas Zergs can make only zerglings and still win in all three matchups if the opponent leaves their wall down for just a split second. lol, nice strat... mass zerglings and hope that opponent can't defend Maybe you should check Life's games and count how many he's won with lings only.
Elfi won that engagement against StarDust too
|
There is nothing to say about TvZ after watching Dreamhack. The better players won.
|
On September 16 2013 07:32 DifuntO wrote:
There is nothing to say about TvZ after watching Dreamhack. The better players won.
For some vague reason, I doubt people will agree with you.
|
On September 16 2013 07:32 DifuntO wrote:
There is nothing to say about TvZ after watching Dreamhack. The better players won.
By definition, the winner is always the better player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
