|
United States7483 Posts
On December 17 2011 07:58 The Final Boss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 07:08 SeaSwift wrote:On December 17 2011 06:31 The Final Boss wrote:
Also as far as "more varied Protoss play," how about more varied TvP to go along with it. Protoss has plenty of options in PvT, but TvP is literally limited to one type of play (that is if you don't want to All-in). I don't agree that Protoss has plenty of options, but I do think the matchup in general needs a bit more variety and sustained excitement, rather than just "lets up build armies for X amount of time, have an exchange in 2 minutes than Y person wins". I think the two matchups to look up to in this regard are TvT and TvZ, probably the two most consistently exciting matchups in the game. While there have been stand-out matches in PvT (NASL 1 finals, Dreamhack Winter 1 finals), most PvT matches have not got any sustained excitement. As far as TvP is concerned, in the late stages of the game Protoss has far more variety. Terran has to go MMMGV (maybe add in Ravens? Banshees? but not enough to be a significant impact) where as Protoss can go for a multitude of mixtures of Colossi, High Templar, Phoenix, and Gateway units. Terran armies always look the same, but Protoss armies vary a lot of the time based on the player's preference or their response.
Best TvP of all time might have been Thorzain vs. MC on Tal'darim Altar in the TSL 3. What a freaking amazing match.
|
TL;DR
David Kim is an advocate for the status quo.
|
On December 17 2011 11:37 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 07:58 The Final Boss wrote:On December 17 2011 07:08 SeaSwift wrote:On December 17 2011 06:31 The Final Boss wrote:
Also as far as "more varied Protoss play," how about more varied TvP to go along with it. Protoss has plenty of options in PvT, but TvP is literally limited to one type of play (that is if you don't want to All-in). I don't agree that Protoss has plenty of options, but I do think the matchup in general needs a bit more variety and sustained excitement, rather than just "lets up build armies for X amount of time, have an exchange in 2 minutes than Y person wins". I think the two matchups to look up to in this regard are TvT and TvZ, probably the two most consistently exciting matchups in the game. While there have been stand-out matches in PvT (NASL 1 finals, Dreamhack Winter 1 finals), most PvT matches have not got any sustained excitement. As far as TvP is concerned, in the late stages of the game Protoss has far more variety. Terran has to go MMMGV (maybe add in Ravens? Banshees? but not enough to be a significant impact) where as Protoss can go for a multitude of mixtures of Colossi, High Templar, Phoenix, and Gateway units. Terran armies always look the same, but Protoss armies vary a lot of the time based on the player's preference or their response. Best TvP of all time might have been Thorzain vs. MC on Tal'darim Altar in the TSL 3. What a freaking amazing match.
I agree with that statement (that game was freaking amazing) but I don't see how it responds to my question.
|
Great read as David is always boss.
I wonder though were they get the idea of balancing around mutalisks? Most HOtS changes are based on this assumption.
|
Pretty much what I expected, we'll just have to wait and see.
|
United States7483 Posts
On December 17 2011 13:44 The Final Boss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 11:37 Whitewing wrote:On December 17 2011 07:58 The Final Boss wrote:On December 17 2011 07:08 SeaSwift wrote:On December 17 2011 06:31 The Final Boss wrote:
Also as far as "more varied Protoss play," how about more varied TvP to go along with it. Protoss has plenty of options in PvT, but TvP is literally limited to one type of play (that is if you don't want to All-in). I don't agree that Protoss has plenty of options, but I do think the matchup in general needs a bit more variety and sustained excitement, rather than just "lets up build armies for X amount of time, have an exchange in 2 minutes than Y person wins". I think the two matchups to look up to in this regard are TvT and TvZ, probably the two most consistently exciting matchups in the game. While there have been stand-out matches in PvT (NASL 1 finals, Dreamhack Winter 1 finals), most PvT matches have not got any sustained excitement. As far as TvP is concerned, in the late stages of the game Protoss has far more variety. Terran has to go MMMGV (maybe add in Ravens? Banshees? but not enough to be a significant impact) where as Protoss can go for a multitude of mixtures of Colossi, High Templar, Phoenix, and Gateway units. Terran armies always look the same, but Protoss armies vary a lot of the time based on the player's preference or their response. Best TvP of all time might have been Thorzain vs. MC on Tal'darim Altar in the TSL 3. What a freaking amazing match. I agree with that statement (that game was freaking amazing) but I don't see how it responds to my question.
Oh I was just quoting the general conversation with regards to TvP not being as good as TvT and TvZ.
Protoss can't really go for a multitude of mixtures of colossi, HT, and other units, it's pretty much always zealot/stalker, maybe some sentries if you have any left, + colossi or HT or both. Sure you can sort of sprinkle in some more, in much the same way terran could sprinkle some reapers in to their harass squads, or banshees for some extra dps or add a raven etc, but against bio that's pretty much the basic composition, and it's always going to look more or less like that. Ghosts are added in to deal with sentries and HT/archons, vikings are added in to deal with colossi.
|
His answers are brilliant.
What concerns me more is the complaints he is addressing. Terran complaing about nerfs? Zerg complaining about larva injects? These are absolutely ridiculous. If a races dominates for a long time of course you should balance that and larva inject is one of the aspects that makes the game challenging for zergs.
Protoss needing more varied playstyle? Maybe, but I don't think zergs are in any better situation when it comes to variety.
The way gold bases are now is fine. It's only GSL terrans who are dominating - so they get removed in tournies where these guys show up...but I don't feel it's any issues against the random Terran scrubs on ladder 
|
Its a bit unfortunate the way David Kim shut down on nearly every point :\. I found the interview a little discouraging.
|
I agree with what he said about choke points and map balance.
I hope HOTS turn out to be an awesome game
|
Spawn Larva requiring too much management? Honestly guys, is this a joke? I play Terran and Zerg, and let me tell you, what takes far more management and clicking around all game long is having to rally building SCV's back to the mineral line after constructing just about every single building, every game, from start to finish. While I obviously haven't played at a professional level, I can't see how it's anything BUT balanced that the Spawn Larva mechanic exists as it does; part of Zerg's strength lies in being able to produce all of their units (that they have tech for) AT THE SAME TIME. Honestly, if people are having trouble managing Queen injects, why don't you just hotkey your first 2-3 queens? That's what I do and it works just fine. I am so surprised to see pros hotkey their hatcheries individually and not their Queens, while it works similarly it saves a split second if you just 'key the Queens.
Also, on the subject of management, doesn't SC1 require infinite more management all-around? Yet BW became huge and pros didn't ragequit because the game wasn't as user-friendly as SC2; they mastered the tools at their disposal and kept on going. Zerg has a unique advantage in unit production that the other races don't have; I honestly don't see the problem here. In HotS, if SCV's are given an option to rally back to mining with the click of a button or something lazy, then I honestly feel there would be a stronger argument for Spawn Larva management.
Sidenote: What about Chronoboost? I don't see any qualms about this mechanic...
|
Can someone ask David Kim what he thinks about the terran mobility on big maps?
Because I think big maps are so unfairly imbalanced against terran that I basically removed all of them from my preferred 1v1 map pool. I don't want to play on a huge map because I can't defend all my bases against mutas while at the same time slowly moving through the map scanning the ground for burrowed banelings or burrowed banelings that move underground (see: HotS, QQ)
In SC:BW big maps were my favourite, because it allowed for a longer and more interesting games. While in SC2, big maps favour only zerg players and 4gate-protoss.
I think this is the biggest design flaw in SC2. If terran won't get better mobility, then all other changes/nerfs are pointless.
We can't just stim all the time or do those risky medivac drops, that with mutas on the map are doomed to fail, unless you are just lucky.
|
I for one think this is a beautiful interview with complete responses in relation to the questions shown. If you think otherwise then I think you simply expect too much.
On December 18 2011 10:16 Aiurr wrote:
Can someone ask David Kim what he thinks about the terran mobility on big maps?
Because I think big maps are so unfairly imbalanced against terran that I basically removed all of them from my preferred 1v1 map pool. I don't want to play on a huge map because I can't defend all my bases against mutas while at the same time slowly moving through the map scanning the ground for burrowed banelings or burrowed banelings that move underground (see: HotS, QQ)
In SC:BW big maps were my favourite, because it allowed for a longer and more interesting games. While in SC2, big maps favour only zerg players and 4gate-protoss.
I think this is the biggest design flaw in SC2. If terran won't get better mobility, then all other changes/nerfs are pointless.
We can't just stim all the time or do those risky medivac drops, that with mutas on the map are doomed to fail, unless you are just lucky.
Ever hear of a raven? It is extremely useful in late game TvX, let alone mid game. On a side note, nobody ever asked you to siege hop all the way across the map. Are you hoping for +move speed aura or something? lolol. In case David Kim never tells us what he thinks about terran mobility on big maps, I will. It's perfectly fine 
|
maybe they should make Khaydarin Amulet available , but take away the warp tech for the Templars, or increase the warp time to the equivalent of normal building times. This would make it same as SC1, and I would have no problem with it. Otherwise, the protoss should not complain because with the emp area nerf, Temps should not be buffed.
THe emp is nerfed so much since SC1 though,
-originally aoe is nerfed from science vessels, but since it is lower tier unit, this is reasonable
-instead of taking all shield away now it only takes 100 shield
- take only 100 energy instead of all energy.
- The emp was nerfed 2 times in terms of aoe, i believe once during beta, and now again. It is hard to hit multiple units, now they should just give a target attack then, because it is so easy to miss now, pros miss them a lot as well.
PS: Make sure you actually play terran after the patch to see the EMP nerf, it is ridiculously small radius
|
Terrans are only doing well in Korea because so many Koreans play the Terran race. A lot of Terran players in SC1 as well, it is like a tradition, and they are the coolest looking race to use (i think to general public). Also a lot of top terran players were actually good SC1 players (more recent players i mean), such as MVP and FIN. It is understandable they have better multi-tasking skills, and one can see this easily in competitions, where they can micro is like 2 or 3 fronts almost simultaneously
|
On December 18 2011 13:44 Puph wrote:I for one think this is a beautiful interview with complete responses in relation to the questions shown. If you think otherwise then I think you simply expect too much. Show nested quote +On December 18 2011 10:16 Aiurr wrote:
Can someone ask David Kim what he thinks about the terran mobility on big maps?
Because I think big maps are so unfairly imbalanced against terran that I basically removed all of them from my preferred 1v1 map pool. I don't want to play on a huge map because I can't defend all my bases against mutas while at the same time slowly moving through the map scanning the ground for burrowed banelings or burrowed banelings that move underground (see: HotS, QQ)
In SC:BW big maps were my favourite, because it allowed for a longer and more interesting games. While in SC2, big maps favour only zerg players and 4gate-protoss.
I think this is the biggest design flaw in SC2. If terran won't get better mobility, then all other changes/nerfs are pointless.
We can't just stim all the time or do those risky medivac drops, that with mutas on the map are doomed to fail, unless you are just lucky. Ever hear of a raven? It is extremely useful in late game TvX, let alone mid game. On a side note, nobody ever asked you to siege hop all the way across the map. Are you hoping for +move speed aura or something? lolol. In case David Kim never tells us what he thinks about terran mobility on big maps, I will. It's perfectly fine
by saying "scanning" I also ment raven, you do not suppose me to name every unit I use do you?
terran mobility is not "fine" on big maps, I think you are trolling...
everyone knows that big maps are imbalanced against terran
|
I think it is more about style...terran is kind of like protoss in SC1, you always need to attack the opponent and not just sit back and max. That is why you always see these early aggression from terran, while the opponent plays more of a turtle style, at the earlier stages of the game. In SC1, similarly you always see like reaver drops, corsair harass, dragoon pressure before siege tanks come out, more 2 base timing attacks.
|
On December 18 2011 19:39 Aiurr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2011 13:44 Puph wrote:I for one think this is a beautiful interview with complete responses in relation to the questions shown. If you think otherwise then I think you simply expect too much. On December 18 2011 10:16 Aiurr wrote:
Can someone ask David Kim what he thinks about the terran mobility on big maps?
Because I think big maps are so unfairly imbalanced against terran that I basically removed all of them from my preferred 1v1 map pool. I don't want to play on a huge map because I can't defend all my bases against mutas while at the same time slowly moving through the map scanning the ground for burrowed banelings or burrowed banelings that move underground (see: HotS, QQ)
In SC:BW big maps were my favourite, because it allowed for a longer and more interesting games. While in SC2, big maps favour only zerg players and 4gate-protoss.
I think this is the biggest design flaw in SC2. If terran won't get better mobility, then all other changes/nerfs are pointless.
We can't just stim all the time or do those risky medivac drops, that with mutas on the map are doomed to fail, unless you are just lucky. Ever hear of a raven? It is extremely useful in late game TvX, let alone mid game. On a side note, nobody ever asked you to siege hop all the way across the map. Are you hoping for +move speed aura or something? lolol. In case David Kim never tells us what he thinks about terran mobility on big maps, I will. It's perfectly fine by saying "scanning" I also ment raven, you do not suppose me to name every unit I use do you? terran mobility is not "fine" on big maps, I think you are trolling... everyone knows that big maps are imbalanced against terran
I think what he is getting at is Terran might need an equivalent of the vultures, while hellions are quite good, they do not have the same speed nor the map presence with mines. But hellions will give terran reasonable mobility unfortunately vs toss, if you mech purely, those immortals will rip you apart.
|
On December 18 2011 19:46 thesums wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2011 19:39 Aiurr wrote:On December 18 2011 13:44 Puph wrote:I for one think this is a beautiful interview with complete responses in relation to the questions shown. If you think otherwise then I think you simply expect too much. On December 18 2011 10:16 Aiurr wrote:
Can someone ask David Kim what he thinks about the terran mobility on big maps?
Because I think big maps are so unfairly imbalanced against terran that I basically removed all of them from my preferred 1v1 map pool. I don't want to play on a huge map because I can't defend all my bases against mutas while at the same time slowly moving through the map scanning the ground for burrowed banelings or burrowed banelings that move underground (see: HotS, QQ)
In SC:BW big maps were my favourite, because it allowed for a longer and more interesting games. While in SC2, big maps favour only zerg players and 4gate-protoss.
I think this is the biggest design flaw in SC2. If terran won't get better mobility, then all other changes/nerfs are pointless.
We can't just stim all the time or do those risky medivac drops, that with mutas on the map are doomed to fail, unless you are just lucky. Ever hear of a raven? It is extremely useful in late game TvX, let alone mid game. On a side note, nobody ever asked you to siege hop all the way across the map. Are you hoping for +move speed aura or something? lolol. In case David Kim never tells us what he thinks about terran mobility on big maps, I will. It's perfectly fine by saying "scanning" I also ment raven, you do not suppose me to name every unit I use do you? terran mobility is not "fine" on big maps, I think you are trolling... everyone knows that big maps are imbalanced against terran I think what he is getting at is Terran might need an equivalent of the vultures, while hellions are quite good, they do not have the same speed nor the map presence with mines. But hellions will give terran reasonable mobility unfortunately vs toss, if you mech purely, those immortals will rip you apart.
Yea, this is what I am talking about. Without something like spider mines, or a fast air-ground flying unit, terran can only use banshees and medivac drops. But this is only harassment. You still have to leapfrog all the way with siege tanks, and by the time you can lose your whole base to a single warp-prism / mutas / nydus.
So I think terran needs the equivalent of either: nydus / warp-tech / blink / mutas / burrowed banelings / creep
|
I would like to see the replicant changed or scrapped tho because I don't think it serves the role Protoss needs, especially when you keep in mind that they want more variety with toss in hots, imo I think they should get a unit which supports the protoss arsenal more overall.
Anyway good read, gj David Kim trying to balance the game, so far the game is actually pretty balanced now. Glad David Kim doesn't want to rush stuff which would ruin the balance,
|
On December 16 2011 12:07 VirgilSC2 wrote:
I don't understand why you would ask David Kim about the EMP range reduction being too severe. All the EMP change did was bring the EMP radius in line with the current radius for Psi Storm.
you have to remember though that terran units generally take up less space and are tighter packed than protoss units, so while you may be hitting less area, you are still hitting about the same number of units. Spreading helps mitigate this of course but the same can be said for protoss and it's also not feasible to spread perfectly in large engagements. Also remember that more important than raw damage is damage as a percentage of total health, which gives a more accurate picture of its effect on a unit/army, and one storm has the potential to do much more damage in that regard to terran units than emp does to protoss units in that regard, since terran bio units are typically high dps but low health where protoss units are higher health but lower dps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
