|
+ Show Spoiler + Problem: Terran cannot win early game against protoss without attacking at least twice before to bait out Overcharges. Protoss however can win early with various all ins. Solution: Photon overcharge costs 150 energy, or drains nexus energy and can't work without it. Side Effects: Protoss has to defend more, and can't use photon overcharge as a crutch, or as the mistake button.
|
I think the solution to the MSC is to make photon overcharge an ability that requires an upgrade, this way protoss needs to invest more than 100/100 to defend all terran early game attacks, and the timing window will change. IDK how this would affect pvz as I haven't played/watched that MU since WoL, could break early game.
|
On September 23 2013 02:36 9-BiT wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Problem: Terran cannot win early game against protoss without attacking at least twice before to bait out Overcharges. Protoss however can win early with various all ins. Solution: Photon overcharge costs 150 energy, or drains nexus energy and can't work without it. Side Effects: Protoss has to defend more, and can't use photon overcharge as a crutch, or as the mistake button.
I've thought about the energy increase myself, I think it's the best, most elegant and most balanced solution.
|
I mean, PvP is the obvious concern with an energy increase. The other concern being that Blizzard wants to reward players for using the MsC cleverly out on the map. If you make it so that the only way to be safe with it is to leave it at home all the time, then there's no chance for good players to use it well and distinguish themselves from bad players.
|
On September 19 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 03:13 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 19 2013 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 19 2013 02:41 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 19 2013 02:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 19 2013 02:32 plogamer wrote:On September 19 2013 02:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 19 2013 01:58 plogamer wrote:On September 19 2013 01:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 18 2013 23:14 lolfail9001 wrote: [quote] Terran in 2011 needed GOOD space control unit (hence the addition of shredder and later replacing it with widow mine) and zerg needed good ways to break entrenched positions (hence the SH). I know *why* they added those units. Flavor wise, I actual adore both units. I think it makes sense that a ragged, run down human race that has lost many planets to Protoss/Zerg encounters would get less flashy and more sneaky. It makes sense that they need traps and surprise tactics moreso than sheer power. It makes sense that they use smaller nukes instead of the bigger nukes they had in Broodwar. Flavor wise its all cool. What I find funny is that Zerg does the best Mech TvP in the game because of swarmhost, and terran does the best Savior impression with seemingly "randomly" placed lurkers/widow mines sniping masses of tier 1 units. That's what I find funny  It makes me wish they gave Terran the Swarm Host so we can have mech TvP and they give Zerg the Widow Mine so we can have Savior Style play all over again  What lolfail9001 has nothing to do with Terran race being ragged and run down and needing sneak attacks. That sounds more like lore than actual gameplay. Tanks suck at controlling space. Widow-mines are the answer. Zergs suck at sieging (until brood lords, and even then it is countered) and thus swarm hosts. When you say "That sounds more like lore than actual gameplay" after I have already said "Flavor wise its all cool" it really confuses me. I know tanks are not good at controlling space except in TvT, I never contradicted that. I know Zerg sucks at siege play pre-broodlords, I never contradicted that either. I said its funny that Zerg does the best mech impersonation, because they build lines upon lines of swarm hosts, have hundreds of free tumors for map control, and slowly suffocate the protoss army. I find it funny that Terran does the best impersonation of Broodwar style Lurker play with constantly burrowing and unborrowing 6 range aoe units that are supported by spammed tier 1 units. I find it funny Blizzard was able to make mech play TvP work and they were able to make siege based ZvTwork, except mech is ZvP and siege style zerg is tvz. It's funny because the results of their attempts was the opposite of what they wanted to happen. They did "make it happen" but it all happened with the wrong races. K, I was confused myself that you had to bring up lore considering what lolfail9001 had to say. And frankly there is nothing wrong with the roles of the races being shifted. Progamers can adapt to it or not. Strange, yes perhaps, but the roles of the races are arbritary - and subject of Blizzard's view of how the game should play. I wouldn't assume that Blizzard wanted a continuation of the race roles from BW. That much is clearly not true. I would think instead that they wanted all races to be able to play all roles, or styles, if you prefer. Oh it's too late to change course now  I actually enjoy watching the different bio variations in all the terran matchups. The in your face aggressive TvZ bio looks VERY different from the skittish hit and run bio play of TvP which looks very different from the surgical hit and run bio style of TvT It's actually a joy for me to watch. People get hung up that its the same units but it's not the same gameplay at all. To be fair, AFAIK BW PvT and TvT was pretty much same thing all day every day, except for few funny timings like fOrGG's :D Execution wise they were very different, but visually they were the same. In essence, Protoss could more easily break siege lines than terrans could which meant that you needed tighter formations in TvP than in TvT, but you were less able to punish enemy terrans in TvT the way you could in Protoss in TvP. In the end it evened out to be about the same. I mean PvT and TvT as in the same PvTs most of time you will see mech vs gateway+arbiter army (aka as they mean PvTs and ZvTs are the same thing all the time). Not as in mech in both MUs. I did not really mean that terrans were doing same thing in the TvP and TvT (though visually it was pretty much same thing). Oh right! Yeah, totally. Most games in Broodwar were the exact same compositions over and over again. Usually there will be 1-3 variations that come and go as time passes, but it always lead back to the same compositions.
Bam finally. I don't know what's this fetishization of infinite combos. That will never occur in any strategy game. What matters is that the dynamics of what does pop up is interesting.
|
On September 23 2013 10:12 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 19 2013 03:13 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 19 2013 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 19 2013 02:41 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 19 2013 02:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 19 2013 02:32 plogamer wrote:On September 19 2013 02:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 19 2013 01:58 plogamer wrote:On September 19 2013 01:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:[quote] I know *why* they added those units. Flavor wise, I actual adore both units. I think it makes sense that a ragged, run down human race that has lost many planets to Protoss/Zerg encounters would get less flashy and more sneaky. It makes sense that they need traps and surprise tactics moreso than sheer power. It makes sense that they use smaller nukes instead of the bigger nukes they had in Broodwar. Flavor wise its all cool. What I find funny is that Zerg does the best Mech TvP in the game because of swarmhost, and terran does the best Savior impression with seemingly "randomly" placed lurkers/widow mines sniping masses of tier 1 units. That's what I find funny  It makes me wish they gave Terran the Swarm Host so we can have mech TvP and they give Zerg the Widow Mine so we can have Savior Style play all over again  What lolfail9001 has nothing to do with Terran race being ragged and run down and needing sneak attacks. That sounds more like lore than actual gameplay. Tanks suck at controlling space. Widow-mines are the answer. Zergs suck at sieging (until brood lords, and even then it is countered) and thus swarm hosts. When you say "That sounds more like lore than actual gameplay" after I have already said "Flavor wise its all cool" it really confuses me. I know tanks are not good at controlling space except in TvT, I never contradicted that. I know Zerg sucks at siege play pre-broodlords, I never contradicted that either. I said its funny that Zerg does the best mech impersonation, because they build lines upon lines of swarm hosts, have hundreds of free tumors for map control, and slowly suffocate the protoss army. I find it funny that Terran does the best impersonation of Broodwar style Lurker play with constantly burrowing and unborrowing 6 range aoe units that are supported by spammed tier 1 units. I find it funny Blizzard was able to make mech play TvP work and they were able to make siege based ZvTwork, except mech is ZvP and siege style zerg is tvz. It's funny because the results of their attempts was the opposite of what they wanted to happen. They did "make it happen" but it all happened with the wrong races. K, I was confused myself that you had to bring up lore considering what lolfail9001 had to say. And frankly there is nothing wrong with the roles of the races being shifted. Progamers can adapt to it or not. Strange, yes perhaps, but the roles of the races are arbritary - and subject of Blizzard's view of how the game should play. I wouldn't assume that Blizzard wanted a continuation of the race roles from BW. That much is clearly not true. I would think instead that they wanted all races to be able to play all roles, or styles, if you prefer. Oh it's too late to change course now  I actually enjoy watching the different bio variations in all the terran matchups. The in your face aggressive TvZ bio looks VERY different from the skittish hit and run bio play of TvP which looks very different from the surgical hit and run bio style of TvT It's actually a joy for me to watch. People get hung up that its the same units but it's not the same gameplay at all. To be fair, AFAIK BW PvT and TvT was pretty much same thing all day every day, except for few funny timings like fOrGG's :D Execution wise they were very different, but visually they were the same. In essence, Protoss could more easily break siege lines than terrans could which meant that you needed tighter formations in TvP than in TvT, but you were less able to punish enemy terrans in TvT the way you could in Protoss in TvP. In the end it evened out to be about the same. I mean PvT and TvT as in the same PvTs most of time you will see mech vs gateway+arbiter army (aka as they mean PvTs and ZvTs are the same thing all the time). Not as in mech in both MUs. I did not really mean that terrans were doing same thing in the TvP and TvT (though visually it was pretty much same thing). Oh right! Yeah, totally. Most games in Broodwar were the exact same compositions over and over again. Usually there will be 1-3 variations that come and go as time passes, but it always lead back to the same compositions. Bam finally. I don't know what's this fetishization of infinite combos. That will never occur in any strategy game. What matters is that the dynamics of what does pop up is interesting. Card games, mobas, they all thrive on an 'infinite' number of match-ups. How popular would those games be if you stripped them down to just one match-up, but one with 'interesting dynamics'? I don't think they would be, since even very awesome unit interactions can still be played out and become dull to watch. This would be acceptable if people would only watch the game during Blizzcon once a year, but since SC2 aims to amuse audiences all of the year, you need more variety. Brood War had this because the execution was so important, so if there was a standard timing attack it was still exciting because there were so many questions to raise beforehand. Furthermore, Brood War had more positional play, so in the course of the game you can easily run into situations that are more chaotic and unique, which is more exciting for players and spectators.
|
Log in to thread - check See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
|
On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote: Log in to thread - check See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
And with more robust you mean MC going: "$$$ finally 1base 6gate at 6:30 is viable $$$"
|
On September 23 2013 07:59 ChristianS wrote: I mean, PvP is the obvious concern with an energy increase. The other concern being that Blizzard wants to reward players for using the MsC cleverly out on the map. If you make it so that the only way to be safe with it is to leave it at home all the time, then there's no chance for good players to use it well and distinguish themselves from bad players.
1/1/1 is a serious problem again for Protoss on some of the current maps with an overcharge nerf. The main reason it's not viable now is not because of overcharge itself, (as the siege tech removal and cloak research cost reduction essentially gives Terran a free Raven relative to WoL to blank it with) but because the existence of overcharge allows gate core nexus robo openings. This kind of opening was suicidal in WoL, but now it's perfectly safe. The earlier robo means much faster scouting and the ability to have many more immortals or even colossi on the field when the push hits.
If you nerf overcharge and force Protoss players to open with gate core nexus gate gate gate again like in WoL to not die to early aggression, 1/1/1 will become stupidly overpowered again, at least on the maps that don't have chokepoints to FF their army out. Derelict Watcher and Akilon Wastes are particularly bad here, as your expansion can be sieged from the low ground and you simply need a critical mass of robo units to protect it.
|
On September 23 2013 21:24 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 07:59 ChristianS wrote: I mean, PvP is the obvious concern with an energy increase. The other concern being that Blizzard wants to reward players for using the MsC cleverly out on the map. If you make it so that the only way to be safe with it is to leave it at home all the time, then there's no chance for good players to use it well and distinguish themselves from bad players. 1/1/1 is a serious problem again for Protoss on some of the current maps with an overcharge nerf. The main reason it's not viable now is not because of overcharge itself, (as the siege tech removal and cloak research cost reduction essentially gives Terran a free Raven relative to WoL to blank it with) but because the existence of overcharge allows gate core nexus robo openings. This kind of opening was suicidal in WoL, but now it's perfectly safe. The earlier robo means much faster scouting and the ability to have many more immortals or even colossi on the field when the push hits. If you nerf overcharge and force Protoss players to open with gate core nexus gate gate gate again like in WoL to not die to early aggression, 1/1/1 will become stupidly overpowered again, at least on the maps that don't have chokepoints to FF their army out. Derelict Watcher and Akilon Wastes are particularly bad here, as your expansion can be sieged from the low ground and you simply need a critical mass of robo units to protect it.
That's simply not the case. 111 was dead at the end of WoL so it cannot be that the Msc is the only way to beat it. A nerfed msc, not even its disappearance entirely, cannot thus necessarily lead to the resurgence of 111.
|
On September 23 2013 21:51 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 21:24 Xequecal wrote:On September 23 2013 07:59 ChristianS wrote: I mean, PvP is the obvious concern with an energy increase. The other concern being that Blizzard wants to reward players for using the MsC cleverly out on the map. If you make it so that the only way to be safe with it is to leave it at home all the time, then there's no chance for good players to use it well and distinguish themselves from bad players. 1/1/1 is a serious problem again for Protoss on some of the current maps with an overcharge nerf. The main reason it's not viable now is not because of overcharge itself, (as the siege tech removal and cloak research cost reduction essentially gives Terran a free Raven relative to WoL to blank it with) but because the existence of overcharge allows gate core nexus robo openings. This kind of opening was suicidal in WoL, but now it's perfectly safe. The earlier robo means much faster scouting and the ability to have many more immortals or even colossi on the field when the push hits. If you nerf overcharge and force Protoss players to open with gate core nexus gate gate gate again like in WoL to not die to early aggression, 1/1/1 will become stupidly overpowered again, at least on the maps that don't have chokepoints to FF their army out. Derelict Watcher and Akilon Wastes are particularly bad here, as your expansion can be sieged from the low ground and you simply need a critical mass of robo units to protect it. That's simply not the case. 111 was dead at the end of WoL so it cannot be that the Msc is the only way to beat it. A nerfed msc, not even its disappearance entirely, cannot thus necessarily lead to the resurgence of 111.
No siege required and cheaper cloak. So the timing would hit faster or harder.
|
On September 23 2013 21:51 Ghanburighan wrote: That's simply not the case. 111 was dead at the end of WoL so it cannot be that the Msc is the only way to beat it. A nerfed msc, not even its disappearance entirely, cannot thus necessarily lead to the resurgence of 111.
1/1/1 was dead because every single map in the pool had choke points far away from the natural where you could stall endlessly by forcefielding the Terran out and splitting his SCVs from the rest of his army. Those two maps don't have these features.
|
On September 23 2013 21:57 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 21:51 Ghanburighan wrote: That's simply not the case. 111 was dead at the end of WoL so it cannot be that the Msc is the only way to beat it. A nerfed msc, not even its disappearance entirely, cannot thus necessarily lead to the resurgence of 111.
1/1/1 was dead because every single map in the pool had choke points far away from the natural where you could stall endlessly by forcefielding the Terran out and splitting his SCVs from the rest of his army. Those two maps don't have these features. We demand the return of Xel Naga Caverns!
|
On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote: Log in to thread - check See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2.
|
On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote: Log in to thread - check See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors.
Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove.
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1ndqeg/bisu_streaming_bw/
When multiple anti-SC2 comments got to the top of a popular reddit thread, there are something wrong. These rants never get any upvotes. After watching BW in the form of Bisu's streaming, it looks like many SC2 people are realizing something, something wrong about the game that is called SC2.
|
On September 30 2013 09:04 larse wrote:http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1ndqeg/bisu_streaming_bw/When multiple anti-SC2 comments got to the top of a popular reddit thread, there are something wrong. These rants never get any upvotes. After watching BW in the form of Bisu's streaming, it looks like many SC2 people are realizing something, something wrong about the game that is called SC2. That's a silly way to measure public opinion. Obviously the "Bisu streaming BW" thread is going to attract the "BW>SC2" crowd, and that crowd is likely to upvote anti-SC2 comments
|
On September 30 2013 09:25 ChristianS wrote:That's a silly way to measure public opinion. Obviously the "Bisu streaming BW" thread is going to attract the "BW>SC2" crowd, and that crowd is likely to upvote anti-SC2 comments
I guess you are right, but the thread is top 10 so I think most people will check it out and it won't be just BW crowd.
|
On September 23 2013 23:45 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote: Log in to thread - check See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors. Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove.
I'm pretty sure his critical numbers problem is not that they exist in Sc2 and not BW, it's how fast you are able to reach critical numbers (due to the sc2 macro mechanics mules, inject and chrono), the fact that you don't need to spread out as much to reach critical numbers (due to the amount of resources in each base and distance of expansions) and critical mass just being more efficient due to unit clumping and more efficient pathfinding in Sc2.
These differences are real, though it's up to you to determine whether you feel they amount to a problem or not. For me, I think it is a problem, since I don't really watch or play the game anymore, though of course there could be other reasons for my loss of interest. I think forcing players to spread out more before they can reach critical mass would give more opportunities for harassment and small skirmishes throughout the game which might make the game more dynamic and would be more appealing to me.
|
On September 30 2013 10:24 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 23:45 RampancyTW wrote:On September 23 2013 23:42 Rabiator wrote:On September 23 2013 18:57 Schism wrote: Log in to thread - check See people still wanting SC2 to become Broodwar - check Needs more discussion on the fact we need better, more innovative maps - check!
I'd like to see a map or two with higher minerals in the main, It might make for more interesting and robust openings instead of the frantic "omg i lost 2 units i'd better grab a 3rd i'm too far behind!!" expansion fest. I think the maps have a lot to answer for in the current SC2 problems
Wow ... you want even more resources in the game? Hasnt it dawned on you that TOO MUCH (economy and production) might be the root of the problem? That is the bottom line to solve the "critical numbers problem" of SC2. A "problem" entirely of your own invention. Critical numbers existed in BW. Critical numbers exist in any situation where there is a disparity in range, burst damage, movement speed, unit size, etc. It would even exist if all of these things were identical for every unit, because different unit number disparities would allow/disallow different unit behaviors. Your "critical numbers problem" is a natural consequence of having a game where two players don't always have the exact same iterations of tools at their disposal. It's impossible to remove. I'm pretty sure his critical numbers problem is not that they exist in Sc2 and not BW, it's how fast you are able to reach critical numbers (due to the sc2 macro mechanics mules, inject and chrono), the fact that you don't need to spread out as much to reach critical numbers (due to the amount of resources in each base and distance of expansions) and critical mass just being more efficient due to unit clumping and more efficient pathfinding in Sc2. These differences are real, though it's up to you to determine whether you feel they amount to a problem or not. For me, I think it is a problem, since I don't really watch or play the game anymore, though of course there could be other reasons for my loss of interest. I think forcing players to spread out more before they can reach critical mass would give more opportunities for harassment and small skirmishes throughout the game which might make the game more dynamic and would be more appealing to me. Critical numbers will always exist and aren't always bad for the game. If you know that at some point you will be weaker due to worse scaling, you will be encouraged to attack your opponent, and whether this is all-in aggression or not is decided by other factors. Also, given that you are relatively stronger in small numbers, you could try your hand at multi-pronged aggression, to try to spread out the opponent's army to force engagements in your favor. So scaling can create exciting action-packed games.
I do think Rabiator is correct that the scaling in SC2 is often extreme (due to pathfinding mostly) and maybe even unwanted, but it's a problem that can be fixed without changing the pathfinding really.
To take the brood lord as an example, because of the broodlings it has a critical numbers effect which was very problematic in Wings of Liberty. In the expansion the brood lord stayed the same, but some synergy with the infestor was lost and now instead of needing 7-10 brood lords to create an unbeatable army it's 10+ that are required. A small change, and the critical numbers aspect still exists, but all of a sudden it's not problematic anymore.
|
|
|
|