|
On January 18 2012 20:12 ToastieNL wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 20:07 R3demption wrote:On January 18 2012 19:59 ReaperX wrote:
Agreeed. Tired of this "toss a move" bullshit In our defense A move is all we can do to efficiently win. Our armies are not good in small groups. The only thing we have to micro is our caster units and those play such a crucial role that in a 5 second engagement you have to worry about those units over everything else. True I have been frustrated about seeing Terran drops (Pro play) lately against superior Protoss supply, but because the Terran drops in 2 places with half his army, it becomes like 30 supply T vs 40 supply P on 2 fronts, which Terran wins both.... That's ridiculous.
Yeah PvT is ridiculous about this problem.
|
On January 18 2012 20:01 OmniEulogy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 19:27 tokicheese wrote:On January 18 2012 19:11 Tobberoth wrote:On January 18 2012 19:06 GeOnoSis wrote:
very interesting, but I don't agree with your static defense... cannons would be just to strong! Just imagine A cannon going up behind the zerg expansion or behind a wall, making it impossible to attack. Also all this changes would make Mutas pretty useless. If Turrets would do even more damage, Mutas would be stupid to play. You already need like 18+ Mutas to kill 1 Turret, when the terran repairs it and often time you still lose one. And if there is any Zerg unit, which can't get really hardcountered, it's the Mutalisk. With proper micro you can dodge storms, magic box against thors and so on...
But that leads to a problem, you already mentioned: Too much firepower, or at least to hard counters.
Like you said it's just a joke to fight with Stalkers or Roaches against Marauders or sth like that. But also, did you ever fight with an army of just stalkers and sentries against a Roach Ling army and completely got crushed? Probably yes, but did you fight against one with the same size and completely crushes him just because of forcefields? Probably YES! I think something like forcefields is sooo hard to balance. In the early game, they can just prevent any aggression in many situations and in other, nearly completely useless. I know I might wrote some weird things :D but well in the end I just think that there are too many hardcounters and the DPS against certain Unit types is obviously a huge factor. Thors vs Muta overall is just dumb as crap. One minor mistake, such as flying 1 milimeter too close to a thor you haven't seen, and he gets one shot off. Boom, 20 mutas brought to orange HP. The idea that you have to micro mutas against Thors is a good thing, it's a counter which can be overcome by skill. Problem again being firepower and speed, there's NO margin for error. A ½ second is enough to go from a good position to a bad position just because of the insane firepower of a single thor. Like OP said, this fight would also benefit from a 50% balance. Lower the damage by 50%, but increase the splash range, or something like that. Encourange micro, while not making minor mistakes cost too much. Thors being killed by 2/3 mutas when magic boxed isnt silly? 6 supply vs 6 supply. 300/300 resource vs 300/200. One person micro's a little bit and one a-moves. Sorry what is the problem here? It's a 'soft' counter that gets beat by micro?? That fits into the OPs point about this game... if anything it supports his point and shouldn't be messed with... good work.
im pretty sure sieged tank can be beaten by 2 or 3 lings! do the math on this!
jkers
|
At this point in time i dont believe that blizzard is capable of fixing their utterly flawed game design, since it would require a complete overhaul of the game, which would mean they would have to admit that they made a mistake, and obviously its blizzard they will never admit that they made a mistake.
- unmicroable units (most of them are extremely limited)
- spells that take away the ability to micro units (forcefield, neural parasite and fungal) instead of spells that encourage micro (dark swarm and radiate)
- lack of units that can hold a position on the map (especially for zerg and protoss) -> no real map control aspect to the game
- stuff clumps together in a tight ball leading to 1 big clash scenarios that are utterly boring
Especially point 2 and 3, the fact that blizzard managed to completely miss the dart board on these two issues is /facepalm inducing.
How can you go from darkswarm, radiate, defensive matrix, lurker, reaver, spidermines, carriers and plenty more stuff, to something that completely takes away whole aspects of the game, WHILE not replacing them with other aspects.
Starcraft 2, from a gamedesign point of view is so terrible, its actually a miracle it managed to take off so well in esports.
Guess the hype from waiting for a sequel to one of the best games in the industry was enough to get the rock rolling down the cliff. Unfortunately the rock is a fucking ugly bitch no one wants to touch, but its rolling already and the cliff is deep.
Behold of the unstoppable ugly bitch rock that is starcraft 2 rolling down the cliff called money bay.
|
On January 18 2012 18:58 slytown wrote:If you don't like the game, go back to playing BW. Noone's stopping you. You're listing off complete design changes instead of specific issues. I love BW and won't hate you for switching back. 
If his problem was powerful units, going back to BW would make him curl up in a corner and cry... have you seen how storms & siege tanks work in that game!?
|
4713 Posts
The sad thing, R3demption is 100% correct, Protoss is designed in such a way that, their units are not effective in small groups, so they really need to get to that late game situation.
Because of WG and FF mechanics and, to a lesser extent Colossus, the effectiveness of GW units was nerfed thus they are no longer good in face to face battles of small groups, so they had to either focus very well timed out attacks, or 200/200 armies.
|
I main protoss, reaching top 8 masters for the past 2 seasons if that serves as anything, and I have also offraced as zerg and terran at a high diamond low masters level. I am aware of the protoss a click rages in TVP, and dealing with mass mutas in TVZ. But playing as all 3 races and playing against these "OP" "EZ" strategies, alot of it comes down to the player itself.
1) Too much firepower
I'm not sure what your skill level is at, but I feel that the faster pace and higher damage output is less forgiving to the players that make mistakes. To me it just requires you to be on top of your units, and always prepare yourself to be in a good position, ie not standing there with your bio ball vs P and simple die to a click and call it 1 sided. Since the game is still fairly fresh, with 2 expansions coming out I don't think its fair to compare it to BW that has been out for many years with an extremely developed scene and limited UI and AI which make it much more mechanics heavy.
2) Zone, no true "seige"
To argue your point with using a few stalkers to fend off drops and warping in to defend, in late game situations many protoss players deal with this by cannoning their main where it is the most vulnerable to counted drops, with a HT or two ready for feedback and storm. This also works in PVZ, a perfect example would be the recent Genius vs DRG game where he did not even get storm, but played a very defensive cannon and stalker heavy strategy to deal with muta harass. I agree with the remaining points you made about this zone expansions, but its not that big of a problem to me.
3) Static Defence
I feel that static defence is quite strong as it is, previously stated about and the ways many protoss deal with the muta switches or ling muta strategies IS to use cannons to prevent small numbers of mutas to do damage, and work up to getting stalkers with blink and HT for storms. The one point I do agree with you is that in TVZ mass mutas can absolutely wreck turrets and one of the more frustrating points in my upper diamond TvZ. Cannons shouldn't be able to take out upgraded units, they are there to defend early on, and to buy time for your reinforcements to come. The Genius vs SC game on daybreak I also feel that the protoss used the cannons extremely well and it got to the point where I believe he couldn't lose and it ended up being a boring macro game to me, so I would argue no that stronger static defence is pretty damn good as is.
4) Hard Counter Units
I think this is exactly why you need to actively scout, and prepare for follow ups your opponent can do so you can adapt and react to it. Sure you can isolate 2 units and say immortals take out 3 tanks easily, but thats where you have marines to deal with immortals, and protoss gets zealots sentries to counter the marines. At the end of the game, it comes down to your unit positioning, combination and control. At lower levels, I can definitely agree that lesser players would be frustrated that their lings die helions, especially in 4v4 format with the famous ZZPT combination with mass speedlings with helions and 4 gate, but many players in the 1v1 format has adapted to helion harasses, and it would be safe to say that things will be more figured out to deal with these hard these "imbalanced" situations.
If you watch any game in its first year of release, I'm sure you'll find many flaws and design issues, and it may not ever be fixed the way you want it to, and in this case compared to BW. I think you should take the game for what it is, and not compare it to its predessor because lets face it, its 2 different games and requires a different mindset approach to it.
|
well...what can i say? sc2 is very rock-paper-scissors. very bad.
|
On January 18 2012 20:05 R3demption wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 20:01 OmniEulogy wrote:On January 18 2012 19:27 tokicheese wrote:On January 18 2012 19:11 Tobberoth wrote:On January 18 2012 19:06 GeOnoSis wrote:
very interesting, but I don't agree with your static defense... cannons would be just to strong! Just imagine A cannon going up behind the zerg expansion or behind a wall, making it impossible to attack. Also all this changes would make Mutas pretty useless. If Turrets would do even more damage, Mutas would be stupid to play. You already need like 18+ Mutas to kill 1 Turret, when the terran repairs it and often time you still lose one. And if there is any Zerg unit, which can't get really hardcountered, it's the Mutalisk. With proper micro you can dodge storms, magic box against thors and so on...
But that leads to a problem, you already mentioned: Too much firepower, or at least to hard counters.
Like you said it's just a joke to fight with Stalkers or Roaches against Marauders or sth like that. But also, did you ever fight with an army of just stalkers and sentries against a Roach Ling army and completely got crushed? Probably yes, but did you fight against one with the same size and completely crushes him just because of forcefields? Probably YES! I think something like forcefields is sooo hard to balance. In the early game, they can just prevent any aggression in many situations and in other, nearly completely useless. I know I might wrote some weird things :D but well in the end I just think that there are too many hardcounters and the DPS against certain Unit types is obviously a huge factor. Thors vs Muta overall is just dumb as crap. One minor mistake, such as flying 1 milimeter too close to a thor you haven't seen, and he gets one shot off. Boom, 20 mutas brought to orange HP. The idea that you have to micro mutas against Thors is a good thing, it's a counter which can be overcome by skill. Problem again being firepower and speed, there's NO margin for error. A ½ second is enough to go from a good position to a bad position just because of the insane firepower of a single thor. Like OP said, this fight would also benefit from a 50% balance. Lower the damage by 50%, but increase the splash range, or something like that. Encourange micro, while not making minor mistakes cost too much. Thors being killed by 2/3 mutas when magic boxed isnt silly? 6 supply vs 6 supply. 300/300 resource vs 300/200. One person micro's a little bit and one a-moves. Sorry what is the problem here? It's a 'soft' counter that gets beat by micro?? That fits into the OPs point about this game... if anything it supports his point and shouldn't be messed with... good work. Thors take longer to make and cannot be massed like mutas. Plus they are supposed to be an epic unit and turn out like pussys when magic boxed. Plus its not like the thor can do anything to prevent being magic boxed. Your A move comment is dumb. Thats all it can do. So either the Z player is smart or he is not.. No reliance on the T player. The OP in my opinion would like it to be a two sided coin, where both forces can be microd against each other to maximize efficiency of both armies. I think everyone wants more situations like that in this game. Im a Protoss BTW so Im not biased about Thor v Muta.
The consequence of a Thor on the field these days is that you have to magic box, basically always. Keeping Mutas in a tight ball to snipe turrets and tanks is much better than flying around magix boxed, but with a Thor nearby, you can't do that anymore. This in turn makes Marines more effective again.
Sure, it would be nice if some micro were involved, but how much micro can there be in a fight of a slow 10 range unit vs fast 3 range units? Those fights are primarily about positioning just by their nature.
I think positioning in general is underappreciated in threads like this, watching Genius vs sC in GSL dance their armies trying to get an advantageous position was beautiful to watch. I agree in parts with the OP, in particular the lack of units that can defend a specific zone, but those are hard to design such that they aren't even more useful in a deathball (see Blizzard's attemt with the Shredder).
Broodwar, I feel, overall didn't have units specifically better suited to zonal defense (aside from the Lurker), or units that had less firepower. It's just that you could only control 12 at once and the difference between simple a move and very good micro was so extreme that it was worth it to focus a lot of attention on unit control.
|
On January 18 2012 20:15 R3demption wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 20:12 ToastieNL wrote:On January 18 2012 20:07 R3demption wrote:On January 18 2012 19:59 ReaperX wrote:
Agreeed. Tired of this "toss a move" bullshit In our defense A move is all we can do to efficiently win. Our armies are not good in small groups. The only thing we have to micro is our caster units and those play such a crucial role that in a 5 second engagement you have to worry about those units over everything else. True I have been frustrated about seeing Terran drops (Pro play) lately against superior Protoss supply, but because the Terran drops in 2 places with half his army, it becomes like 30 supply T vs 40 supply P on 2 fronts, which Terran wins both.... That's ridiculous. Yeah PvT is ridiculous about this problem.
You can defend against drops and small attacks really easily if you have 3-4 canons and a couple of high templar at the outlying bases (very reminiscent of bw gameplay). In the mid-game when you are on two bases and do not have the economy for this having a group of blinks stalkers in the main can kill off drops very easily, and don't forget warp-ins. I think MVPGenius showed this very well in his games yesterday. A protoss getting killed off by drops is just playing carelessly. Protoss can defend against drops perfectly well at any point in the game.
|
On January 18 2012 20:28 Nourek wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 20:05 R3demption wrote:On January 18 2012 20:01 OmniEulogy wrote:On January 18 2012 19:27 tokicheese wrote:On January 18 2012 19:11 Tobberoth wrote:On January 18 2012 19:06 GeOnoSis wrote:
very interesting, but I don't agree with your static defense... cannons would be just to strong! Just imagine A cannon going up behind the zerg expansion or behind a wall, making it impossible to attack. Also all this changes would make Mutas pretty useless. If Turrets would do even more damage, Mutas would be stupid to play. You already need like 18+ Mutas to kill 1 Turret, when the terran repairs it and often time you still lose one. And if there is any Zerg unit, which can't get really hardcountered, it's the Mutalisk. With proper micro you can dodge storms, magic box against thors and so on...
But that leads to a problem, you already mentioned: Too much firepower, or at least to hard counters.
Like you said it's just a joke to fight with Stalkers or Roaches against Marauders or sth like that. But also, did you ever fight with an army of just stalkers and sentries against a Roach Ling army and completely got crushed? Probably yes, but did you fight against one with the same size and completely crushes him just because of forcefields? Probably YES! I think something like forcefields is sooo hard to balance. In the early game, they can just prevent any aggression in many situations and in other, nearly completely useless. I know I might wrote some weird things :D but well in the end I just think that there are too many hardcounters and the DPS against certain Unit types is obviously a huge factor. Thors vs Muta overall is just dumb as crap. One minor mistake, such as flying 1 milimeter too close to a thor you haven't seen, and he gets one shot off. Boom, 20 mutas brought to orange HP. The idea that you have to micro mutas against Thors is a good thing, it's a counter which can be overcome by skill. Problem again being firepower and speed, there's NO margin for error. A ½ second is enough to go from a good position to a bad position just because of the insane firepower of a single thor. Like OP said, this fight would also benefit from a 50% balance. Lower the damage by 50%, but increase the splash range, or something like that. Encourange micro, while not making minor mistakes cost too much. Thors being killed by 2/3 mutas when magic boxed isnt silly? 6 supply vs 6 supply. 300/300 resource vs 300/200. One person micro's a little bit and one a-moves. Sorry what is the problem here? It's a 'soft' counter that gets beat by micro?? That fits into the OPs point about this game... if anything it supports his point and shouldn't be messed with... good work. Thors take longer to make and cannot be massed like mutas. Plus they are supposed to be an epic unit and turn out like pussys when magic boxed. Plus its not like the thor can do anything to prevent being magic boxed. Your A move comment is dumb. Thats all it can do. So either the Z player is smart or he is not.. No reliance on the T player. The OP in my opinion would like it to be a two sided coin, where both forces can be microd against each other to maximize efficiency of both armies. I think everyone wants more situations like that in this game. Im a Protoss BTW so Im not biased about Thor v Muta. The consequence of a Thor on the field these days is that you have to magic box, basically always. Keeping Mutas in a tight ball to snipe turrets and tanks is much better than flying around magix boxed, but with a Thor nearby, you can't do that anymore. This in turn makes Marines more effective again. Sure, it would be nice if some micro were involved, but how much micro can there be in a fight of a slow 10 range unit vs fast 3 range units? Those fights are primarily about positioning just by their nature. I think positioning in general is underappreciated in threads like this, watching Genius vs sC in GSL dance their armies trying to get an advantageous position was beautiful to watch. I agree in parts with the OP, in particular the lack of units that can defend a specific zone, but those are hard to design such that they aren't even more useful in a deathball (see Blizzard's attemt with the Shredder). Broodwar, I feel, overall didn't have units specifically better suited to zonal defense (aside from the Lurker), or units that had less firepower. It's just that you could only control 12 at once and the difference between simple a move and very good micro was so extreme that it was worth it to focus a lot of attention on unit control.
+over 9000
User was warned for this post
|
On January 18 2012 20:15 R3demption wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 20:12 ToastieNL wrote:On January 18 2012 20:07 R3demption wrote:On January 18 2012 19:59 ReaperX wrote:
Agreeed. Tired of this "toss a move" bullshit In our defense A move is all we can do to efficiently win. Our armies are not good in small groups. The only thing we have to micro is our caster units and those play such a crucial role that in a 5 second engagement you have to worry about those units over everything else. True I have been frustrated about seeing Terran drops (Pro play) lately against superior Protoss supply, but because the Terran drops in 2 places with half his army, it becomes like 30 supply T vs 40 supply P on 2 fronts, which Terran wins both.... That's ridiculous. Yeah PvT is ridiculous about this problem.
I think alot of this has to do with the many protoss pro players still have their entire army on 1 hotkey, and HT on 2, I feel players like MC, huk and Hero have an advantage in this regard compared to a player like JYP who I've noticed ends up in many situations with his stalkers in front of his zealots. The hardest part in PvT regarding this, is that most protoss don't have the experience to know how to split his army evenly, and always find themselves dying in 1 of the engagements which snowballs. Shown most recently is Genius vs SC where he dealt with multiple prone drops and attacks effectively, even though he has his entire army on 1 hotkey. With good cannon placements and a few HT, it lessens the blow if the terran commits to it.
On January 18 2012 20:20 Destructicon wrote:
The sad thing, R3demption is 100% correct, Protoss is designed in such a way that, their units are not effective in small groups, so they really need to get to that late game situation.
Because of WG and FF mechanics and, to a lesser extent Colossus, the effectiveness of GW units was nerfed thus they are no longer good in face to face battles of small groups, so they had to either focus very well timed out attacks, or 200/200 armies.
Upgraded GW units can be extremely strong in my opinion. There is a reason why protoss HAS to get an AOE in PvT once the armies reach up in the 100s, because gateway units are terrible in that situation even with forcefields. But in small isolated battles, zealots are extremely good tanks, and you should always retain your stalkers, NOT lose them. Give the game more time, alot of smaller things are being developed in the matchups, and I feel there is alot of misinformation out there due to what they see in pro games that support their ladder games.
|
On January 18 2012 20:19 gh0un wrote:
At this point in time i dont believe that blizzard is capable of fixing their utterly flawed game design, since it would require a complete overhaul of the game, which would mean they would have to admit that they made a mistake, and obviously its blizzard they will never admit that they made a mistake.
- unmicroable units (most of them are extremely limited)
- spells that take away the ability to micro units (forcefield, neural parasite and fungal) instead of spells that encourage micro (dark swarm and radiate)
- lack of units that can hold a position on the map (especially for zerg and protoss) -> no real map control aspect to the game
- stuff clumps together in a tight ball leading to 1 big clash scenarios that are utterly boring
Especially point 2 and 3, the fact that blizzard managed to completely miss the dart board on these two issues is /facepalm inducing.
How can you go from darkswarm, radiate, defensive matrix, lurker, reaver, spidermines, carriers and plenty more stuff, to something that completely takes away whole aspects of the game, WHILE not replacing them with other aspects.
Starcraft 2, from a gamedesign point of view is so terrible, its actually a miracle it managed to take off so well in esports.
Guess the hype from waiting for a sequel to one of the best games in the industry was enough to get the rock rolling down the cliff. Unfortunately the rock is a fucking ugly bitch no one wants to touch, but its rolling already and the cliff is deep.
Behold of the unstoppable ugly bitch rock that is starcraft 2 rolling down the cliff called money bay.
There's a custom called SC2BW. go play that since obviously all you wanted was SC:BW HD.
|
On January 18 2012 20:32 Corrosive wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 20:19 gh0un wrote:
At this point in time i dont believe that blizzard is capable of fixing their utterly flawed game design, since it would require a complete overhaul of the game, which would mean they would have to admit that they made a mistake, and obviously its blizzard they will never admit that they made a mistake.
- unmicroable units (most of them are extremely limited)
- spells that take away the ability to micro units (forcefield, neural parasite and fungal) instead of spells that encourage micro (dark swarm and radiate)
- lack of units that can hold a position on the map (especially for zerg and protoss) -> no real map control aspect to the game
- stuff clumps together in a tight ball leading to 1 big clash scenarios that are utterly boring
Especially point 2 and 3, the fact that blizzard managed to completely miss the dart board on these two issues is /facepalm inducing.
How can you go from darkswarm, radiate, defensive matrix, lurker, reaver, spidermines, carriers and plenty more stuff, to something that completely takes away whole aspects of the game, WHILE not replacing them with other aspects.
Starcraft 2, from a gamedesign point of view is so terrible, its actually a miracle it managed to take off so well in esports.
Guess the hype from waiting for a sequel to one of the best games in the industry was enough to get the rock rolling down the cliff. Unfortunately the rock is a fucking ugly bitch no one wants to touch, but its rolling already and the cliff is deep.
Behold of the unstoppable ugly bitch rock that is starcraft 2 rolling down the cliff called money bay. There's a custom called SC2BW. go play that since obviously all you wanted was SC:BW HD.
No i dont want to play either of them. I want to watch others play them. If you can persuade pro players to play sc2bw in tournaments, THEN and only then makes your statement any kind of sense.
ps:
Its funny that you bring up a custom map, since battlenet 0.2´s custom game lobby is so terrible, that you will actually never be able to play anything other than the maps on the first page.
See what i did there? Another thing blizzard managed to botch, utterly botch.
|
On January 18 2012 20:30 prOxi.FighT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 20:15 R3demption wrote:On January 18 2012 20:12 ToastieNL wrote:On January 18 2012 20:07 R3demption wrote:On January 18 2012 19:59 ReaperX wrote:
Agreeed. Tired of this "toss a move" bullshit In our defense A move is all we can do to efficiently win. Our armies are not good in small groups. The only thing we have to micro is our caster units and those play such a crucial role that in a 5 second engagement you have to worry about those units over everything else. True I have been frustrated about seeing Terran drops (Pro play) lately against superior Protoss supply, but because the Terran drops in 2 places with half his army, it becomes like 30 supply T vs 40 supply P on 2 fronts, which Terran wins both.... That's ridiculous. Yeah PvT is ridiculous about this problem. You can defend against drops and small attacks really easily if you have 3-4 canons and a couple of high templar at the outlying bases (very reminiscent of bw gameplay). In the mid-game when you are on two bases and do not have the economy for this having a group of blinks stalkers in the main can kill off drops very easily, and don't forget warp-ins. I think MVPGenius showed this very well in his games yesterday. A protoss getting killed off by drops is just playing carelessly. Protoss can defend against drops perfectly well at any point in the game.
Drops are fin-ish I was commenting on dividing up your main army. In PvT sending equal supply gateway units to fend off a counterattack somewhere is a headache. Also losing a main battle to T is very bad because the ensuing reinforcements vs reinforcement is heavily favored towards T. Protoss functions better all together in a massive blob because gateway units are inherently weak against their counterparts of the other races. Sure late game we are good, when we have Templar and numerous cannons. Late game Protoss is a force to be reckoned with.
|
On January 18 2012 18:44 Tobberoth wrote:
It's true. I went back and played some brood war for the first time in a long time, and it amazed me how SLOW it is compared to SC2. Not in the sense that you want to speed it up, but in the sense that you have time to react and micro. Doing a 10/15 gate dragoon pressure vs a terran, it's amazing how the micro feels. You have ample time to react to what dragoon is being damaged and move it back, focus on getting a good concave etc. This isn't really possible in SC2 since units die so ridiculously fast, and units close distances so quickly. In SC2, you're often discouraged from microing at all since it's all about critical firepower for a second or two. Losing just one second firing can leave your army decimated, and then you'll do no damage.
I think this is the problem, actually. And it's been one of the leading complaints about sc2 since its inception: shit dies too damn fast, and subsequently most battles last only a few seconds. PvT is probably the most dynamic as far as this (longest battles, though still determined by a few key moments), while ZvT falls the most victim, as you either run your shit in and you get good bane hits or fungals or he spreads really well and you look silly. There's not enough time to make good decisions.
Roach/muta battles are all about positioning and having MORE stuff. Same with TvT and PvP. Yeah it takes skill, but is it ideal? Dustin Browder seemed pretty intent on telling people to 'go play Brood War' if they don't like how stuff works in sc2, which makes me a sad bear given the holes that could be given another glance.
--
I do agree whole-heartedly with the OP when it comes to the hard-ish counters. It was an attempt to force diverse army mixtures, but it kind of back fired; units don't work as they were intended and have made for some pretty awkward scenarios (the immortal inititally meant to be a tank and the colossus a raider-->lol)
--
Doesn't seem like a lot of this stuff is going to be changed, sadly. The 'go play brood war if you don't like it' thing seems to be the mantra coming out of DB, when it comes to his core design philosophy. Sure he'll change small things, but they're only glossing over the bigger issues.
|
On January 18 2012 20:34 gh0un wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 20:32 Corrosive wrote:On January 18 2012 20:19 gh0un wrote:
At this point in time i dont believe that blizzard is capable of fixing their utterly flawed game design, since it would require a complete overhaul of the game, which would mean they would have to admit that they made a mistake, and obviously its blizzard they will never admit that they made a mistake.
- unmicroable units (most of them are extremely limited)
- spells that take away the ability to micro units (forcefield, neural parasite and fungal) instead of spells that encourage micro (dark swarm and radiate)
- lack of units that can hold a position on the map (especially for zerg and protoss) -> no real map control aspect to the game
- stuff clumps together in a tight ball leading to 1 big clash scenarios that are utterly boring
Especially point 2 and 3, the fact that blizzard managed to completely miss the dart board on these two issues is /facepalm inducing.
How can you go from darkswarm, radiate, defensive matrix, lurker, reaver, spidermines, carriers and plenty more stuff, to something that completely takes away whole aspects of the game, WHILE not replacing them with other aspects.
Starcraft 2, from a gamedesign point of view is so terrible, its actually a miracle it managed to take off so well in esports.
Guess the hype from waiting for a sequel to one of the best games in the industry was enough to get the rock rolling down the cliff. Unfortunately the rock is a fucking ugly bitch no one wants to touch, but its rolling already and the cliff is deep.
Behold of the unstoppable ugly bitch rock that is starcraft 2 rolling down the cliff called money bay. There's a custom called SC2BW. go play that since obviously all you wanted was SC:BW HD. No i dont want to play either of them. I want to watch others play them. If you can persuade pro players to play sc2bw in tournaments, THEN and only then makes your statement any kind of sense.
So you're telling me you're complaining about a game you don't even play and comparing it to another game you don't even play? You sound ridiculous.
|
Good read. For one thing I like the concept of the few new Terran units I have seen. I like the idea of Warhound as an anti-air mech much more than the Thor if it truly works as a Mutalisk counter that isn't countered itself by some silly micro trick. I like the Shredder even more, seems like a really good way to hold a position. I'm imagining Shredder/Tank/Warhound/Battle Hellion/Turret positions with Sensor Towers, just a bunch of AOE if you try to breach that, and when you go around, you get spotted and the Terran army re-positions. I really hope HotS will be less about mobility.
Personally I like a lot of things better in Supreme Commander and C&C Generals, such as the abundance of artillery units, effective anti-air fighters and powerful defensive structures, and no hard counters I can think of (then again I have played neither all that much so maybe there is hard counters I just don't know about. The really good thing about SC2 is it's popularity and ease of finding games). Something I especially don't like about SC2 is that there's no air units that can combat massed mutalisks. Vikings suck against them and you can't really mass Phoenix in that fashion. Thus we don't see cool air-to-air battles a lot between zvx, and late game starport/stargate tech is invalid against Zerg in my opinion. Not from a balance viewpoint, just something I really don't like. Balance-wise I don't have anything to say.
|
On January 18 2012 20:37 Corrosive wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 20:34 gh0un wrote:On January 18 2012 20:32 Corrosive wrote:On January 18 2012 20:19 gh0un wrote:
At this point in time i dont believe that blizzard is capable of fixing their utterly flawed game design, since it would require a complete overhaul of the game, which would mean they would have to admit that they made a mistake, and obviously its blizzard they will never admit that they made a mistake.
- unmicroable units (most of them are extremely limited)
- spells that take away the ability to micro units (forcefield, neural parasite and fungal) instead of spells that encourage micro (dark swarm and radiate)
- lack of units that can hold a position on the map (especially for zerg and protoss) -> no real map control aspect to the game
- stuff clumps together in a tight ball leading to 1 big clash scenarios that are utterly boring
Especially point 2 and 3, the fact that blizzard managed to completely miss the dart board on these two issues is /facepalm inducing.
How can you go from darkswarm, radiate, defensive matrix, lurker, reaver, spidermines, carriers and plenty more stuff, to something that completely takes away whole aspects of the game, WHILE not replacing them with other aspects.
Starcraft 2, from a gamedesign point of view is so terrible, its actually a miracle it managed to take off so well in esports.
Guess the hype from waiting for a sequel to one of the best games in the industry was enough to get the rock rolling down the cliff. Unfortunately the rock is a fucking ugly bitch no one wants to touch, but its rolling already and the cliff is deep.
Behold of the unstoppable ugly bitch rock that is starcraft 2 rolling down the cliff called money bay. There's a custom called SC2BW. go play that since obviously all you wanted was SC:BW HD. No i dont want to play either of them. I want to watch others play them. If you can persuade pro players to play sc2bw in tournaments, THEN and only then makes your statement any kind of sense. So you're telling me you're complaining about a game you don't even play and comparing it to another game you don't even play? You sound ridiculous.
No, you sound ridiculous. At this point in time, esports is just like regular sports, its something people watch.
Do you play football or basketball and whatnot on a professional level?
You watch them on tv. So comparing them to each other is perfectly reasonable and your attempt to troll me is absolutely retarded.
If they suddenly changed soccer to something that requires you to use a bat in order to move the ball and renamed the sport to soccer2, viewers would be in an outrage and rightfully compare the two games to each other and make a valid point that soccer 2 sucks.
Would you then go on and tell them to PLAY soccer 1 instead? See what i did there? You are so bad.
You would obviously tell them to WATCH soccer 1 instead, but that is unfortunately not possible anymore since scbw is about to be extinct.
|
On January 18 2012 20:28 Nourek wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 20:05 R3demption wrote:On January 18 2012 20:01 OmniEulogy wrote:On January 18 2012 19:27 tokicheese wrote:On January 18 2012 19:11 Tobberoth wrote:On January 18 2012 19:06 GeOnoSis wrote:
very interesting, but I don't agree with your static defense... cannons would be just to strong! Just imagine A cannon going up behind the zerg expansion or behind a wall, making it impossible to attack. Also all this changes would make Mutas pretty useless. If Turrets would do even more damage, Mutas would be stupid to play. You already need like 18+ Mutas to kill 1 Turret, when the terran repairs it and often time you still lose one. And if there is any Zerg unit, which can't get really hardcountered, it's the Mutalisk. With proper micro you can dodge storms, magic box against thors and so on...
But that leads to a problem, you already mentioned: Too much firepower, or at least to hard counters.
Like you said it's just a joke to fight with Stalkers or Roaches against Marauders or sth like that. But also, did you ever fight with an army of just stalkers and sentries against a Roach Ling army and completely got crushed? Probably yes, but did you fight against one with the same size and completely crushes him just because of forcefields? Probably YES! I think something like forcefields is sooo hard to balance. In the early game, they can just prevent any aggression in many situations and in other, nearly completely useless. I know I might wrote some weird things :D but well in the end I just think that there are too many hardcounters and the DPS against certain Unit types is obviously a huge factor. Thors vs Muta overall is just dumb as crap. One minor mistake, such as flying 1 milimeter too close to a thor you haven't seen, and he gets one shot off. Boom, 20 mutas brought to orange HP. The idea that you have to micro mutas against Thors is a good thing, it's a counter which can be overcome by skill. Problem again being firepower and speed, there's NO margin for error. A ½ second is enough to go from a good position to a bad position just because of the insane firepower of a single thor. Like OP said, this fight would also benefit from a 50% balance. Lower the damage by 50%, but increase the splash range, or something like that. Encourange micro, while not making minor mistakes cost too much. Thors being killed by 2/3 mutas when magic boxed isnt silly? 6 supply vs 6 supply. 300/300 resource vs 300/200. One person micro's a little bit and one a-moves. Sorry what is the problem here? It's a 'soft' counter that gets beat by micro?? That fits into the OPs point about this game... if anything it supports his point and shouldn't be messed with... good work. Thors take longer to make and cannot be massed like mutas. Plus they are supposed to be an epic unit and turn out like pussys when magic boxed. Plus its not like the thor can do anything to prevent being magic boxed. Your A move comment is dumb. Thats all it can do. So either the Z player is smart or he is not.. No reliance on the T player. The OP in my opinion would like it to be a two sided coin, where both forces can be microd against each other to maximize efficiency of both armies. I think everyone wants more situations like that in this game. Im a Protoss BTW so Im not biased about Thor v Muta. The consequence of a Thor on the field these days is that you have to magic box, basically always. Keeping Mutas in a tight ball to snipe turrets and tanks is much better than flying around magix boxed, but with a Thor nearby, you can't do that anymore. This in turn makes Marines more effective again. .
Hey I agree man. Always Magic boxing vs Thors is tedious and seems non intuitive considering you would rather be tightened up vs Turrets and Marines. I would say that always splitting up Hts where ever you move your army in PvT vs ghost is the same thing. Even when the game wants them to grp them up whenever you move command. think about it, everything you do with Hts they want to clump up. And yeah I use more than one hot key. But vs 15 ghosts that makes little difference because he has 15+ emps to hit 3 control groups worth of Hts. Did I mention that we have to spread our other forces as well? Thats not that bad, and it does take skill. But Ht management is just stupid seeing as EMP can be game ending Cough* JYP Cough*
|
Best post (original thread post) regarding improving SC2 I have ever seem, nice job.
Someone should send this to Blizzard/David Kim !
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
