Starcraft 2 has become a game of extreme firepower. Almost all units seem to have an extremely strong damage output and become unstopable in certain situations. The heavy splash damage units are able to absolutely crush certain kinds of units with very little ability to micro out of the situation. There's even spells in the game to lock units in place until they get crushed. We've all been in a situation where FF come down and you're units all get roasted by the backup storms or colli, fungals hold you up for the banes to crush past or even for broods to smash your army from range. If you get hit by these spells your options to escape don't exist and the game is essentially over.
This problem doesn't just exist with crushing AoE though, it happens with most of the low tier units too. Zerglings with a couple of upgrades can rip apart almost any ground unit in a small clump making and their pure speed makes it impossible to fight without being balled up, or behind a wall. This leads to pure frustration when you get caught out of position by some lings and lose 1/3 or half your army and at that point there's nothing you can do about the situation. 4 Zealots can hold off a 2mara, 4 rines drop if you don't stutter micro it (makes having a second engagement elsewhere on the map hard as hell). Marines are by far the most powerful unit in the game if you don't have AoE around to deal with them. A group of stimmed marines can crush any army that doesn't have Banes, Infestors, Templar, Colli or Tanks in it.
I bet 75%+ of the games I watch or play in end very, very decisively with a big engagement going to one player or the other. Very few games are decided with slow, sweeping gameplay where each player deals and receives multiple blows. This is because of four factors that I'm really started to get fed up with in the game and I'm going to list them off here.
Factor #1: Too much firepower. As I described in the opening the game has way, way too much firepower. It's not just the big AoE units that are the problem though, literally every unit has a huge amount of firepower against certain kinds of units, or just in general. Marauders crush stalkers and roaches so hard it's not even funny. Lings with favorable numbers eat through almost everything. Zealots themselves can do insane amounts of damage to forces that can't escape them. Give any unit in the game a slight advantage and favourable matchup in a fight and there's very little the other player can do about it. Immortals crunch anything that hits hard and has armor, like tanks, thors, roaches and Stalkers. If all of a sudden all the units in the game lost some of their damage, or had more room for micro (and micro doesn't mean speed, it means micro. Blink micro doesn't take a lot of speed but a good player can make some amazing plays with it.) things would be a lot more interesting.
Factor #2: No units that can zone, no true "siege" units. This one of fairly straight forward. Tanks can't zone anything without support. If you leave 3 or 4 tanks at an expansion and the opponent sends 10 chargelots you lose, or if they send 30 lings in you lose. Give those tanks 10 marines though and things change, they can hold off runbys and small armies with ease. Zerg can't zone anything, if they take a ling runby in ZvZ they lose a lot of drones, Toss can leave a few blink stalkers around to fend off drops and use their warpin mechanic to bring units to the fight but if gates are on cd or the toss is maxed then they're going to lose a lot of probes.
Simply put, no race can zone out expansions properly, or even zone areas of the map without aggressively positioning their army. If a protoss has his army where your third and forth are located you can't send your army to go kill one of his bases or he'll move in and crush yours so you end up with two big armies dancing back and forth until one player makes a mistake and get crushed. If the Terran could use a few tanks to zone their third/forth expansion and make attacking it a risky idea then the toss would have to be backed up, or risk having one of his bases taken out. This would lead to move interesting engagements and games in general where you can run away from the toss in a big fight, but right now if that fight happens at your doorstep and you lose the games over, his reinforcements will get there before yours do if he has a pylon around.
Factor #3: Static defenses are god awful. Spine crawlers can't even kill a marine with medivac support, same thing with cannons and turrets get rolled by a pack of muta's once it gets reasonably sized. The only static defense that works well is the PF and thats a huge investment for Terrans. If you made static defenses twice as powerful as they are now (PF excluded) things would be a lot more interesting, especially if races had the ability to zone out and siege better. If zerg could put down a couple of spines and a lurker and know that ling runbys would be totally useless imagine how different zvz would look. If there were no banelings things would be a lot more stable in that matchup.
If static defense was more powerful then we'd see people not trying to all in nearly as much, and in turn players playing a lot less greedy than they are now. The threat of a bunker rush would go up if bunkers had more hp or armor, and the threat of a cannon rush would go way up if they hit twice as hard however by simply getting that second barracks before expanding and scouting your own main you'd be able to hold them off no problem, better spines would make going for a six gate useless and make playing safe and slowly expanding more of a viable option for zerg. If they could use their army to hold a position for awhile while they got their third up and then dropping a couple of spines there to protect it from smaller forces things would be more interesting.
Factor #4: Units that are amazing against one thing, but garbage against another. There's way too many units that are terrible against some things and amazing against others. This makes it almost impossible to have creative compositions. If we took a 50% cut on the effectiveness of these units against what they roll right now and made them better against what they can't kill it would be very interesting to see.
Hellions either wipe the floor with lings or get smashed by roaches. They also fire way too slowly. Let them get in your mineral line though and all hopes lost. If hellions did 50% less to lings and 50% more to roaches imagine how the game would look. Yeah they'd still be able to mop up lings, but at the same time lings would be a reasonable way to play against them, however those early roach all ins would be a lot less acceptable and the game would be a lot more based on who was the better player than a simple coin flip.
Immortals are the same story, 1 immortal can easily kill 3 presieged up tanks. How is that reasonable at all? 2v1 tanks should be able to kill an immortal without a loss(but near death), but 1v1 an immortal should mop up a tank. Give immortals a bit faster fire rate and all of a sudden they become viable against marines too.
Conclusion: Stalkers I personally feel that Stalkers are one of the most well designed units in the entire game. They don't kill things exceptionally fast, really gain a heavy edge in terms of your ability to micro them and even have an upgrade that lets them become extremely strong in the hands of a skilled player. Have you ever lost to a player using a lot of stalkers (outside of allins) where it felt awful and terrible? Where it felt like there was nothing you could do he just clicked a couple of buttons and autowon? I haven't. The problem is so many units destroy stalkers in the right conditions. A reasonable number of lings in a ling roach situation allows the zerg player to a-move the stalkers and there's nothing they can do, blink only helps so much. What about if they get fungled? gg. Terran has marauders? gg. Toss made immortals? gg. Each of those situations requires the stalker player to micro his ass off to survive, but the Marauder, Immortal, Ling/Roach or Infestor player has to do almost nothing to smash the stalkers to pieces. This needs to change.
Disclaimer: Take this thread for what it is. I only wrote it to vent some of my own frustrations with my own games, as well as games I watch in various tourneys. I want sc2 to be the best it can be and while some of my idea's are a bit crack potted and probably wrong I do feel that the general theme of this thread is solid, Too much damage, No Zoning, Crap Static Defenses, Hard Counters and of course Stalkers.
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.
UPDATE: What we really need, is a custom map for SC2 which explores this. Similar to SC2BW, but pure SC2 with more BW like balance, trying to implement what you mention in your post: stronger static defenses, more equalized counters, maybe the classic complaint about ball pathing. Just to see how it would actually work out in practice.
there is endless list of issues and flaws in sc2 design. funny that people only now started to discuss it. I was crying about it since the beginning. I hope blizzard will take some notes and improve in HotS. Otherwise I already lost interest in stacraft 2. I think these are the most important things to work on: - defender's advantage and zone controlling (this is the reason TvT is very good matchup) - unit clumping (need to spread a bit) - terrible terrible damage syndrome.
On January 18 2012 18:46 bokeevboke wrote: there is endless list of issues and flaws in sc2 design. funny that people only now started to discuss it. I was crying about it since the beginning. I hope blizzard will take some notes and improve in HotS. Otherwise I already lost interest in stacraft 2. I think these are the most important things to work on: - defender's advantage and zone controlling (this is the reason TvT is very good matchup) - unit clumping (need to spread a bit) - terrible terrible damage syndrome.
Not to take anything away from you being early, but these issues have been discussed since beta, all the way from when people first noticed how different highground advantage worked in SC2.
Factor #4: Units that are amazing against one thing, but garbage against another. There's way too many units that are terrible against some things and amazing against others. This makes it almost impossible to have creative compositions. If we took a 50% cut on the effectiveness of these units against what they roll right now and made them better against what they can't kill it would be very interesting to see.
Hellions either wipe the floor with lings or get smashed by roaches. They also fire way too slowly. Let them get in your mineral line though and all hopes lost. If hellions did 50% less to lings and 50% more to roaches imagine how the game would look. Yeah they'd still be able to mop up lings, but at the same time lings would be a reasonable way to play against them, however those early roach all ins would be a lot less acceptable and the game would be a lot more based on who was the better player than a simple coin flip.
Immortals are the same story, 1 immortal can easily kill 3 presieged up tanks. How is that reasonable at all? 2v1 tanks should be able to kill an immortal without a loss(but near death), but 1v1 an immortal should mop up a tank. Give immortals a bit faster fire rate and all of a sudden they become viable against marines too.
Conclusion: Stalkers I personally feel that Stalkers are one of the most well designed units in the entire game. They don't kill things exceptionally fast, really gain a heavy edge in terms of your ability to micro them and even have an upgrade that lets them become extremely strong in the hands of a skilled player. Have you ever lost to a player using a lot of stalkers (outside of allins) where it felt awful and terrible? Where it felt like there was nothing you could do he just clicked a couple of buttons and autowon? I haven't. The problem is so many units destroy stalkers in the right conditions. A reasonable number of lings in a ling roach situation allows the zerg player to a-move the stalkers and there's nothing they can do, blink only helps so much. What about if they get fungled? gg. Terran has marauders? gg. Toss made immortals? gg. Each of those situations requires the stalker player to micro his ass off to survive, but the Marauder, Immortal, Ling/Roach or Infestor player has to do almost nothing to smash the stalkers to pieces. This needs to change.
I don't like all the design QQ threads that have been popping up lately, but I definitely agree with this factor in particular and your conclusion as a whole. The whole war3 inspired X automatically counters Y thing when it comes to low tiered units can lead to some really stupid situations. I understand and support it being that way when it comes to higher tier units, but when you're dealing with roaches/lings/zealots/marauders/marines/stalkers sentries, I wish things operated on a more soft counter basis and leave the hard counters for higher tier units like in BW.
PvP is actually pretty fun because a lot of these problems are relatively minimal. Obviously there's the 200/200 who has more colossi thing, but that comes up pretty rarely and for the most part there's back and forth action with just a few "high firepower" units mixed in making things interesting but not completely dominating the battlefield and invalidating everything else.
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.
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.
The OP isn't about not liking the design of SC2 compared to BW, it's about flaws in the design which BW didn't have. Going back to BW won't remove those issues from SC2.
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.
I never understood these kind of comments - 'go play BW'. What's wrong with wanting to make the game better? if there is smth good in bw why shouldn't we adopt it.
if you have nothing to contribute to discussion just move on pls.
Just so you know, a lot of Protoss players stay around 190/200 supply intentionally so that they can deal with potential drop play, until they are stable enough with photon cannons + high templar in place.
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.
This seems like a copy of the "philosophy behind design of units"-thread (or sth like that). Though, only point 2 and 3 are the same. You have a point that some units are just too effective against others.
I agree with you that stalkers are good multi purpose units that don't counter anything specifically. I'd say roaches are also such a unit. (But some again, complain that roaches are too boring).
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.
Yes this is exactly why I think SC2 needs its default gamespeed to be a bit lower. It's one of the reasons why battles are too decisive. Also, many players get away with suboptimal formations and unit positionings because it's often not worth the effort, especially when the opposing player is likely doing the same thing. Given a bit more available APM, players would finally find it worth the time to achieve more optimal formations, leading to less unsightly deathball clashes.
It just seems to me that SC2 has compensated for its easier mechanics by effectively speeding everything up. (I know that the game speed actually hasn't increased between BW and SC2, but it just feels that way.)
Tobberoth I agree with you, but that's the life of TvZ! Terran doesn't micro, everything is dead. Terran does micro: minimal losses and every zerg unit is dead. You don't watch your mutas for one second, 5-10 (if not even every) are just dead (flying over marines just because terran moved randomly out). One mistake can lead to an instant loss...for BOTH sides.
Are you playing the same game as us? I've played plenty of protoss (as zerg) that could quite literally press A, click and afk from the keyboard. Everything else you said though was pretty accurate and awesome, gj
On January 18 2012 19:17 GeOnoSis wrote: Tobberoth I agree with you, but that's the life of TvZ! Terran doesn't micro, everything is dead. Terran does micro: minimal losses and every zerg unit is dead. You don't watch your mutas for one second, 5-10 (if not even every) are just dead (flying over marines just because terran moved randomly out). One mistake can lead to an instant loss...for BOTH sides.
I'm not saying it's unbalanced for Zerg, Thor vs Muta was just an example. Of course, it's just as detrimental that seiging 1 second too late makes a terran army melt in 2 seconds to a zerg swarm.
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?
I kind of agree, some match ups feel very unforgiving because the fights end way too fast due to the huge ammount of firepower.
TvP is the worst contender. One single slip up from both players can lose you the entire game. Colossus are sent too much in front and they get destroyed by Vikings, after which the bio ball rolls you. HT are too far forward and/or not spread and they get EMPed/Sniped and then the army gets rolled by the bio.
On the other side though, if you mess up and get your vikings too far forward they can get sniped/stormed by HT and you then auto-lose because you can't reach and destroy the colossus. If you also fuck up with your ghosts and get them all storm/EMPed you can then get rolled over by mass storms.
I feel like TvZ and TvT feel best because the fight doesn't end instantly in most cases. Stutter step micro, focus fire micro, splits, etc play a huge role and fights, are sometimes a lot more drawn out and long.
In both TvT and TvZ, tanks can zone an area more effectively than in TvP, so players have to respect the tank and have to consider other avenuse of attack. Either harassing with mutas, droping, nuking or using burrowed infestors. And, with the exception of Fungal Growth, there is plenty of room to micro in almost all cases, so the player with the better micro can feel very rewarded. Just think of those amazing MKP moments where he stutter steps and kills huge numbers of lings, focus fire stutters and snipes off banes, or does amazing 5 way splits and annihilates huge numbers of banes.
In conclusion, I agree a lot, I think the game would be a lot more interesting everyone had interesting if firepower wasn't quite so ridiculous, if micro-reducing abilities weren't so powerful, if early hard counters weren't so hard and if zone control was respected more.
I feel it's mostly TvP that's really a blob vs blob fight. TvZ, TvT, and (to a lesser extent) PvZ are better in this regard.
Also the zone out thing seems like you're asking for more turtling as if it will be that easy to defend a expansion the whole gameplay will change. I don't really find it "more interesting" if dropping some passive defences will protect you from ling run by's and drops. Isn't the point that it's supposed to be hard to deal with multipronged attacks and to make sure your base is not open for counter attacks?
Your post gives of the feel that you really, really dislike any kind of all in. Seems like you want the game remodeled to something like "15 min no attack kk?" which i find totally boring.
Almost everything you suggest have been said countless times and with better references to BW and other games, your OP doesn't really add anything to posts made a year ago on the same subject.
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?
Maybe you forgot to read my post before replying to it, that happens. The point of a balance change would be to lower the effectiveness of lucky shots from thors, while raising their efficiency against magic boxed mutas. So yes, obviously, the effectiveness of magic boxed mutas against Thors is silly.
I agree. This game could be better. Battles end too quickly and decisively due to terrible damage syndrome. The other things you mention would also slow the game down. Also INB4 "slowing the game down would make it easier" comments. Go home trolls. A reasonable person could see that "slowing" down battles would equate to the more strategic player having a slighter advantage giving him time to react. Too many times I see the worser player go home the victor due to stupid 200/200 engagements that last a split second.
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.
I never understood these kind of comments - 'go play BW'. What's wrong with wanting to make the game better? if there is smth good in bw why shouldn't we adopt it.
if you have nothing to contribute to discussion just move on pls.
Because SC2 and BW are not the same game?
If half of the QQers about SC2 had things their way, we'd be playing BW right now with SC2 graphics.
fuckin ridiculous how everybody whines about balance n stuff. just fuck off and play, you'll get better and win. Daily 400 showed me onc again what's important and what's not. Balance is only important if you're work for blizzard and design the balance and then you shouldn't whine about it but improve it obviously
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.
On January 18 2012 19:37 karpo wrote: I feel it's mostly TvP that's really a blob vs blob fight. TvZ, TvT, and (to a lesser extent) PvZ are better in this regard.
Also the zone out thing seems like you're asking for more turtling as if it will be that easy to defend a expansion the whole gameplay will change. I don't really find it "more interesting" if dropping some passive defences will protect you from ling run by's and drops. Isn't the point that it's supposed to be hard to deal with multipronged attacks and to make sure your base is not open for counter attacks?
Your post gives of the feel that you really, really dislike any kind of all in. Seems like you want the game remodeled to something like "15 min no attack kk?" which i find totally boring.
Almost everything you suggest have been said countless times and with better references to BW and other games, your OP doesn't really add anything to posts made a year ago on the same subject.
I agree with you on the match ups. TvZ in my opinion is the most ascetically pleasing of all the match ups. You can really see what is going on and its all about Pushing as T and Push Breaking as Z which is awesome to watch. Z lacks a way to defensively slow down a Push though IMO.
PvZ is cool and about managing multiple control groups from both sides to deal with straight up main army engagements as well as small party counter attacks.
PvT is the retarded cousin of this group... Besides drops it is all about main army vs main army which means attack of the blobs. Also its the worst match up for the terrible damage syndrome. Storm, EMP, Stim, Collosis just do too much damage that prevents cognitive function during fights.
Edit: I would like to also add that building 15+ Ghosts infestors or High Templar is utterly retarded seeing as they are support units.
On January 18 2012 19:58 k3m4 wrote: fuckin ridiculous how everybody whines about balance n stuff. just fuck off and play, you'll get better and win. Daily 400 showed me onc again what's important and what's not. Balance is only important if you're work for blizzard and design the balance and then you shouldn't whine about it but improve it obviously
Don't post in topics about things you don't comprehend. This isn't a balance whine in any way at all, it's a discussion on design flaws in the game which makes it less fun to play.
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.
I never understood these kind of comments - 'go play BW'. What's wrong with wanting to make the game better? if there is smth good in bw why shouldn't we adopt it.
if you have nothing to contribute to discussion just move on pls.
Because SC2 and BW are not the same game?
If half of the QQers about SC2 had things their way, we'd be playing BW right now with SC2 graphics.
So just because two games are not the same game, they shouldn't take the good parts from each other? Wow, you blow my mind that someone could have such a weird opinion.
"I prefer games to be different rather than good." Ok man.
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.
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.
While I agree with the "too high DPS" and would lower the firerate of all units by 20-30%, I feel the static defenses are good right now. And remember if the general DPS would be lowered the static defense already becomes stronger. The stalker is perfect right now.
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.
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.
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!
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!?
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.
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 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 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 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 20:19 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 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 20:19 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 20:19 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 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*
On January 18 2012 20:28 Nourek wrote: 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.
This little bit is hitting the nail on its head and I'm afraid it might get overlooked. Destiny went to Korea for a few weeks, came back way better than he was before and the thing he keeps on mentioning is that he basically only learned how to position his units properly and how to engage an army properly.
Yes, things do go faster than in brood war. Maybe the technical concept of micro has gotten less (controlling individual units in engagements), but positioning has taken a HUUUGE role and requires just as much skill as "microing"
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.
UPDATE: What we really need, is a custom map for SC2 which explores this. Similar to SC2BW, but pure SC2 with more BW like balance, trying to implement what you mention in your post: stronger static defenses, more equalized counters, maybe the classic complaint about ball pathing. Just to see how it would actually work out in practice.
haha yeah bw is slower, but the reason why sc2 is so fast is that the mechanics are faster to control, leaving you more time for micro, thats why they increased the gamespeed to a level where its tough again to micro. Try sc2 one speed setting lower, you will be impressed on what you can do in a battle.
And the static defenses are strong especially the terran ones, turrets have problems against mutas ? thats new to me. If people go for 24 mutas you only have to leave a thor at home and maybe a medivac to protect 3 bases from 48 supply of the opponent and turrets even do fine against upgraded mutas till hive tech.
Canons are like always, they protect your units perfectly. In bw mass canons did well for some time but at later stages they didn't do anything alone. In sc2 people use less canons to hold more lings and wonder why it doesn't work heh.
And spines are imo a bit to strong even since they can easily move around and is the strongest static defense ingame against ground.
But yeah tanks after the nerf are really bad at defending anything alone. Also some units will win 1 on 1 pretty easy, vor example immortal will poke tanks pretty easily, and a thor will poke an immortal with bit under 50 damage taken. But thats not bad design, that forces more then one unit to be produced. Hellions that would do fine against roaches and lings ? you wouldn't see marauder hellion, you would only see mass hellions and the first thing zerg had to beat it would be mutas. Hellions fill many roles because they are the highest hp terran light armor unit on ground.
So for me the game is well designed, people often call some things flawed, because they aren't able to play like they could in bw, but thats easy to explain, the difficult of the game switched. So you have to transfer what you used in mechanics to the army micro. Everything does so much damage, at the same time people deny the anti damage mechanics. And wonder why a t1 + t3 army composition kills itself so fast. But i don't worry alot, blizzard brings in fixes to what people have committed with the upcoming mod (tank nerf for example because it is soooo hard to attack magic boxed).
But i guess the hotblooded youth loves to do things with their own hands, because they want to do it better. To bad it is only focused on typing and hoping blizzard gets annoyed enough so they change something to a point it still works, but will satisfy some of the complaining people. I will enjoy bw and sc2 in the meantime heh. Both games have their problems which makes them fun to play.
The micro in this game is heavily favored in pre fight maintenance and caster control. I feel like these should be minor things pros use more than anyone else and not the dominant micro source. Positional tactics and map control sounds better to me as a main source of micro. Its intuitive even for lowbies yet impossible to master. Yet in SC 2 i think Terrans really only have positional tactics and even then it means more than a little only in a few fights,.
Edit: and by map control I mean not only what you can see but also what you can "own". There are few situations I feel I can say as a Protoss that this part of the map is mine.
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.
I'd also add that games are a lot more fun to play the more layers of complexity there are. Sounds painfully trite but to take away from brood war, as you said, instead of changing or adding is cringeworthy, and the growls of the community have receded only because blizzard isn't going to throw their hands up and admit they dropped the ball on a lot of stuff. Starcraft 2 was always going to be successful, as long as it wasn't completely balls.
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.
I agree with losing to T in battle heavily favours terran, but I would argue toss can deal with drops fine. Take Sase vs Bomber at MLG on Antiga. 3 Observers around Bomber's base to see dropships, gives Sase plenty of time to react.
MC is another player that seems to deal with drops extremely well. Often opening with a quick expand into heavy gateways with blink first. He almost always is prepared for drops, with about 6-8 stalkers on 1 hotkey, and mass zealots and a few sentries on another sitting at the expansion. Every now and then players do get caught off guard once in a while, but I feel its going to change in the future.
On January 18 2012 20:28 Nourek wrote: 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.
This little bit is hitting the nail on its head and I'm afraid it might get overlooked. Destiny went to Korea for a few weeks, came back way better than he was before and the thing he keeps on mentioning is that he basically only learned how to position his units properly and how to engage an army properly.
Yes, things do go faster than in brood war. Maybe the technical concept of micro has gotten less (controlling individual units in engagements), but positioning has taken a HUUUGE role and requires just as much skill as "microing"
That's not a good defense though. 1. Position was extremely important in BW too, and in BW it wasn't enough to box half your army and move it a bit, since boxing didn't work as well as it does now because of the 12 unit constraint, and because units didn't clump up. 2. A player moving in a clump and being surprised by an enemy being set up in a decent position can make the moving player lose the game immediately because of the speed and firepower. You go in, see that it's a bad engagement and move back... and lose half your army doing 0 damage. Add in FF and fungal, and you have a situation where the opponent having a better position, maybe by pure luck, wins him the game in seconds.
Position being important is great, there's skill in it and it makes maps more relevant. The problem is that because of how fast the game is and how fast unit dies and how you can deny micro with some abilities, once again, minor mistakes makes too much of a difference. People should be punished for making mistakes, but they shouldn't lose the game because of tiny ones.
Yes and no... Stalkers are great since they come at reasonable tech-timing (with option of blink later), easilly micrable but still suffers against those ultra high dps units (and the natural counters when the numbers aren't off).
Tanks, colos, immortals and marauders (actually even marines and ghost with medivac assistance demolish stalkers if played correctly). What I dislike about stalker is just how bad is it against what it SHOULD be good against. People say stalkers are a good counter to roaches and this is just not true.
I think you're missing 3 points: Costeffectiveness: Stalkers are not costeffective - UNLESS you use them for harrassing/sniping off units and then blinking out. Stalkers can be costeffective - but in a straight up battle they rarely are (when 200/200 they're good since they are relatively expensive/supply) - but if I said 20stalkers vs 35roaches either with no upgrade or blink/speed I think we all know how that would turn out. It works when you're maxed, 'cuz there's a limit to roaches.
All ins: It is too easy to win/lose a game by making an all in. Doesn't matter if it's on 1/2/3 bases. You go all in once and hope for the best.
Defenders advantage: It's extremely different how much defenders advantage the races has. Terran cannot increase their dmg like P(cannons) and Z(spines/queens) can in a defensive position - but they don't need to. Marines/marauders/tanks have incredible dmg outputs - they just need to survive (hence bunkers). Zerg CAN be really vulnerable once you get in between their hatcheries. Usually if you start picking off important hatcheries it can kill the zerg really fast. His reinforcements will be too scattered and spawning at different times/different places. Where the protoss is balanced around warp gate tech - which can be used on the offense. So protoss will only have cannons(lol?) and robo/stargate. Once a battle is decided it can be really hard for a Z or a P to sit back, play defensively and get back into the game. And just to bring it up - once you get inside a T's production he is even more dead than Z/P. But still I think there is not enough defenders advantage - especially when turning into late game, where the only real defenders advantage would be creep/transfuse (for Z) and... well rally distance for stargate/robo for P...
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?
coming right from the unit tester.
no muta ever took a single point of splashdamage in these tests. for reference, thor max hp is 400, muta max hp is 120 edit:fixed thor max hp
1 thor vs 2 mutas : thor wins and has 296 hp left 1 thor vs 3 mutas : thor wins and has 176 hp left 1 thor vs 4 mutas : thor wins and has 8 hp left (this scenario can probably go either way, as its a matter of which side gets their last volley of first) 1 thor vs 5 mutas : mutas win and 2 have full health, 1 have 72 hp left
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?
coming right from the unit tester.
no muta ever took a single point of splashdamage in these tests. for reference, thor max hp is 400, muta max hp is 120 edit:fixed thor max hp
1 thor vs 2 mutas : thor wins and has 296 hp left 1 thor vs 3 mutas : thor wins and has 176 hp left 1 thor vs 4 mutas : thor wins and has 8 hp left (this scenario can probably go either way, as its a matter of which side gets their last volley of first) 1 thor vs 5 mutas : mutas win and 2 have full health, 1 have 72 hp left
Yeah thats how i remember it to be. If you have enough mutas to kill of the thors with magic box, then you will have left over plenty of mutas afterwards (just like in your example, going from 4 to 5 mutas suddenly makes mutas win by a large margin). But when you dont have enough mutas, you get utterly destroyed, while the thors seem untouched.
That balance between thor and muta actually stays true even in large numbers, until there are so many mutas that you cant magic box anymore without leaving mutas idle on the edge. Then thors not only destroy mutas, they utterly destroy mutas.
these guys who are "baww bawww i want broodwar remake" need to wake up and accept the reality.
i wanted UT2004 to be a remake of ut99, boo freaking hoo.
the fact of the matter is that it's a different game, and all you need to know is that blizzard are working their ass off to make the game as enjoyable, exciting and balanced as possible without making it a nostalgia-driven, fantasy ripoff of a 12-year-old game.
to put it crudely, if you don't like sc2, then f*** off and play broodwar.
(not aiming this at the OP, but more towards the snide 'bw was much better' contributors)
The hard counter system went haywire, and it makes for really boring games as a spectator, and buffing statics defense's I doubt could fix this, it would only make for longer boring "macro" games. To start with they should make every AoE splash to do friendly fire, that would make it really hard and more rewarding. Imagine the micro to even use a Colossus. It would render it useless but for a select few Korean pro's.
But Stalker's well designed? I feel it is one of the worst designed units in the game. But I am purely looking from a spectator perspective though.
tldr: Bowder's hard counter system combined with bad design is an esport killer, and Stalker is not an exception. Is there any good Protoss unit in Star2 except HT?
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?
coming right from the unit tester.
no muta ever took a single point of splashdamage in these tests. for reference, thor max hp is 400, muta max hp is 120 edit:fixed thor max hp
1 thor vs 2 mutas : thor wins and has 296 hp left 1 thor vs 3 mutas : thor wins and has 176 hp left 1 thor vs 4 mutas : thor wins and has 8 hp left (this scenario can probably go either way, as its a matter of which side gets their last volley of first) 1 thor vs 5 mutas : mutas win and 2 have full health, 1 have 72 hp left
I tried 6 mutas v 2 thors. Prespread mutas. Slightly spread thors (no glaive dmg). Only 2 mutas died. *BALANCE*
However I dont think(or rather I'd pretty much say I know) that blizzard can or will do any of these changes. Not because theyre not great, but because they are so gamebreakingly harsch to the design. Calling sc2 out to be a huge design flaw is very harsch aswell, it is what it is. The game is pretty much built around the points you described.
I agree with alot of what you have to say, I really do. But I think this discussion should be for SC3, not even for HotS, because it WILL make blizzard "remake" pretty much their entire game. And I think we both know how much people like sc2 for what it is now. Therefore I'd say that this would be a step for sc3.
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?
coming right from the unit tester.
no muta ever took a single point of splashdamage in these tests. for reference, thor max hp is 400, muta max hp is 120 edit:fixed thor max hp
1 thor vs 2 mutas : thor wins and has 296 hp left 1 thor vs 3 mutas : thor wins and has 176 hp left 1 thor vs 4 mutas : thor wins and has 8 hp left (this scenario can probably go either way, as its a matter of which side gets their last volley of first) 1 thor vs 5 mutas : mutas win and 2 have full health, 1 have 72 hp left
I tried 6 mutas v 2 thors. Prespread mutas. Slightly spread thors (no glaive dmg). Only 2 mutas died. *BALANCE*
are you serious?
you might as well argue that stalker is overpowered because 99999 stalkers kill 1 marine and take 0 losses... OMG stalkers never die to marines!!! ever!!!
Static defence are so bad zerg lategame strategy in ZvP and ZvT is mass spine with army support and it's hard as hell to deal with it. Did you ever play a TvZ and ned up seing the expand have 5 spine ? Yeah, good luck killing anything but a spine or two before the lings come.
Compared to Broodwar, sc2 is a game where unit compositions play a much larger role. The microability of each unit, or rather the effect of it is so much lower that the composition naturally becomes the dominating factor.
On January 18 2012 21:30 Noocta wrote: Static defence are so bad zerg lategame strategy in ZvP and ZvT is mass spine with army support and it's hard as hell to deal with it. Did you ever play a TvZ and ned up seing the expand have 5 spine ? Yeah, good luck killing anything but a spine or two before the lings come.
"I once played against a toss. My marines came to his ramp at the 6 minute mark and he had 20 cannons!! I COULDN'T BREAK HIM, cannons OP!"
Seriously, 5 spines at an expansion is a buttload, it's even more than you use to hold a 4gate. Of course static defense is strong if you spend your whole economy on it.
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?
coming right from the unit tester.
no muta ever took a single point of splashdamage in these tests. for reference, thor max hp is 400, muta max hp is 120 edit:fixed thor max hp
1 thor vs 2 mutas : thor wins and has 296 hp left 1 thor vs 3 mutas : thor wins and has 176 hp left 1 thor vs 4 mutas : thor wins and has 8 hp left (this scenario can probably go either way, as its a matter of which side gets their last volley of first) 1 thor vs 5 mutas : mutas win and 2 have full health, 1 have 72 hp left
I tried 6 mutas v 2 thors. Prespread mutas. Slightly spread thors (no glaive dmg). Only 2 mutas died. *BALANCE*
I just tested 6 mutas v 2 thors, multiple times. No thors die. Even if they both died to 6 mutas, do you really think we assess balance by comparing units engaging one another in a vacuum?
I haven't played that much SC2, but for some reason this thread interested me. I think that what people are seeing is not so much a problem, as it is a difference. Yes it is true we did not have the "hard counters" in BW that we do in SC2, but I think that makes the game better as opposed to worse. It creates a situation where players are no longer able to play blind and still maintain a strong position in the game. If I am blindly massing roaches while my opponent has an observer over my army and makes 15 immortals to counter that while I build corrupters to counter his colo that I think are coming, I die. Period. As harsh as that can seem in specific instances and certain games (ESPECIALLY, I might add, to the lower or mid tier level player), I think it is vital to the game play as a whole.
On January 18 2012 21:52 dream-_- wrote: I haven't played that much SC2, but for some reason this thread interested me. I think that what people are seeing is not so much a problem, as it is a difference. Yes it is true we did not have the "hard counters" in BW that we do in SC2, but I think that makes the game better as opposed to worse. It creates a situation where players are no longer able to play blind and still maintain a strong position in the game. If I am blindly massing roaches while my opponent has an observer over my army and makes 15 immortals to counter that while I build corrupters to counter his colo that I think are coming, I die. Period. As harsh as that can seem in specific instances and certain games (ESPECIALLY, I might add, to the lower or mid tier level player), I think it is vital to the game play as a whole.
You're probably one of like 5 people in the whole world who claim to prefer stone-paper-scissor mechanics in an RTS. How is it fun for the game to be about sitting back, scouting opponent, waiting for them to pick a tech path, then win because you picked the counter? Or pick a composition and lose simply because he picked another, whether by luck or scouting?
There are counters in BW too, it's just on a more reasonable level where having a worse composition doesn't mean you lose immediately.
Note of importance: Stone-paper-scissor is not a strategy game.
On January 18 2012 21:30 Noocta wrote: Static defence are so bad zerg lategame strategy in ZvP and ZvT is mass spine with army support and it's hard as hell to deal with it. Did you ever play a TvZ and ned up seing the expand have 5 spine ? Yeah, good luck killing anything but a spine or two before the lings come.
"I once played against a toss. My marines came to his ramp at the 6 minute mark and he had 20 cannons!! I COULDN'T BREAK HIM, cannons OP!"
Seriously, 5 spines at an expansion is a buttload, it's even more than you use to hold a 4gate. Of course static defense is strong if you spend your whole economy on it.
I'm talking about lategame and drop. I think my keyboard bugged out because i had more thing in this sentence.
The thing is, static defense are good. Period.They wont kill a freaking army for you, of course, what did you expect from them ?
All 4 factors you mention are things I like about sc2. I don't want games where people can defend their bases for hours and people just turtle all game long and run away from every fight.
Whatever SC2 is, it just doesn't produce the same quality of a game(spectator-wise) as BW did. And those that challenge SC2's design do so because they want it better than BW.
A lot of the problems in SC2, stem from unit clumping. Which favors ranged units and AOE damage.
On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote: Starcraft 2 has become a game of extreme firepower. Almost all units seem to have an extremely strong damage output and become unstopable in certain situations. The heavy splash damage units are able to absolutely crush certain kinds of units with very little ability to micro out of the situation. There's even spells in the game to lock units in place until they get crushed. We've all been in a situation where FF come down and you're units all get roasted by the backup storms or colli, fungals hold you up for the banes to crush past or even for broods to smash your army from range. If you get hit by these spells your options to escape don't exist and the game is essentially over.
This problem doesn't just exist with crushing AoE though, it happens with most of the low tier units too. Zerglings with a couple of upgrades can rip apart almost any ground unit in a small clump making and their pure speed makes it impossible to fight without being balled up, or behind a wall. This leads to pure frustration when you get caught out of position by some lings and lose 1/3 or half your army and at that point there's nothing you can do about the situation. 4 Zealots can hold off a 2mara, 4 rines drop if you don't stutter micro it (makes having a second engagement elsewhere on the map hard as hell). Marines are by far the most powerful unit in the game if you don't have AoE around to deal with them. A group of stimmed marines can crush any army that doesn't have Banes, Infestors, Templar, Colli or Tanks in it.
I bet 75%+ of the games I watch or play in end very, very decisively with a big engagement going to one player or the other. Very few games are decided with slow, sweeping gameplay where each player deals and receives multiple blows. This is because of four factors that I'm really started to get fed up with in the game and I'm going to list them off here.
Factor #1: Too much firepower. As I described in the opening the game has way, way too much firepower. It's not just the big AoE units that are the problem though, literally every unit has a huge amount of firepower against certain kinds of units, or just in general. Marauders crush stalkers and roaches so hard it's not even funny. Lings with favorable numbers eat through almost everything. Zealots themselves can do insane amounts of damage to forces that can't escape them. Give any unit in the game a slight advantage and favourable matchup in a fight and there's very little the other player can do about it. Immortals crunch anything that hits hard and has armor, like tanks, thors, roaches and Stalkers. If all of a sudden all the units in the game lost some of their damage, or had more room for micro (and micro doesn't mean speed, it means micro. Blink micro doesn't take a lot of speed but a good player can make some amazing plays with it.) things would be a lot more interesting.
Factor #2: No units that can zone, no true "siege" units. This one of fairly straight forward. Tanks can't zone anything without support. If you leave 3 or 4 tanks at an expansion and the opponent sends 10 chargelots you lose, or if they send 30 lings in you lose. Give those tanks 10 marines though and things change, they can hold off runbys and small armies with ease. Zerg can't zone anything, if they take a ling runby in ZvZ they lose a lot of drones, Toss can leave a few blink stalkers around to fend off drops and use their warpin mechanic to bring units to the fight but if gates are on cd or the toss is maxed then they're going to lose a lot of probes.
Simply put, no race can zone out expansions properly, or even zone areas of the map without aggressively positioning their army. If a protoss has his army where your third and forth are located you can't send your army to go kill one of his bases or he'll move in and crush yours so you end up with two big armies dancing back and forth until one player makes a mistake and get crushed. If the Terran could use a few tanks to zone their third/forth expansion and make attacking it a risky idea then the toss would have to be backed up, or risk having one of his bases taken out. This would lead to move interesting engagements and games in general where you can run away from the toss in a big fight, but right now if that fight happens at your doorstep and you lose the games over, his reinforcements will get there before yours do if he has a pylon around.
Factor #3: Static defenses are god awful. Spine crawlers can't even kill a marine with medivac support, same thing with cannons and turrets get rolled by a pack of muta's once it gets reasonably sized. The only static defense that works well is the PF and thats a huge investment for Terrans. If you made static defenses twice as powerful as they are now (PF excluded) things would be a lot more interesting, especially if races had the ability to zone out and siege better. If zerg could put down a couple of spines and a lurker and know that ling runbys would be totally useless imagine how different zvz would look. If there were no banelings things would be a lot more stable in that matchup.
If static defense was more powerful then we'd see people not trying to all in nearly as much, and in turn players playing a lot less greedy than they are now. The threat of a bunker rush would go up if bunkers had more hp or armor, and the threat of a cannon rush would go way up if they hit twice as hard however by simply getting that second barracks before expanding and scouting your own main you'd be able to hold them off no problem, better spines would make going for a six gate useless and make playing safe and slowly expanding more of a viable option for zerg. If they could use their army to hold a position for awhile while they got their third up and then dropping a couple of spines there to protect it from smaller forces things would be more interesting.
Factor #4: Units that are amazing against one thing, but garbage against another. There's way too many units that are terrible against some things and amazing against others. This makes it almost impossible to have creative compositions. If we took a 50% cut on the effectiveness of these units against what they roll right now and made them better against what they can't kill it would be very interesting to see.
Hellions either wipe the floor with lings or get smashed by roaches. They also fire way too slowly. Let them get in your mineral line though and all hopes lost. If hellions did 50% less to lings and 50% more to roaches imagine how the game would look. Yeah they'd still be able to mop up lings, but at the same time lings would be a reasonable way to play against them, however those early roach all ins would be a lot less acceptable and the game would be a lot more based on who was the better player than a simple coin flip.
Immortals are the same story, 1 immortal can easily kill 3 presieged up tanks. How is that reasonable at all? 2v1 tanks should be able to kill an immortal without a loss(but near death), but 1v1 an immortal should mop up a tank. Give immortals a bit faster fire rate and all of a sudden they become viable against marines too.
Conclusion: Stalkers I personally feel that Stalkers are one of the most well designed units in the entire game. They don't kill things exceptionally fast, really gain a heavy edge in terms of your ability to micro them and even have an upgrade that lets them become extremely strong in the hands of a skilled player. Have you ever lost to a player using a lot of stalkers (outside of allins) where it felt awful and terrible? Where it felt like there was nothing you could do he just clicked a couple of buttons and autowon? I haven't. The problem is so many units destroy stalkers in the right conditions. A reasonable number of lings in a ling roach situation allows the zerg player to a-move the stalkers and there's nothing they can do, blink only helps so much. What about if they get fungled? gg. Terran has marauders? gg. Toss made immortals? gg. Each of those situations requires the stalker player to micro his ass off to survive, but the Marauder, Immortal, Ling/Roach or Infestor player has to do almost nothing to smash the stalkers to pieces. This needs to change.
Disclaimer: Take this thread for what it is. I only wrote it to vent some of my own frustrations with my own games, as well as games I watch in various tourneys. I want sc2 to be the best it can be and while some of my idea's are a bit crack potted and probably wrong I do feel that the general theme of this thread is solid, Too much damage, No Zoning, Crap Static Defenses, Hard Counters and of course Stalkers.
Disclaimer: Take this post for what it is. I only wrote it to vent out my own frustrations with these kind of posts that pop out every once in a while, thinking themselves that they are game gurus, and they can make way better games than StarCraft2 if they have enough resources and a game design team.
Factor #1: Too much firepower. Things are already a lot more interesting as it is. It encourages more micro because it will force you to move your units or they die. Also encourages faster gameplay. I hate the C&C games because though the units are interesting, the gameplay is sooo slow. It will take a second before the units move. It means less micro, more numbers game.
Factor #2: No units that can zone, no true "siege" units. This is the only factor that I can agree with you.
Factor #3: Static defenses are god awful. Cannons are already powerful, but it's pretty much the like the BroodWar cannons that mop up lings and rines, but can't really kill zealots. Spines aren't considered static defenses, they can move. And you already mentioned the PF, so no point repeating it. Also, more powerful static defenses means more greedy players getting an edge, and more aggressive players can't play their game anymore.
Factor #4: Units that are amazing against one thing, but garbage against the other. Now this is the factor that I really disagree with. It makes the game more interesting than ever. This is the part where your decision-making is truly tested. Make too many units of one kind, you can get countered by another unit. This also encourages unit-compositions. I mean, having countless games of making only 2 or 3 units (the worker and one or two other units) would make the game boring and would give some players sore eyes. One more thing, you wouldn't want a unit that would crush every other unit, would you?
Anyways, I will post more points the more you post yours.
On January 18 2012 21:30 Noocta wrote: Static defence are so bad zerg lategame strategy in ZvP and ZvT is mass spine with army support and it's hard as hell to deal with it. Did you ever play a TvZ and ned up seing the expand have 5 spine ? Yeah, good luck killing anything but a spine or two before the lings come.
"I once played against a toss. My marines came to his ramp at the 6 minute mark and he had 20 cannons!! I COULDN'T BREAK HIM, cannons OP!"
Seriously, 5 spines at an expansion is a buttload, it's even more than you use to hold a 4gate. Of course static defense is strong if you spend your whole economy on it.
I'm talking about lategame and drop. I think my keyboard bugged out because i had more thing in this sentence.
The thing is, static defense are good. Period.They wont kill a freaking army for you, of course, what did you expect from them ?
I don't expect them to kill an army. A spine crawler killing one marine with medivac feels motivated though. The idea that 5 spines completely shut down drops makes no sense anyway, add in a marauder or two and the spines are instagibbed.
when people talked about moving their army into range of a setup enemy army and loosing half of it before they can even react in sc2, i had to think about some groups of dragoons running into the range of a few siege tanks, before they are out of range again half of them are dead on the ground. If the same thing would happen in sc2, immortals would have only taken shield damage, and stalkers would have maybe 1 loss and the rest a bit of shield damage. But this is something i like about bw and love that sc2 doesn't have it. In bw a small group of marines can just destroy a group of lurkers. defense matrix stim go go go ... 6 defending lurkers dead without any losses, because the opponent didn't payed attention. Being not there in bw threw you back terribly, but luckily bw wasn't easy mechanical wise, that the chance was pretty high that you got your opponent off guard as well. In sc2 being not there is not as evil as in bw, but it can still cost you the game if the opponent is always present at engagements and because the mechanics can be done faster, its most likely that your opponent won't make these mistakes unless you make them do mistakes. Making good micro way more rewarding for me in sc2, as i know i just didn't got my opponent off guard, but i actually outmicroed him.
Still think they could increase the splash radius of tanks though so they do atleast some sort of damage again unless you have 10 of them in one spot.
I disagree strongly with 2x stronger spines/cannons/turrets. It's better to simply implement zoning units. I do though feel that decreasing the dps of all units in a balanced fashion might have.made the game better.
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?
coming right from the unit tester.
no muta ever took a single point of splashdamage in these tests. for reference, thor max hp is 400, muta max hp is 120 edit:fixed thor max hp
1 thor vs 2 mutas : thor wins and has 296 hp left 1 thor vs 3 mutas : thor wins and has 176 hp left 1 thor vs 4 mutas : thor wins and has 8 hp left (this scenario can probably go either way, as its a matter of which side gets their last volley of first) 1 thor vs 5 mutas : mutas win and 2 have full health, 1 have 72 hp left
I tried 6 mutas v 2 thors. Prespread mutas. Slightly spread thors (no glaive dmg). Only 2 mutas died. *BALANCE*
this time I tried 2 clumped thors that took glaive bounce damage vs 6 mutas that took no splash damage, both sides focusfired, the thors won with 1 thor left which had 60 hp.
I believe in your test the focusfiring was biased for zerg, am i correct?
I left out focusfiring in my earlier tests because the terran side had only 1 unit, thus zerg cannot focusfire, and the one have noone to focusfire with.
then I made the thors not take splash damage, mutas still take no splash damage, I mismicroed a bit so the thor focusfire was not perfect, but the muta focusfire was, 1 thor survives with 360 hp.
then I tried clumping the thors again and did not focusfire the thors, mutas are still spread and still focusfire, the thor survives with 260 hp
I am now confused about my original result, so again I try having the thors cllumped and focusfiring, the mutas spread and focusfiring, this time a thor survives with 260 hp.
Im sorry, but no matter what I do it doesnt seem like I can replicate your results, as a matter of fact, the only way I can get 2 thors to lose to 6 mutas is by giving them move-commands to make sure they will not attack the mutas, I must assume your results are fabricated.
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.
UPDATE: What we really need, is a custom map for SC2 which explores this. Similar to SC2BW, but pure SC2 with more BW like balance, trying to implement what you mention in your post: stronger static defenses, more equalized counters, maybe the classic complaint about ball pathing. Just to see how it would actually work out in practice.
Quoted, because I want to emphasize what you said.
SC2 is too damn fast that micro almost becomes non-exist.
If you look at micro-intensive games like BW and WC3, you will recognize that stuff dies way slower than in SC2. It gives you time to react to what your opponent does and correct small errors you did, suddenly fights become dynamic and back and forth. In SC2 that doesn't exist and I believe it is due to two things:
- terrible, terrible damage - rediculous movement speed differences
The first point people have already talked about. When it comes to the second point, I feel that some units are just too fast compared to others. Sure, there need to be faster and quicker units opposed to slower ones, but looking at BW for instance the average move speed of a Protoss/Terran/Zerg army did not differ too much from each other. In SC2 however there is stuff like lightning speed Zerglings wich just outrun everything. The problem I see here is that opponents have less time to react to the movement of Lings and furthermore can't outmanouver lings, because there movement speed is so high, plus the pathing allows them to slip through everything. In BW, despite lings being very fast, your own units still were fast enough to move close to reduce surface area and block lings off, allowing for way more interesting manouver-dependent battles.
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?
coming right from the unit tester.
no muta ever took a single point of splashdamage in these tests. for reference, thor max hp is 400, muta max hp is 120 edit:fixed thor max hp
1 thor vs 2 mutas : thor wins and has 296 hp left 1 thor vs 3 mutas : thor wins and has 176 hp left 1 thor vs 4 mutas : thor wins and has 8 hp left (this scenario can probably go either way, as its a matter of which side gets their last volley of first) 1 thor vs 5 mutas : mutas win and 2 have full health, 1 have 72 hp left
I tried 6 mutas v 2 thors. Prespread mutas. Slightly spread thors (no glaive dmg). Only 2 mutas died. *BALANCE*
this time I tried 2 clumped thors that took glaive bounce damage vs 6 mutas that took no splash damage, both sides focusfired, the thors won with 1 thor left which had 60 hp.
I believe in your test the focusfiring was biased for zerg, am i correct?
I left out focusfiring in my earlier tests because the terran side had only 1 unit, thus zerg cannot focusfire, and the one have noone to focusfire with.
then I made the thors not take splash damage, mutas still take no splash damage, I mismicroed a bit so the thor focusfire was not perfect, but the muta focusfire was, 1 thor survives with 360 hp.
then I tried clumping the thors again and did not focusfire the thors, mutas are still spread and still focusfire, the thor survives with 260 hp
I am now confused about my original result, so again I try having the thors cllumped and focusfiring, the mutas spread and focusfiring, this time a thor survives with 260 hp.
Im sorry, but no matter what I do it doesnt seem like I can replicate your results, as a matter of fact, the only way I can get 2 thors to lose to 6 mutas is by giving them move-commands to make sure they will not attack the mutas, I must assume your results are fabricated.
This discussion must be one of the most out of the blue thread derails in a while. Drop it or take it to pm's. :D
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.
UPDATE: What we really need, is a custom map for SC2 which explores this. Similar to SC2BW, but pure SC2 with more BW like balance, trying to implement what you mention in your post: stronger static defenses, more equalized counters, maybe the classic complaint about ball pathing. Just to see how it would actually work out in practice.
Damn, are we complaining sc2 is HARDER now? Blizz can't catch a break.
On January 18 2012 21:30 Noocta wrote: Static defence are so bad zerg lategame strategy in ZvP and ZvT is mass spine with army support and it's hard as hell to deal with it. Did you ever play a TvZ and ned up seing the expand have 5 spine ? Yeah, good luck killing anything but a spine or two before the lings come.
"I once played against a toss. My marines came to his ramp at the 6 minute mark and he had 20 cannons!! I COULDN'T BREAK HIM, cannons OP!"
Seriously, 5 spines at an expansion is a buttload, it's even more than you use to hold a 4gate. Of course static defense is strong if you spend your whole economy on it.
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.
UPDATE: What we really need, is a custom map for SC2 which explores this. Similar to SC2BW, but pure SC2 with more BW like balance, trying to implement what you mention in your post: stronger static defenses, more equalized counters, maybe the classic complaint about ball pathing. Just to see how it would actually work out in practice.
Damn, are we complaining sc2 is HARDER now? Blizz can't catch a break.
I never once said SC2 is harder, I just said it's faster. There are a million reasons why BW is harder than SC2, only being able to pick 12 units as once is one of them, but the speed of the actual damage is hardly one of them.
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.
UPDATE: What we really need, is a custom map for SC2 which explores this. Similar to SC2BW, but pure SC2 with more BW like balance, trying to implement what you mention in your post: stronger static defenses, more equalized counters, maybe the classic complaint about ball pathing. Just to see how it would actually work out in practice.
Damn, are we complaining sc2 is HARDER now? Blizz can't catch a break.
Yeah look at HSC where MC's micro in PvP really makes him win fights that look totally lost. There's just so much exaggeration in threads like these, that microing hinders damage is just utter bullshit.
On January 18 2012 21:30 Noocta wrote: Static defence are so bad zerg lategame strategy in ZvP and ZvT is mass spine with army support and it's hard as hell to deal with it. Did you ever play a TvZ and ned up seing the expand have 5 spine ? Yeah, good luck killing anything but a spine or two before the lings come.
"I once played against a toss. My marines came to his ramp at the 6 minute mark and he had 20 cannons!! I COULDN'T BREAK HIM, cannons OP!"
Seriously, 5 spines at an expansion is a buttload, it's even more than you use to hold a 4gate. Of course static defense is strong if you spend your whole economy on it.
Lategame 5 spines isn't a huge investment at all.
Correct. Then again, Lategame 5 spines do basically no good at all, except tank a few shots.
On January 18 2012 21:30 Noocta wrote: Static defence are so bad zerg lategame strategy in ZvP and ZvT is mass spine with army support and it's hard as hell to deal with it. Did you ever play a TvZ and ned up seing the expand have 5 spine ? Yeah, good luck killing anything but a spine or two before the lings come.
"I once played against a toss. My marines came to his ramp at the 6 minute mark and he had 20 cannons!! I COULDN'T BREAK HIM, cannons OP!"
Seriously, 5 spines at an expansion is a buttload, it's even more than you use to hold a 4gate. Of course static defense is strong if you spend your whole economy on it.
Lategame 5 spines isn't a huge investment at all.
Correct. Then again, Lategame 5 spines do basically no good at all, except tank a few shots.
Again this isn't true at all. Watch an TvZ, late game terran actively trying to deny bases with drops, 5 spines stop drops, force terran to escalate attacks etc.
On January 18 2012 21:30 Noocta wrote: Static defence are so bad zerg lategame strategy in ZvP and ZvT is mass spine with army support and it's hard as hell to deal with it. Did you ever play a TvZ and ned up seing the expand have 5 spine ? Yeah, good luck killing anything but a spine or two before the lings come.
"I once played against a toss. My marines came to his ramp at the 6 minute mark and he had 20 cannons!! I COULDN'T BREAK HIM, cannons OP!"
Seriously, 5 spines at an expansion is a buttload, it's even more than you use to hold a 4gate. Of course static defense is strong if you spend your whole economy on it.
Lategame 5 spines isn't a huge investment at all.
Correct. Then again, Lategame 5 spines do basically no good at all, except tank a few shots.
Again this isn't true at all. Watch an TvZ, late game terran actively trying to deny bases with drops, 5 spines stop drops, force terran to escalate attacks etc.
Also the MCvP example is a great one!
One dropship of marines is obviously butchered by 5 spines. That makes sense since 5 spines is still more of an investment. However, 2 dropships with both marines and marauders? You'll probably not lose even a single unit, unless all the spines are placed on the side of the base you're coming from.
Zergs place spines vs drops to give enough time to get an army there, they are just tanks, you spend money to get enough time to move an army, the spines themselves are completely harmless.
On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote: Immortals are the same story, 1 immortal can easily kill 3 presieged up tanks. How is that reasonable at all? 2v1 tanks should be able to kill an immortal without a loss(but near death), but 1v1 an immortal should mop up a tank. Give immortals a bit faster fire rate and all of a sudden they become viable against marines too.
Not sure what you mean by presieged. If you mean unsieged, then 3 tanks kill an immortal with the loss of only one tank. If you mean sieged, the tanks will still just about win given their superior range (even though an immortal being a single target with hardened shield is the hardest counter possible to high damage, slow firing AOE).
On January 18 2012 21:30 Noocta wrote: Static defence are so bad zerg lategame strategy in ZvP and ZvT is mass spine with army support and it's hard as hell to deal with it. Did you ever play a TvZ and ned up seing the expand have 5 spine ? Yeah, good luck killing anything but a spine or two before the lings come.
"I once played against a toss. My marines came to his ramp at the 6 minute mark and he had 20 cannons!! I COULDN'T BREAK HIM, cannons OP!"
Seriously, 5 spines at an expansion is a buttload, it's even more than you use to hold a 4gate. Of course static defense is strong if you spend your whole economy on it.
Lategame 5 spines isn't a huge investment at all.
lategame 5 spines is not a force that the opponent needs to care about, you need a lot more of them to actually get any reaction at all from the opponent.
On January 18 2012 19:17 GeOnoSis wrote: Tobberoth I agree with you, but that's the life of TvZ! Terran doesn't micro, everything is dead. Terran does micro: minimal losses and every zerg unit is dead. You don't watch your mutas for one second, 5-10 (if not even every) are just dead (flying over marines just because terran moved randomly out). One mistake can lead to an instant loss...for BOTH sides.
But can you quantify the amount of situations Z or T or P have to be in for one of these auto-lose situations to be in? Does one race have more faults than another? Is that fair? Is it fair Zerg have the least amount of attacking units in the game, and thus less options?
I wish Blizz would use the test server to do radical things, like rebalancing lings and other core units, game speed, movement speeds (why did hydras never get a re-buff?) why do they keep touching end game units that never needed to be touched (high templar?) because of single situations but never care about the over-arching balance of the game. Instead it's more like [+1 protoss shields are now 100/100 instead of 125/125 - we think this will greatly improve Protoss, k thx bye - see you in 6 months on the next patch].
Take the Wraith (in BW TvT): it does 8 damage. That's 8 shots to kill an SCV, 5 for a marine, 19 for a tank (IIRC). That means your opponent can go wraiths (with cloak) and if they hide the tech for long enough and surprise you, you can be set pretty far behind. Yes you need to anticipate it by building academy/armoury, but the point is the entire game ISIN'T over just because he made one type of unit, and that one unit singe-handedly raped your entire civilization.
Banshee.
It would totally ruin the game if you gave Scouts/Mutas enough to 2-shot Probes, because it makes it too volatile. Or a tank drop for example, it is possible to pull all your SCV's and kill it, it's not Game Over on such a whim.
Another problem is unit mobility. I think it would feel a lot less frustrating if the units that are super-specialized at countering one class have restricted mobility. That then means it takes some skill to implement them, some micro is required to roll your opponent. Let's see: reavers being super slow, tanks sieging slowly, oh yea lurkers being fucking underground to attack. This also means these units are great at defense and zoning; using them to be aggressive takes a lot of skill. + Show Spoiler [EDIT: in contrast] +
Colossi being able to walk everywhere, Banshees fast with cloak, tanks sieging quickly, infestors sneaking underground...
I was watching In_Dove's stream and it was a blast: Ex-Progamer Terran doing the craziest shit, coming back from the most ridiculous setbacks and winning consistently, mainly through phenomenal macro, game-sense and control. By the same virtue he was playing the top Foreign Zerg, and though in one game he opened up by sneaking a vulture (hellion) into the Zerg's base and controlling it well enough to kill all the drones, he couldn't then just go and rofl-stomp his opponent. That was cuz his opponent was really fucking good at using Dark Swarm and Lurkers together. To swarm you need to consume zerglings, pre-empt where you want to control then cast the spell, while moving the lurkers into place and burrowing them. This is really hard, but the two together make an impassible barrier, for as few as 3 units. Although he was outnumbered the whole game, he was still able to hold his own until BattleCruiser tech came out. It shouldn't be about the size of the army, but how you use it.
Op/Ppl tend to forget that we are in 2011. Noone new to StarCraft universe (possible 80%+ of the ppl) just do NOT want to control 12 units only, they do NOT want to send workers to minerals manualy. What "oldschool" bw ppl consider great mechanics etc. is considered quite outdated nowadays. So ppl look for lower physical requirements to control the game and faster gaming speed as they are used to frag enemys at a rate of 3 headshots per second. So the games tend to be quicker. Blz just does not want to have zone units as it will slow down the pace of the game. They want a huge deceiding fight as hollywood movies have 1 big engagement at the end of action movies as well.
My post is not ment to hate you ppl, of course does bw rely on better mechanics and is the "harder" game, but thats just not what average joe wants to see and play today.
I still think bw and sc2 have something in common tho, they are, in relation to the time they were released, easy to play but very hard to master.
Until we get the expansions withholding any thoughts on any of this.
The BW expansion totally changed originally SC.. and I played the original SC before BW and it was pretty crappy and imbalanced too. And very buggy. The expansion is what launched SC:BW. I have enough faith in Blizzard that their approach, which they've had a great track record in the past, of just getting a base game out, making their money, and then really completing the game with an expansion will happen again.
It is how they work, and it is a profitable business model. We all play a half finished game we plaid $50 for, and then we pay another $30-40 for the "expansions" which actually just complete the game. They get to sit back and see everything that is wrong with the game and let the expansions fix it. I think several of these issues will be greatly helped with the expansion.
Also this game isn't Broodwar 2. If they just wanted Broodwar with better graphics that is what we would have gotten. They want this to be a different game, so some of the complaints are essentially what Blizzard wants even if Broodwar players don't like it.
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.
UPDATE: What we really need, is a custom map for SC2 which explores this. Similar to SC2BW, but pure SC2 with more BW like balance, trying to implement what you mention in your post: stronger static defenses, more equalized counters, maybe the classic complaint about ball pathing. Just to see how it would actually work out in practice.
I was going to do this after finishing part 3 and part 4 of my articles on design, provided I could get some people to help me. Are you offering?
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.
UPDATE: What we really need, is a custom map for SC2 which explores this. Similar to SC2BW, but pure SC2 with more BW like balance, trying to implement what you mention in your post: stronger static defenses, more equalized counters, maybe the classic complaint about ball pathing. Just to see how it would actually work out in practice.
I was going to do this after finishing part 3 and part 4 of my articles on design, provided I could get some people to help me. Are you offering?
Would love to give it a try, but I have no experience what so ever with the editor.
On January 18 2012 23:01 bITt.mAN wrote: Take the Wraith (in BW TvT): it does 8 damage. That's 8 shots to kill an SCV, 5 for a marine, 19 for a tank (IIRC). That means your opponent can go wraiths (with cloak) and if they hide the tech for long enough and surprise you, you can be set pretty far behind. Yes you need to anticipate it by building academy/armoury, but the point is the entire game ISIN'T over just because he made one type of unit, and that one unit singe-handedly raped your entire civilization.
Banshee.
It would totally ruin the game if you gave Scouts/Mutas enough to 2-shot Probes, because it makes it too volatile. Or a tank drop for example, it is possible to pull all your SCV's and kill it, it's not Game Over on such a whim.
Another problem is unit mobility. I think it would feel a lot less frustrating if the units that are super-specialized at countering one class have restricted mobility. That then means it takes some skill to implement them, some micro is required to roll your opponent. Let's see: reavers being super slow, tanks sieging slowly, oh yea lurkers being fucking underground to attack. This also means these units are great at defense and zoning; using them to be aggressive takes a lot of skill. + Show Spoiler [EDIT: in contrast] +
Colossi being able to walk everywhere, Banshees fast with cloak, tanks sieging quickly, infestors sneaking underground...
I was watching In_Dove's stream and it was a blast: Ex-Progamer Terran doing the craziest shit, coming back from the most ridiculous setbacks and winning consistently, mainly through phenomenal macro, game-sense and control. By the same virtue he was playing the top Foreign Zerg, and though in one game he opened up by sneaking a vulture (hellion) into the Zerg's base and controlling it well enough to kill all the drones, he couldn't then just go and rofl-stomp his opponent. That was cuz his opponent was really fucking good at using Dark Swarm and Lurkers together. To swarm you need to consume zerglings, pre-empt where you want to control then cast the spell, while moving the lurkers into place and burrowing them. This is really hard, but the two together make an impassible barrier, for as few as 3 units. Although he was outnumbered the whole game, he was still able to hold his own until BattleCruiser tech came out. It shouldn't be about the size of the army, but how you use it.
so in broodwar you could not instalose to a reaver drop?
On January 18 2012 23:04 shubcraft wrote: Op/Ppl tend to forget that we are in 2011. Noone new to StarCraft universe (possible 80%+ of the ppl) just do NOT want to control 12 units only, they do NOT want to send workers to minerals manualy. What "oldschool" bw ppl consider great mechanics etc. is considered quite outdated nowadays. So ppl look for lower physical requirements to control the game and faster gaming speed as they are used to frag enemys at a rate of 3 headshots per second. So the games tend to be quicker. Blz just does not want to have zone units as it will slow down the pace of the game. They want a huge deceiding fight as hollywood movies have 1 big engagement at the end of action movies as well.
My post is not ment to hate you ppl, of course does bw rely on better mechanics and is the "harder" game, but thats just not what average joe wants to see and play today.
I still think bw and sc2 have something in common tho, they are, in relation to the time they were released, easy to play but very hard to master.
You are putting words in the OP's mouth. What you brought up is not what he was pushing for; rather he was mainly asking for a look at the balance and design of the units, NOT to revert unit control and mechanics back to BW.
People need to stop comparing SC2 to BW. BW has had years to develop it's metagame. People used to believe that mutalisks were nowhere near as good as they actually are, until muta stacking was discovered.
There will be discoveries of tricks, micro or otherwise, that change the face of the game over the years, and people need to give the game the time to develop these things.
Someone earlier mentioned that SC2 is much "faster" than BW as though it was a problem. I'd say that the faster pace of combat in SC2 gives faster players the advantage to be able to micro things when slower players may not be able to, creating a skill gap between players. This is a good thing, and something people need to recognize.
You cannot compare BW to SC2, because they are wildly different in many different aspects. AOE too strong? Learn to split properly. In BW your units automatically kept distance from each other, making moving around the map harder, and making AOE spells weaker. In SC2 they clump, making AOE stronger, and movement easier. However, it IS possible to pre-split your forces and have them move in formation. It IS still possible to use multiple hotkeys for your army just as they do in BW.
In some ways I think that BW's limitations took away the need to do certain things manually (such as spreading your army out to prevent AOE from doing too much damage), while it made other things artificially harder (Macro requiring 1 hotkey per building.)
While I agree that things which prevent micro change the face of the game, we need to think of HOW they change the game. Straight micro in battle is only one skill a player needs. The player also needs to understand when they can attack, and when it is best not to, or how to engage to reduce the effectiveness of these things.
For example, a zerg may chose to engage a sentry heavy mix with roaches only after burrow so they can force the use of force fields and safely retreat, wasting massive amounts of entry energy. A terran can use medivacs to pull back over the forcefields and drop behind them again. In PvP forcefields have a bit less effectiveness anyway due to how often colossus are out (or archons).
Fungle is a bit harder to render ineffective, but my major suggestion is that people loo into pre-spreading their army, or working on attacking from multiple angles.
These elements people commonly consider harmful to the game simply require more time to be overcome, and the answers may be something people have discounted as not a viable option simply because not enough time and effort has been spent attempting to make it work.
Remember in the beta and early days when expanding as toss before you had 4 gates up was considered to be extremely risky? Now nexus first is not uncommon, and some players are convinced that FFE can work on nearly any map.
The biggest thing this game needs is people supporting the game itself and exploring various options instead of simply complaining that the game needs to change because XYZ is hurting the game. Explore ways in-game to get around the "problem", rather than crying that blizzard needs to make changes.
And I should point out that most players here do not have the skill to truly determine whether something is actually hurting the game. If you are a terran player and are simply not fast enough to split marines against banelings, then banelings feel like they completely shut down bio play, but that doesn't mean banelings need to be removed, it means you need to find a way to get around banelings without spltting. Maybe you play a more mech oriented TvZ, or maybe you get good with positioning marauders between the banelings and marines.
The lack of back and forth with players main army is a real let down, basically it's meet armies, one army wins while the other tries desperately to rebuild units for the ensuing push. Where is the back and forth with 1 army ? There is none. It just insta-kill battles...
I loved Dawn of War 1 for this, you could keep 1 squad of infantry for the whole game if you used them correctly, I loved that game (and still play it).
In SC2 it's just disposable units, make and die , make and die or make and die then make and win ... hmmm
I wish SC2 had more respect for unit longevity throughout the whole game. SC2 feels like a young RTS game to me with lots of balance/design work ahead.
Yeah make Turrets, Cannons and Spine/Spore Crawler stronger so 1 Spine Crawler can defend 1 medivac with 8 Marines and 1 Cannon can kill a small army and 1 Turret would defend against 15 Mutalisks that would be totally okay...
I think if static defenses were made stronger the game would actually break. If they get for example twice as strong as they are now nobody would build units if he could just slow push with static defenses and some far range units. (Tanks,Colossi etc.) Static defenses are ok the way it is right now if you want to hold 1 medivac with 8 marines (500Mins/100Gas) you should at least have to build 3 Spine Crawler to defend it.I would say static defenses are great for early/mid game because they are strong but in the late game they get kind of useless since they cat hold any attack of an army. (Except PF) That´s the way it should be in my opinion.
Zone Control can be applied by good building placement + good placement of some units and/or static defenses.Few examples Protoss walls off his Natural, Zerg wants to do some Runby but hmn there is 1 zealot blocking the last open space to get into the Natural and 2 Cannons behind that.I don´t know but that would actually need many lings to get through.Another example 1 Bunker behind a depot wall with 2 tanks behind that.What could easily break this? You would have to invest much more ressources to get through the defense of a player that defenses the space really good. Zone Control isn´t the way it was in BW that´s for sure but it´s because those 2 Games are really different.The comparing between those two games should be stopped.It really annoyes me.
On January 18 2012 23:34 Bobbias wrote: Someone earlier mentioned that SC2 is much "faster" than BW as though it was a problem. I'd say that the faster pace of combat in SC2 gives faster players the advantage to be able to micro things when slower players may not be able to, creating a skill gap between players. This is a good thing, and something people need to recognize.
Not at all. Look at the absolute best bonjwa BW players. Not even they can micro perfectly in BW, there is an upper limit. It's just WAY LOWER in SC2 because the game is so fast. Think about blink micro. It's the only thing close to much of the micro of BW, but to get to that point, it is instant, it wouldn't work otherwise. In a big battle, a unit goes down in half a second, no matter how good of a player you are, you can't micro that, it's impossible.
In BW, there is basically no situation where you won't do better if you micro, in SC2, there are many sitautions where you MUST a-move and microing will lower your efficiency greatly.
The "hard counters" thing is pretty inaccurate. BW had some very hard counters as well, some of which were possibly harder than SC2 counters. The issue is what units are being hard countered. Let's take PvT, for example. The Immortal is a hard counter to the Siege Tank and the Thor: such a hard counter, in fact, that it makes mech completely unviable in TvP outside of a few all-ins. Being able to counter units and indeed playstyles like that is fine: look at the Corsair, for example. It hard counters Mutalisks, and makes Zerg air play pretty much worthless outside of a few timing windows. The difference is what units are being countered. The Mutalisk is not a core unit. It is a way for the Zerg to generate map control while they're trying to expand. It is actually for the best that the Mutalisk gets hard countered, because it means that the game will shift out of the Mutalisk phase. On the other hand, Siege Tanks are the backbone of the mech army. The fact that Immortals can counter them so brutally means that the heart of that style of play is completely cut out. That's completely unacceptable.
If you take, on the other hand, the Marauder, you'll see that there really is no hard counter for it. Sure, you can say that Immortals or Colossi or Chargelots hard counter it, but the very standard addition of Marines and Medivacs and Vikings allows the Marauders to stand up and still be a core army component. That's how core army units should work. If they can ever get hard countered, it's a sign that the core army in question is fundamentally flawed. There's the entire issue of whether the Marauder should BE a core army unit, but I'll ignore that for now.
Just to ward off the inevitable, Ghosts are not a viable counter to Immortals in Mech play. The build doesn't flow to allow the Terran to get a reasonable Ghost and Tank count up at the same time. If it was viable, we would see it happening.
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?
coming right from the unit tester.
no muta ever took a single point of splashdamage in these tests. for reference, thor max hp is 400, muta max hp is 120 edit:fixed thor max hp
1 thor vs 2 mutas : thor wins and has 296 hp left 1 thor vs 3 mutas : thor wins and has 176 hp left 1 thor vs 4 mutas : thor wins and has 8 hp left (this scenario can probably go either way, as its a matter of which side gets their last volley of first) 1 thor vs 5 mutas : mutas win and 2 have full health, 1 have 72 hp left
I tried 6 mutas v 2 thors. Prespread mutas. Slightly spread thors (no glaive dmg). Only 2 mutas died. *BALANCE*
this time I tried 2 clumped thors that took glaive bounce damage vs 6 mutas that took no splash damage, both sides focusfired, the thors won with 1 thor left which had 60 hp.
I believe in your test the focusfiring was biased for zerg, am i correct? .
I believe in your test the focusfiring was biased for terran, am i correct? Since when i am focusfiring with 2 thors against 6 mutas, i can kill all mutas without losing a single thor. Im pretty sure you just let them focusfire the mutas without including the factor that thors only need 3 shots to kill a muta, thus completely botching one shot out of 4, decreasing their dps by 33%.
However you should stop to test muta vs thor anyways since in a normal game that wont occur. The point of thor in tvz is to disallow mutas to be microed efficiently (since they cant be stacked) and magic boxed mutas actually melt to marines in AN INSTANT. Just watch idra vs taeja game 2 where the casters say "wow those thors did sooo much damage to the mutas". In actuality what happens is that the thors dont even manage to fire off a single shot because the mutas that are flying in with magic box melt to the marines since they are flying in spreaded. They die so fast that the thors cant target fast enough because they are always trying to search for a new target, which ofcourse also melts in an instant.
Its like a tap (mutas) that very slowly trickles water onto a hot stone with a heat source below (marines). Like that the stone is never able to be cooled down at all before it heats up again from the heat source below. If all of the water was put on the stone at once, it would cool down easily. Thats exactly how spreaded mutas vs stacked mutas work vs marines.
Thors make it so mutas cant be stacked, thus they are completely ineffective against marines. Ofcourse zerg can combat this by bringing zerglings, since the marines wont be able to melt the mutas as easily because the AI will target zerglings first, but the thors still disallow the zerg player to stack his mutas, therefore their mission is accomplished. Thats also why you see terrans only get 1 or maybe 2 thors, because thats enough to disallow a zerg player to stack his mutas.
Thors definitely have their role in tvz, its just that their role isnt to kill mutas but rather restrict their movement, thus making the mutas that much more inefficient.
Btw i just tested 20 mutas vs 5 thors. The thors were spreaded but i didnt micro them (since microing them will just lead to overkill damage). The mutas i did micro to target 1 thor at a time while still keeping the magic box intact. Guess what, the thors managed to kill 11 mutas. 20 mutas are a 2000 gas investment, while thors are a 1000 gas investment, and even though the thors were basically outnumbered (regarding gas investment) they still managed to deal 1100 worth of gas damage to the mutalisks.
Thors arent bad against mutas, even if you just build thors to deal with mutas.
There is a reason why TvT and TvZ are the best matchups -> tanks. Proper zone control is so much more interesting than 1a deathballs. So yeah I agree with your factor 2!
On January 19 2012 00:03 AdrianHealey wrote: Can a ghost snipe an immortal? That would be cool.
Yes. Also they have a 99.9% chance of getting a 'headshot' when they snipe, this makes the unit that was sniped explode and implode at the same time, destroying everything in an 10 range radius.
Don't forget sc2 macro has steroids. Between chronos, larvae, mules, reactors, etc there is way more production faster, which results in bigger armies faster. Combine that with souped up firepower and you have this issue of pace
Something that wasn't mentioned (or maybe it was, I just failed at reading the details) is the higher ground advantage. A major component of map control is the control of higher grounds - cliffs, ridges, etc. The sight advantage/disadvantage relationship holds same in SC2 (as SCBW), but the damage relationship doesn't (in BW, ranged attacks attempted from lower to higher ground are penalized). This is why there is far less 'defender's advantage' and 'zone control/holding' in SC2. Whether Blizzard will see this as a critical issue and address it is another story, but for us... I guess we just have to accept it for what it is.
On January 19 2012 00:22 Ragoo wrote: There is a reason why TvT and TvZ are the best matchups -> tanks. Proper zone control is so much more interesting than 1a deathballs. So yeah I agree with your factor 2!
ZvZ has so much micro involved with ling baneling wars. A lot of mindgames and a lot of cool timings. Its a very unexplored matchup. And in ZvZ zoning is kinda done with banelings.
If you watch code S play, 1a deathballs are quite a rarity. In fact, 1a deathballs never form, the games are determined by multiple small clashes and drops.
I think TvZ is all about units that kill and die very fast but I like that matchup the most and I think many people do.
If you could micro the hell out of every single unit like in wc3 that would be fun but sc2 just isnt about that after the early game and thats fine with me, when you have many units and can reproduce fast the importance of a few units just isnt that high.
1) Ive always thought this encourages games where having good army composition was important and not mass X unit to win like in many other RTS games. 2) I think its good that no race can control a zone like the way the OP mentioned. It adds diversity to the races and forces you to scout, have good sim city and good army spread or positioning. BTW if you are Zerg, mid-late game just plop down like 30 spines and that can hold an area long enough against a push to get your army in a good position to defend. 3) Do you really want 2x as powerful cannon rushes?? On a more serious note, i think weaker static defences discourages super stale matchups where the map is split in two and everyone is turtling behind massive lines of static defences (think WW1) 4) As always, microing armys is very important... speedlings on creep surronds and kills hellions, hellions should run from roaches.... your suggestion of having a "good against everything unit" is already hated by some people in the community due to complaints of mass X and 1a-win. conclusion: Simply put, I think having a good unit composition is the key in sc2. and having that comes from scouting, poking the front, and gamesense which comes from experience.
Nice OP, i only disagree with the static d part. I think medivacs themselves are insanely strong not so much that spines are weak, spines should root faster however. Medivacs should should require even a cheap upg like conc shell before they can heal&drop. The heal rate is fucking insane for an air unit.
Terrible terrible damage. :'( Litterally 200/200 armies just melt in 2 seconds sometimes. Its just anti climatic. Or watching a drop destroy 2 buildings in 5 seconds.
PS: Giving reapers zerg regen in HotS makes me sad. Wish the units were more logical in general.
Man I really hate these thinly veiled whine threads. Elephant in the Room, Philosophy of Design etc. If the game was/is being poorly designed then why is every GSL better than the last? The game is still evolving, and it's getting better every day.
The OP basically just lists stuff *he personally* dislikes about the game (probably stuff he blames for not winning all the time).
1: Firepower: Does SC2 have too much? Well this comes down to personal opinion. Maybe in monobattles it matters that some units are good against other units, but in a real game this means you need either a mix of units or (for example vs "lings in enough numbers beat everything") enough units such as zealots and sentries to deal with your opponents choice of tech. I fail to see how it's bad that zealots rip through everything that's standing still or trapped but get kited pretty well if not. That's a cool dynamic. Or how is it bad that immortals rip through armoured units? Heaven forbid you should have to target fire, or worse yet, build some marines or ghosts! The crushing AoE thing has been discussed before here, but to reiterate - You can always spread your units, or just build units that don't take aoe damage, like air units or larger ground units.
2: Zoning So, uh, You need some meat shields for your tanks for them to be effective. OK. I'm sorry that tanks don't kill every ground unit in one shot and also shoot upwards. I'm afraid you need to learn to play the game instead...
Also, tanks (ok you need some meatshield for them), PDD, forcefields, nukes, sensor towers, collosus range (kinda), planetary fortresses, creep, burrowed troops, static defenses and the swarm host and zappy field generator thingy in HotS are all to a certain extent zoning mechanics.
Ling runbys in zvz, leave a baneling or 2 at the top of the ramp Drops as protoss, stay at 190, leave a HT and some cannons at bases (see genius vs SC recently)
The game being a bit too baseracey: Well i kinda have to agree here but i feel atm it's partly metagame/balance because one player feels they just have no way to engage the other army. Probably players will start anticipating this kind of thing more and plan on defending at home somehow when they move out to attack However i don't agree that you should be able to leave like 3-4 units at home and have your bases be completely safe. What would be the point of ever attacking? You don't like the situation atm in PvT where 2 armies dance around each other in the middle of the map, trying to get an advantageous position? Well tbh I think it's kinda cool. If you let the other guy get into a spot where he threatens your expansion it's your own damn fault.
3: Static Defenses being too weak. This is just wrong. I just get the idea that you've lost to all-ins too much or something. Make cannons and bunkers stronger? Uh ok just build a cannon or bunker in zerg's natural every single game as the first thing you do and get ahead economically. Better spines make a 6gate useless? The six gate is a great all-in to punish a zerg teching too hard. If you lose to a six gate you should reconsider going muta so early. Ling runbys causing you trouble? Try scouting. You mention zvz, so overlord placement, creep spread as well as queens and some banes at home can deal with most of these except a commited baserace style, but zerg units are pretty fast so you can usually get home in time to defend anyway. Also, static defenses are pretty cheap - you can build an awful lot of them in the lategame if you want to. In fact you can hold pretty much any all-in (well not voidray) with just spines, as long as you have enough of them in the right place. They are extremely cost-efficient.
4: Units good against some but weak against others. OK , you think making all units more mediocre against everything would lead to interesting compositions? Either that or really boring ones.... Make lings better against hellions? I can do that already. It's called engaging in a good position. Losing to roaches when you've only made hellions the entire game? It's your own damn fault.
I'm sorry if this came off a rude or BM but posts like these just reek of, "Ugh, i'm losing a lot........this game must be porrly designed".
This is why TvP makes me angry the most, one slip up and my Bio ball evaporates in seconds to crazy AoE damage. Then its gg, never can come back against a decent player after losing a big engagement.
this thread had one good point in my opinion and that is the thing about zone control but can people please remember that it took many years for BW to get balanced,if i remember correctly it took more than 5 years before whats standart now days actually became it in tvz and i also wanna take a reminder that zone control is what blizzard is trying to fix in HOTS but as with WOL it will take maybe a year before the game actually becomes reasonable balanced and then to the 3 thing i want to say is that i really dont feel like it all comes down to a deathball situation anymore its really only in pvz i can see that happening,i am not gonna say that the game will not end in a big final battle but there is so more that leeds up to that point,i could already feel that when i was middle plat that it i really wouldn't be able to make a win if i just sat back in tvp or in tvz especially in tvz that i still have hard troubles with but i am not complaining about zerg being op i know that i have alot to improve and i will hopefully do that,for any1 that wonders i am now low diamond
On January 19 2012 01:26 randoomguy wrote: this thread had one good point in my opinion and that is the thing about zone control but can people please remember that it took many years for BW to get balanced,if i remember correctly it took more than 5 years before whats standart now days actually became it in tvz and i also wanna take a reminder that zone control is what blizzard is trying to fix in HOTS but as with WOL it will take maybe a year before the game actually becomes reasonable balanced and then to the 3 thing i want to say is that i really dont feel like it all comes down to a deathball situation anymore its really only in pvz i can see that happening,i am not gonna say that the game will not end in a big final battle but there is so more that leeds up to that point,i could already feel that when i was middle plat that it i really wouldn't be able to make a win if i just sat back in tvp or in tvz especially in tvz that i still have hard troubles with but i am not complaining about zerg being op i know that i have alot to improve and i will hopefully do that,for any1 that wonders i am now low diamond
I really would like a little less boom your dead damage. I mean, I'm sure a lot of that is just adjusting ratios. And great point about the hard/soft counter thing, Those are two points I agree with absolutely.
BUT, TBH; the faster sc2 makes a better spectator sport than BW.
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?
coming right from the unit tester.
no muta ever took a single point of splashdamage in these tests. for reference, thor max hp is 400, muta max hp is 120 edit:fixed thor max hp
1 thor vs 2 mutas : thor wins and has 296 hp left 1 thor vs 3 mutas : thor wins and has 176 hp left 1 thor vs 4 mutas : thor wins and has 8 hp left (this scenario can probably go either way, as its a matter of which side gets their last volley of first) 1 thor vs 5 mutas : mutas win and 2 have full health, 1 have 72 hp left
I tried 6 mutas v 2 thors. Prespread mutas. Slightly spread thors (no glaive dmg). Only 2 mutas died. *BALANCE*
this time I tried 2 clumped thors that took glaive bounce damage vs 6 mutas that took no splash damage, both sides focusfired, the thors won with 1 thor left which had 60 hp.
I believe in your test the focusfiring was biased for zerg, am i correct? .
I believe in your test the focusfiring was biased for terran, am i correct? Since when i am focusfiring with 2 thors against 6 mutas, i can kill all mutas without losing a single thor. Im pretty sure you just let them focusfire the mutas without including the factor that thors only need 3 shots to kill a muta, thus completely botching one shot out of 4, decreasing their dps by 33%.
However you should stop to test muta vs thor anyways since in a normal game that wont occur. The point of thor in tvz is to disallow mutas to be microed efficiently (since they cant be stacked) and magic boxed mutas actually melt to marines in AN INSTANT. Just watch idra vs taeja game 2 where the casters say "wow those thors did sooo much damage to the mutas". In actuality what happens is that the thors dont even manage to fire off a single shot because the mutas that are flying in with magic box melt to the marines since they are flying in spreaded. They die so fast that the thors cant target fast enough because they are always trying to search for a new target, which ofcourse also melts in an instant.
Its like a tap (mutas) that very slowly trickles water onto a hot stone with a heat source below (marines). Like that the stone is never able to be cooled down at all before it heats up again from the heat source below. If all of the water was put on the stone at once, it would cool down easily. Thats exactly how spreaded mutas vs stacked mutas work vs marines.
Thors make it so mutas cant be stacked, thus they are completely ineffective against marines. Ofcourse zerg can combat this by bringing zerglings, since the marines wont be able to melt the mutas as easily because the AI will target zerglings first, but the thors still disallow the zerg player to stack his mutas, therefore their mission is accomplished. Thats also why you see terrans only get 1 or maybe 2 thors, because thats enough to disallow a zerg player to stack his mutas.
Thors definitely have their role in tvz, its just that their role isnt to kill mutas but rather restrict their movement, thus making the mutas that much more inefficient.
Btw i just tested 20 mutas vs 5 thors. The thors were spreaded but i didnt micro them (since microing them will just lead to overkill damage). The mutas i did micro to target 1 thor at a time while still keeping the magic box intact. Guess what, the thors managed to kill 11 mutas. 20 mutas are a 2000 gas investment, while thors are a 1000 gas investment, and even though the thors were basically outnumbered (regarding gas investment) they still managed to deal 1100 worth of gas damage to the mutalisks.
Thors arent bad against mutas, even if you just build thors to deal with mutas.
I believe you have misunderstood, I am arguing that thors are good vs mutas, you seem to think I am arguing the opposite.
besides, read further in the post you quoted and I got a lot better results in later attempts at the same scenario.
@ Zrana I get the feeling you are too biassed against these so called "balance whines" to even try and consider they may have some legitimite concerns/ good points.
1st Firepower is too big, when an entire army in TvP from either side can be destroyed in about 15 seconds you know something is wrong. When one small mistake (getting HT/Ghosts sniped/EMPed; getting colossus sniped/losing vikings) can cost you not only the engagement but possibly the entire game, then something is wrong.
In a way Blizz is tacitly admiting this by going forth and saying that they want less units in the deathball, thats how they talked about some of the HoTS units.
As for the faster player winning. I thought SC2 was a game about of strategy, not fast reactions, sure a fast player should be rewarded for being able to use his speed to micro/macro, but it shouldn't be the defining factor because battles last only seconds.
2nd Zooning is a real issue. There are currently few ways to for players to really put their stamp on a territory and declare it theirs. Terrans have it best, and its one of the reasons why it feels the most complete. It is important to have some ways to secure your territory so you can pull off a decisive thrust attack, or have enough time to reinforce your position.
Zoning units are also important for putting pressure on the enemy and contesting territory, this is where the game starts to resemble chess, as players try to out manuever themselves or devise ways to break the line in slow and methodical ways.
Again Blizz is addressing this issue in HoTS via Shredders, Swarm Hosts, and who knows what else they will think of.
3rd This is where you really start to seem thick. Static defenses are good in the early to mid game but start to become horrible towards the late game. And in a way it kind of builds on the problem of zoning.
Static defenses aren't even hard to buff. Just have them be upgradable. That way you can keep them resonable for the early game so that no one wants to cannon rush or bunker rush every single game. But it also keeps them as a valuable part of the of the game well into the later stages.
Overall I get the feeling that you're just basing the OP (and possibly a lot of other well thought out threads), because you're either sick and tired of them, or you legitimetly can't get your head around the problems/don't want to admit them.
If this is just as you said frustrated complaining then take it to blogs. If you are seriously concerned then take it to the Blizzards forums for the off chance they will read it. If you hate the design of Sc2 so much I've got this great game to recommend to you.
So tired of all these design qq threads recently, Team Liquid isn't Blizzard, we don't balance the game or design HotS why continually complain here?
Sorry but we are the starcraft community right... isnt there some way we can all talk to blizzard rather than talking amongst ourselves about these problems... We all know that sc2 his heading towards a dull end but I think if we all work together we CAN have the game changed at to a degree where it potentially exceeds sc1... all the problems that we discuss should be discussed with blizzard somehow... we are the players so they should really give us what we want or its their problem? If you guys really want change then why cant we make a big change happen in HoTs.. its worth a shot aint it.
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.
I never understood these kind of comments - 'go play BW'. What's wrong with wanting to make the game better? if there is smth good in bw why shouldn't we adopt it.
if you have nothing to contribute to discussion just move on pls.
Because SC2 and BW are not the same game?
If half of the QQers about SC2 had things their way, we'd be playing BW right now with SC2 graphics.
Exactly. +1
The point is if you like BW but don't like SC2 and the nature of the attacks, then PLAY BW. There's a difference between dropping the range of fungals and making every unit weaker.
It boggles my mind this thread is still alive because it's basically a BW vs. SC2 thread, bashing SC2 for what it is.
@destroyer Well the fact is these threads are all opinions. You don't like the fact that armies destroy each other in about 15 seconds. I personally don't have a problem with how long battles last. Sure it makes engaging right and in-battle micro harder but that's all part of playing the game.
Small mistakes cost you an engagement such as getting emp'd or feedbacked. Well that's certainly true. But if this isn't the case, what then should decide the engagement if not the ability to feedback his ghosts before he EMP's or vice versa? Strategy? What if two players have strategised their way into having a big army each? Micro? Well players already micro - they just have less time to do it in than perhaps you would wish.
Fast Reactions are by no means the deciding factor. Watch some of the latest high-level starcraft such as the blizzard cup or this season's code S. Most games are determined by a strong build order, good harrass or good positioning.
As for zoning and static defense - well yes hots is buffing it a little, but there has to be balance where runbys, harrass and counterattacks are viable strategies. Most people i think wouldnt want games to be split map every time because no-one can ever attack. The OP complained about how in pvt it was just 2 armies who could never attack each into each other. Would you want that for the whole damn map?
You want a game where
players try to out manuever themselves or devise ways to break the line in slow and methodical ways.
Isn't this high level SC2 already? TvT for sure. ZvAnything when infestors and broodlords are in the mix, (PvP I actually have no idea what lategame PvP looks like but the matchup is so unfigured out it doesn't matter anyway). PvT when you have 2 good players yeah it kinda does look like this. Also in HotS i have a strong feeling T will go mech in the matchup which will make it even more positional.
With creep and pylons, toss and zerg do have ways to quickly reinforce a piece of territory. I've seen a lot of games where a player (usually a terran) attacks and drops all over the other guy (usuallty toss) and the both players have their mulitasking really taxed to try and hold it off or make it work. I personally wouldnt want a game where you can take an extra base and it can never be attacked unless you bring your whole army for it.
Static defenses - ok so you like them in early/mid game? But in late game they become less strong? Well yes but in lategame players will be going gas-heavy units on lots of bases and so minerals can be spent pretty freely on large numbers of spines/cannons. Again you want the balance where you can hold off harrass and slow down their army long enough for yours to get into position. I don't really know what you want here - do you want to be able to hold off a whole army with static defense? Seems a bit silly to me.
Also by the by, bunkers and turrets can be upgraded ;p
Uh anyway after all that rambling, my real point is that yes, SC2 is by no means perfect (though the metagame looks better all the time), but is it not fun for most people? Is it not fun to watch? If no, then yes we have a problem to address. If yes, then your opinions (and mine) on how the game should look are just subjective opinions and suggestions and not really that important.
Reducing the overal damage that units do might be viable but making every unit okay against any unit is very stupid IMO it would just take out alot of stratagy from the game, people seem to forget that this is a strategy game. I think stratagy should be as important as skill but you pretty much wanna make the game more action based which i think is a huge mistake. Lastly a lot of what you are saying would even invalidate a lt of stratagys, whats wrong with 6-gate and mutas would be usless if you doubled the effectiveness of turrets, PF would be almost invincible seeing as how hard it is to destroy now.
On January 19 2012 02:18 FutureBreedMachine wrote: Sorry but we are the starcraft community right... isnt there some way we can all talk to blizzard rather than talking amongst ourselves about these problems... We all know that sc2 his heading towards a dull end but I think if we all work together we CAN have the game changed at to a degree where it potentially exceeds sc1... all the problems that we discuss should be discussed with blizzard somehow... we are the players so they should really give us what we want or its their problem? If you guys really want change then why cant we make a big change happen in HoTs.. its worth a shot aint it.
"We all know"
"we are the players"
"why cant we make"
Who's we? Do you know what percentages of the SC2 community want what? I'm pretty sure "we all know" isn't something you can throw around when it comes to something with hundreds of thousands of participants.
Perhaps it's the case that some unit compositions don't take much micro to win, and I can definitely see problems with that. I also find issues with higher tiers of units that don't scale well against lower tiers of units from other races.
For example, Protoss needs to quickly get higher tier units to deal with low tier Terran, but Terran can stay on low tier units for most of the game (all-game if the Protoss doesn't mass colossi). Furthermore, there's nothing higher tier that Terran would even want to change to, because mech isn't viable in TvP. If higher tier Terran units became more viable than (or, at least, equally viable to) the lower tier Terran units in TvP, then I think that would make for a more equal game throughout. Simultaneousy weakening Terrans' lower tier units and strengthening the versatility of the higher tier units may make it the case that Terrans don't rape Protoss early on and we see more interesting battles in the late game.
I also definitely agree that the static defenses are too weak. Cannons do absolutely nothing against mutas and medivac drops. You need to really mass turrets hard against a muta flock. Spores and spines aren't amazing either. I'd say that the versatility of the bunker (reparable and can be sold) are the best defensive structures, but they're only functional if you have units in them.
I like this post a lot OP. Some of what is written is a little situational, but I think that even helps you visually understand the message. I really hope the coming expansions cater to quality of the competitive experience, as opposed to a release day shock value experience... as the first would pay out much more in the end long-term for blizzard anyways.
Just thought I'd drop in and say that I agree with pretty much everything the OP has said. There's a balance between having too much focus on direct counters and making stuff too massable. Hopefully, over the course of the expansions and the many patches, we'll see SC2 find the perfect middle ground.
i think static defenses are fine. cannon vs. muta is fine until the mutas get in ridiculously high numbers. you should lose your cannons to mutas if they have invested a much larger sum of resources into their muta count vs. your cannon count. static d is situationally useful and should stay that way. this game would be very dull if static d was always the right choice.
if there's a problem with static defense, then it's probably a problem moreso with things like the mobility of a mutaflock and the damage of marauders vs. buildings. spores, cannons, turrets perform very well for stopping air harassment (not air armies necessarily). i don't want to see any of those buildings buffed.
my 2 cents, not meant to be trolling you, but i do disagree with some parts.
Too much damage? There is also much more health on most units than BW, which i assume is what you're comparing this game to in order to decide that damages are too high. damage is also high vs. certain unit types, while low vs others, which is adding an entirely new and important part of building your army now, which lies in compositions.
About static defenses, protoss standard in pvz is forge FE, with intent to get cannons if needed to defend the natural, which the cannons will do a fine job of vs. roach/lings. in TvZ the first wave of 6-10 mutas normally will do literally no damage if turrets are up in time, because turrets are good. spine crawlers are the #1 most popular way to defend your front as zerg vs hellions, and do a great job of it. Will a spine kill an upgraded marine w/ medivac support? i guess not. But should it? medivacs heal fast in sc2 and cost 100/100. Spore crawlers and turrets also have a huge detection range in sc2 which is nice also.
As for #4, units being too strong vs one thing and weak vs another. SC2 was developed with that specific intent in mind. Army composition options are now much much more open, and much much more important in order to win battles. I dont know if its just because BW didnt have armor and damage types, but It makes the game better imho. Your thoughts about why it is bad that hellions are good vs lings but bad vs roaches, i just dont understand. Whats the problem with it? it is made that way with all the units, so if my opponent builds 100 zerglings, i should get some hellions, if he has 25 roaches, i get marauders/tanks.
Idk i just dont get some the rants in the thread. If you dont like the game design, you dont have to play it, but i think some of your points are just random observations, suggesting something is wrong or needs fixed, when it is built the way blizzard intended it and each unit has a purpose.
One day people are complaining with Day9 saying that you can't get ahead with micro, the next day people are complaining that micro is too hard and that micro mistakes make you lose the game. You can't have both.
I see these kinds of threads and always wonder, well, what about the exceptions(people who seem to pull it off)?
Those are what make the games good, the imperfections. Any 'competitive' game is always a cat'n'mouse game of 'who can abuse the glitch better, harder, faster', etc, so that they can win, no matter how dirty/glitchy/easy it looks. Probably all games that I can think of that had a pro-scene faced major 'patching' of the game, or 'sequels' disguised as patches or major buffs or nerfs.(Call of Duty, Super Smash Bros., Street Fighter, Counter Strike, Broodwar, DoTa, Warcraft, Halo).
Okay, but this thread isn't about the competitiveness of Starcraft2,..
To the OP, you mentioned that Stalkers require a lot of micro vs their hard counters(lings, mauds, too many marines, immortals, roaches), honestly though,
having prior knowledge of this event, like a true Starcraft player, would mean that, according to you, a person who made a lot of stalkers facing a big engagement of nothing but hard counters would have to micro(so he knows they suck) their ass off whereas a person who made the hard counters just sits back and kills off everything(because he knows stalkers suck vs certain unit compositions). Think of it like chess, when a master faces a grandmaster, the master usually is 20 moves ahead while the grandmaster is 200+ moves ahead.
So.. what am I getting at? Here's the big deal: visualization. Imagine 17 lings and 8 roaches vs 12 stalkers with no blink or zealot support, sounds scary? (This is just an example, I know you can micro the stalkers till there's only like 2 left running back up your ramp)
Well, two of three scenarios occur: If a master were handling those stalkers, he would immediately run, spilling his smell of fear all over the map, and the other player will smell the fear and take advantage. Any sort of micro would immediately put the stalker-user in position for a flank by lings and then they would get picked off by the roaches, essentially, because he knows the math, the hard-counter aspect of the game, etc. He knows how to win.
If a master were handling the roach/ling army, he would see the 12 stalkers and immediately RUN, abusing mobility and going back to homebase to 'secure' the army.
Note: [This is only if the players actually KNOW they are facing someone harder and stronger than themselves.]
The third scenario, and probably the whole POINT to my post, is the third scenario that occurs when there is an obvious situation in which one favors the other, but both players are oblivious to their own skill:
Okay, the 12 stalker vs 17 ling/8 roach army? Once again using that example, now imagine a grandmaster handling the 12 stalkers against another grandmaster handling the roach/ling army. Both are extremely robust players, but do not know of it, it's only a random game, and one GM decides to make a bunch of stalkers[EVEN WITH SCOUTING INFO], while the other GM, with the same scouting info, makes a small ling/roach army against the stalkers.
You following me? They both know what's going to happen, they both are predicting events 200+ moves in advance, they don't know that they are both GM, stalkers should just insta-die to a hard counter like roaches and lings, BUT
One GM goes against everything, scouts the roach/ling army, STILL makes stalkers and when he approaches the army, just the abuse of micro can change everything.
The math won't add up, the statistics are probably all wrong, but to this day, even in broodwar, the way I see people rise up and win against everyone is the fact that they know the game is broken, YET they still do things that are likely to make them lose. Why?
That's the whole point. To win like no other. The other person knows straight up, your strategy/unit is going to suck against his strategy/units, so they expect you not to do it.
There's the advantage. When you know for a fact that stalkers- against small, high damage and high-dps units like marines, Concussive shell Mauds, roaches, lings, immortals, even sentries and zealots with a little micro- are a bad counter to [counter-units], but you still make stalkers?
You obviously know something that the other person doesn't know, and you are going to abuse beautifully. Against all odds, you still go for it and, even better, you WIN with it. That, essentially, will make you sparkle as a player, the creativity that goes through a persons mind when they know stalkers will suck against that army, but still make stalkers anyways, is mind-boggling.
That's what makes a pro a PRO. "I know [this unit/strategy] sucks against pretty much everything, but I'm still going to do it."
More scientifically speaking, when you engage in a micro battle in which one army is weaker than the other, the right side of the brain instinctively takes over and it's all basic hand-eye coordination, muscle movement, mechanics, memorization, multi-tasking, and the left side of the brain is left cold because there is no room for creativity when you know something is going to lose to something else.
When you engage in a micro battle in which one army is weaker than the other, but you're not just any other scrub, you're actually skilled, the left side of the brain will light up like a christmas tree and you will instantly abuse every single hit point and every single shield point possible.
That is why you still see people making motherships, large amounts of stalkers, etc, it's like using the pistol in counter strike, when you know the other guy has a carbine, it's like using Luigi in Smash Bros. Melee, when you know he's low-tier and will probably face difficulties with higher tiers, it's like using Scouts in Broodwar, when you know there's a better unit called a 'corsair', it's like using the Needler in Halo 2, because you know there are WAY better weapons,
but why use it? Because the person won't expect it. The math and the statistics point to one answer, the pro-gamer finds another.
lolol, so this is why it's Starcraft 2 Not Starcraft: (Insert expansion name here) Starcraft 2 is not an expansion of sc bw it is it's own entity. If you want it more like broodwar than by all means go play broodwar because this game is not supposed to feel the same way. If you complain that your army is to weak and the dps is to high then your doing it wrong. You can infact micro your units very well infact. Hard Counters??? just scout at almost any point in the game lol. don't make them, yea no real seige units? Seige tank? lawl. all your points can easily be countered by saying one thing......play better
I feel like units kill each other far too easy in SC2. I can fight a big engagement with 200/200 food and its all over in like 7 seconds. It's kind of empty to macro and scout and teach and defend for 18 minutes just to win/lose the game in a fight that spans just a few seconds. Everybody except late game Zerg has to deal with this. It's pretty dissatisfying, win or lose.
I still love this game and will play it for the next decade, but I think they just need to globally reduce the damage units do.
On January 19 2012 01:47 Destructicon wrote: @ Zrana I get the feeling you are too biassed against these so called "balance whines" to even try and consider they may have some legitimite concerns/ good points.
1st Firepower is too big, when an entire army in TvP from either side can be destroyed in about 15 seconds you know something is wrong. When one small mistake (getting HT/Ghosts sniped/EMPed; getting colossus sniped/losing vikings) can cost you not only the engagement but possibly the entire game, then something is wrong.
In a way Blizz is tacitly admiting this by going forth and saying that they want less units in the deathball, thats how they talked about some of the HoTS units.
As for the faster player winning. I thought SC2 was a game about of strategy, not fast reactions, sure a fast player should be rewarded for being able to use his speed to micro/macro, but it shouldn't be the defining factor because battles last only seconds.
2nd Zooning is a real issue. There are currently few ways to for players to really put their stamp on a territory and declare it theirs. Terrans have it best, and its one of the reasons why it feels the most complete. It is important to have some ways to secure your territory so you can pull off a decisive thrust attack, or have enough time to reinforce your position.
Zoning units are also important for putting pressure on the enemy and contesting territory, this is where the game starts to resemble chess, as players try to out manuever themselves or devise ways to break the line in slow and methodical ways.
Again Blizz is addressing this issue in HoTS via Shredders, Swarm Hosts, and who knows what else they will think of.
3rd This is where you really start to seem thick. Static defenses are good in the early to mid game but start to become horrible towards the late game. And in a way it kind of builds on the problem of zoning.
Static defenses aren't even hard to buff. Just have them be upgradable. That way you can keep them resonable for the early game so that no one wants to cannon rush or bunker rush every single game. But it also keeps them as a valuable part of the of the game well into the later stages.
Overall I get the feeling that you're just basing the OP (and possibly a lot of other well thought out threads), because you're either sick and tired of them, or you legitimetly can't get your head around the problems/don't want to admit them.
I was planning a huge post, but no reason to add fuel, you already laid out exactly what i felt when i read Zyga post. Either he's ignorant, or tired of the same threads that he writes off these valid points. But probably a new generation SC2-only player that refuses to admit these points.
On January 19 2012 03:00 wheelchairs wrote: Will a spine kill an upgraded marine w/ medivac support? i guess not. But should it? medivacs heal fast in sc2 and cost 100/100.
A spine WILL kill a fully upgraded marine w/ medivac support. Just one though... A drop of 8 fully upgraded marines will kill of 3 spines in mere seconds while losing only 2-3 marines. At the beginning you do need 7 unupgraded marines to kill a spine though.
On January 19 2012 03:00 wheelchairs wrote: I dont know if its just because BW didnt have armor and damage types, but It makes the game better imho.
BW DID have armor and damage types.(or rather unit sizes and damage types)
On January 19 2012 03:02 Oreo7 wrote: One day people are complaining with Day9 saying that you can't get ahead with micro, the next day people are complaining that micro is too hard and that micro mistakes make you lose the game. You can't have both.
Exactly, people need to have a more open mind at look at things from other perspectives as opposed to just saying "I think x is bad because of y" - not thinking that y needs do z because of a etc etc.
Tight Marine ball counters Lings - Zerg complain. Same Marines micro'd correctly counters Banes - Zerg complain. Well micro'd Mutas one/two-"shot" units - no one really complains. Thor splash negates this micro occurring requiring Mutas to be split (hi Marines/Banes) - Zerg complain.
People really need to learn to adapt micro in different situations. Even the pro's still have a lot of room for improvement with regards to micro. Once upon a time all Terran's whined about Banes until they learned how to split. Once upon a time (and to some extent, still do) Zerg/Terran's whined about storm - Terran have become used to dodging these from Bane splitting and so split or pre-split. Zerg's I have noticed are also finally beginning to anticipate where storms are and dodge them with Roaches - and to a lesser extent splitting when Banes are incoming.
Blink Stalker micro has improved greatly - Blinking only 1 or 2 at a time - and has become more widely seen. Roach Burrow micro on the other hand, has not. I have yet to see a game where Roach burrow is used on individual Roach's to pull them back, unburrow, and resume attacking (just like Stalkers, just like using Medivacs to pickup weak units temporarily). There's only ever blanket burrowing. Terran's are pre-splitting all their Bio army in nearly all situations where Tanks/Infestors/High Templar are concerned - there really is a lack of this going on from other races. The reason AoE splash damage is so prominent and unforgiving is not necessarily because of the unit pathing/balling, but people let their units ball. It's avoidable.
This is a "I'm bad at scouting qq" thread. If everything was mediocre against everything then why create different units? You make it seem like the game should be counter strike.... everyone should just be terran and build only marines and then it will be the true champion who luckily gets one extra hit in!
The beauty of this game is that through scouting you're able to counter your opponent and you're rewarded because counters are very strong in this game.
You take the time to see he's going mass tanks so you build a bunch of immortals. Should he be rewarded for having more tanks than you do immortals? I think not. He's done nothing other than go into a game and decide "hey I want this unit".
I understand that you're frustrated because countering and scouting is VERY VERY difficult and only pros can do it correctly. However, if you remove this aspect of the game by "rebalancing" units, you're going to turn it into a who can mine more minerals game and that just is not fun. I think that maybe they could change some things about the game (unit types).
For instance maybe make it so that workers aren't light units but just biological. This way you don't get decimated by banelings or hellions/reapers as easily. That's a possiblity!
I think sc2 has gone in a wonderful direction. Though everything is much faster, the interface for controlling units in my oppinion is much more enjoyable and feels more rewarding. Even the simple things like being able to rally your workers to minerals... you can't argue that it was a fun part of BW because it wasn't.
I feel.... positively towards the op by in large though a few points confused me or I had reservations with.
My big question (and I saw one post on the first page mentioning this) is do you want a much slower game? At the crux it seems like you want to reduce the speed of the game slightly. Lower mobility, less firepower, longer battles, more reaction time.
The thread deviants into some unit design issues but at its core isn't this frenetic pace what we want? We want the 200/200 armies marauding around poking at expansions rather than locked behind walls of PFs/siege lines (use terran just for convenience) .
I don't think you have made any good point. Why is there need to remove counter units from the game? This would remove a lot of depth from the game. I also don't think the stalker is a well designed unit, its more like a jack of all trades (mass stalker anyone? herpderp). You basically promote armies of 1 unit kind. I also don't think the game should be slowed down in any way ...
If only battles were less '3 seconds and done'; that would really add to the game imo.
Just that. If blizzard does 'everything' in their power to make death ball less attractive and make harass, multi attacks, etc. more attractive; the game would be more awesome.
On January 19 2012 01:59 TheButtonmen wrote: Dear lord more design QQ.
If this is just as you said frustrated complaining then take it to blogs. If you are seriously concerned then take it to the Blizzards forums for the off chance they will read it. If you hate the design of Sc2 so much I've got this great game to recommend to you.
So tired of all these design qq threads recently, Team Liquid isn't Blizzard, we don't balance the game or design HotS why continually complain here?
It's called raising awareness.
People continuing to bring up their complaints about core design flaws is the best chance it'll ever have of being fixed. Esoecially if it's articulated well and a lot of people agree.
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.
The OP isn't about not liking the design of SC2 compared to BW, it's about flaws in the design which BW didn't have. Going back to BW won't remove those issues from SC2.
Nothing the OP says or does will remove those "issues" from SC2, though. Your first obstacle is to convince Blizzard that this really is a core design flaw and at that, one that takes higher priority than everything else they are working on for them to take any kind of near-future action toward it. (Even if you convinced them right now it was the most important thing in the world to change, it would still take months)
Stalkers are so versatile that protoss can remax on just stalkers late game and be fine no matter what. They actually become super difficult for zerg to deal with at this point. Playing Zerg, I eventually get overrun by a ball of stalkers in nearly every game. Don't really have that problem vesus terran because the high damage output marines do have a weakness. Stalkers do not.
I think the worst change for the game was when siege tanks got nerfed versus protoss since Terran doesn't really have any other splash damage to punish a death ball besides emp. Hence TvP is so boring.
Contrary to what a lot of people believe, having your units die incredibly fast and losing an engagement in an instant if you're not paying attention means the skill level required for a beneficial engagement is higher, not lower. Brood War gave you plenty of time to micro your units while you macro at home, despite macro being five times as difficult as it is in SC2.
The problem in my opinion isn't how quickly units die or how much damage they do. Players will eventually become good enough that they always know when they can engage and when they can't. And they'll become good enough that they never lose their army because they weren't paying attention for a split second. The amount of focus required to keep your army alive in SC2 is ridiculous, and we all know it feels bad when your army is on attack-move command and you lost half of it in the time it took you to throw down three depots and shift-queue back to your mineral line. That's what separates the great players from those that aren't.
Things like fungal growth and forcefield are another issue entirely. I don't disagree that abilities that negate micro don't belong in the game. Even concussive shell, which doesn't negate it entirely, gives the Protoss player the feeling that if he overextends for even one second he could lose a most critical unit and possibly the game.
On January 19 2012 05:12 eloist wrote: Stalkers are so versatile that protoss can remax on just stalkers late game and be fine no matter what. They actually become super difficult for zerg to deal with at this point. Playing Zerg, I eventually get overrun by a ball of stalkers in nearly every game. Don't really have that problem vesus terran because the high damage output marines do have a weakness. Stalkers do not.
I think the worst change for the game was when siege tanks got nerfed versus protoss since Terran doesn't really have any other splash damage to punish a death ball besides emp. Hence TvP is so boring.
Their weakness is that they don't have a high damage output like marines...
On January 19 2012 05:12 eloist wrote: Stalkers are so versatile that protoss can remax on just stalkers late game and be fine no matter what. They actually become super difficult for zerg to deal with at this point. Playing Zerg, I eventually get overrun by a ball of stalkers in nearly every game. Don't really have that problem vesus terran because the high damage output marines do have a weakness. Stalkers do not.
I think the worst change for the game was when siege tanks got nerfed versus protoss since Terran doesn't really have any other splash damage to punish a death ball besides emp. Hence TvP is so boring.
Their weakness is that they don't have a high damage output like marines...
And their advantage is that they are more mobile with higher survivability.
"But their weakness is that they cost more!" And their advantage is that they have a larger range
"But their weakness is that they don't have an insta-hit weapon!" And their advantage is that they can be warped in anywhere on the battlefield there's a Pylon
FF can zone out expansions pretty effectively. You're whole post revolves around you wanted to be able to build one unit? instead of getting a composition that will be effective against your opponent. Just how i see it
I agreed with everything until you said you loved stalkers. In principle, what's not to like? They have good micro options and they're very versatile. The problem is, aside from blink (which is awesome), they're boring. They're white bread. They shoot land and air and are reasonable against everything, which means there's little incentive to build anything else and the game is stagnant. Any unit that hits land and air has the potential to be "massable," i.e: you only build that unit and you can do fairly well. Marines are certainly massable. So are mutas, stalkers, hydras, carriers, and battleships (though you only see people mass those in 4v4s or bronze league). Each of these massable units needs a hard counter to make play versatile - hence banelings, colossi, and seige tanks. Or they have other drawbacks, like hydras which are slow and have no hitpoints.
On January 19 2012 05:47 DoubleReed wrote: No offense but this really sounds like you want to play Warcraft 3, not Starcraft 2.
Just go and watch some sc bw games and see how better sc2 pace can be.
It doesn't sound like he wants bw at all. It sounds like warcraft 3 with units with more health all rather Protosslike, and the races all having units with identical roles. He clearly doesn't want bw.
I mean ffs he says static defense is weak. It's much weaker in bw.
Does any of you think that all the units just have too long range? and not big enough difference in range. Also would like some more melee units, give the marauder a hammer for christ sakes.
Really agree with this, look at SC1, it take quite sometimes to kill a zealot. Look at other games like company of Heroes, a small squad of units don't just flat out die to tanks, MG42 or sniper, they could even throw grenade to kill it. The concept of SC2 is quite unforgiving.
I'm glad this thread is taking off, but I've got a couple of things to add.
The person who mentioned muta's going from 20->9 in a 20 muta 5 thor fight. Don't forget how quickly that will happen in a game and if you're going mech fast the muta's can then kill off the rest of your army. It's not simply losing 5 thors that's the end of the world it's the fact that you'll have 5, 6, 7 or more tanks mopped up before you can retreat or worse the zerg simply pushes his lings in after you unsiege for cleanup duty. That situation is 100% out of the Terrans hands, he has to hope the zerg makes a mistake and loses his muta's. On the other hand the zerg needs to have 100% perfect control, if he flys his muta clump too close to the thors and loses them all the games over.
Both of those situations is no fun for either player.
Some people also seem to be think I'm asking for all units to be the same against each other, which I don't mean. I'll give an example, if a Terran makes 4 hellions for map control and spots 7 roaches coming from Zerg he's dead unless he has a bunker or tanks in time. Scouting is pretty good because you're seeing the roaches leave the zergs front door but at this point your infrastructure can only make marines and hellions. If you could have 8 hellions and 3 marines by the time the roaches got to your front door you'd still get totally crushed and lose to the follow up ling runby. Even with reinforcements and defenders advantage you're going to lose the fight badly because hellions are simply garbage against roaches.
If the hellions are able to hold with marine support, or at least get the roach army down to a single roach so you can rewall and take that roach with scv's before the lings get there then you can swap your tech up and builds tanks or marauders. That doesn't mean midgame or lategame you'll be using hellions to kill roaches but it does mean you can hold an early allin a litter bit better.
Don't forget it goes both ways too, when the hellions drop into your main you'll have more time to react with your lings to stop your entire drone line from getting roasted because the vac avoided your spread ovies (or the Terran killed them with vikings).
All the people talking about position is great, and while very true there really isn't anything you can do to hold on if your vikings get taken out in a TvP against colli, or if you have 20 supply in vikings and he just makes templar instead your ground army will be very weak and get stomped out quickly. The ability for some units to absolutely stomp out another army without the direct counter being present is insane. Too many units in the game have this stomp out mechanic which is a big cause of some of the one sided battles we see, even at the pro level.
This is a really common problem in RTS games and its one of those things that made brood war so great. Age of Empires 3 suffered from this problem and it really made for a stale metagame as an example. I dont think that the answer is a simple one though. You have proposed a lot of things I would agree with and they definetly help the problem.
I disagree with a whole lot of what was said in the OP. Yes the game has some flaws, particularly regarding certain unit or ability mechanics, but most of the post didn't really talk about the problem at all, and instead went off on tangents about units that weren't actually part of the problem. A post a while back covering potential design issues with SC2 was much better than this.
part of BW's charm (to me at least) was there was so many tricks that were new to me as a casual player, watching the koreans use them. The bugs/units don't work as intended.. etc made it fun. Instead of "FIX this bug", people were being creative and it became part of the game. (Why on earth do vultures/units get to jump past minerals? for ex)
I don't feel that we should use BW as basis of improving Sc2 now since there are already some really fundamental design changes (Queen/Mule/Chronoboost). I'm all for improving Sc2 balance and gameplay but basing it on BW is not to my preference.
even if there is a statistically/proven/agreed/whatever-we-call-it, the most balanced game in the world, there will be people complaining about random stuff..
This post is somewhat silly because the op is complaining the some things in starcraft 2 are not as they were in Brood War in terms of the flow of the game. Of course Starcraft 2 will be different and what's bad in your eyes might be good in someone else's eyes. Furthermore Stalkers are great! In PvZ mass stalkers can go around picking of bases, killing units that are separated. Things like funglegrowth and maruaders are necessary or else stalkers would just be to strong. If you don't like how starcraft 2 plays out go back to Brood War and don't say that there's a design flaw because that's your opinion not someone else's on how starcraft 2 plays out. Finally all units are good against somethings and garbage against others. If units were good against everything and really good against others it was that way in Brood War and its that way in Starcraft 2. As far as zoning units Blizzard addressed this problem with in Hots with units like the Tempest and the Swarm Host
On January 19 2012 06:18 Blasteroids wrote: This post is somewhat silly because the op is complaining the some things in starcraft 2 are not as they were in Brood War in terms of the flow of the game. Of course Starcraft 2 will be different and what's bad in your eyes might be good in someone else's eyes. Furthermore Stalkers are great! In PvZ mass stalkers can go around picking of bases, killing units that are separated. Things like funglegrowth and maruaders are necessary or else stalkers would just be to strong. If you don't like how starcraft 2 plays out go back to Brood War and don't say that there's a design flaw because that's your opinion not someone else's on how starcraft 2 plays out. Finally all units are good against somethings and garbage against others. If units were good against everything and really good against others it was that way in Brood War and its that way in Starcraft 2. As far as zoning units Blizzard addressed this problem with in Hots with units like the Tempest and the Swarm Host
Ah yes, you young'uns have clearly never played or watched much pro BW. Check out a few games, get past the low-res graphics, and you will find the game to be much more exciting and much more nuanced than SC2. All we're saying is that SC2 hasn't lived up to the reputation of its predecessor, and there are many design mechanics that could be utilized to "fix" SC2.
Stalkers are one of the most balanced units in the game, and one of the most interesting as they have an upgrade that gives them an interesting role, and they take skill to control optimally. More units like this in the future please, and fewer units like marauders and roaches and I'll be a happy man.
On January 19 2012 06:23 Wombat_NI wrote: fewer units like marauders and roaches and I'll be a happy man.
The problem with roaches was how blizzard changed their design to be that sort of mass-attack unit, albeit one that's only effective more around the early or mid-game not late. They were on their way to making a pretty good micro unit. terran also has reapers, but they botched them up quite a bit too, I'd say.
OP is basically saying that units in sc2 are glass cannons and giving them less damage/more HP would make battles longer, thus giving players more opportunity to get advantages in that fight through micro. Completely agree with it, battles shouldnt be completely 1-sided just because 1 player had slightly slower reflexes or wasnt looking and got hit with a fungal or EMP.
Did TS really complain about the fact that 10 chargealots beat 3-4 tanks??
Also it's pretty funny people complaining about the game going to fast. This is where skill comes into play. When the game slows down there is less micro possible. I like the fact that there is a lot more micro possibilities in SC2.
On January 19 2012 06:32 Snijjer wrote: Did TS really complain about the fact that 10 chargealots beat 3-4 tanks??
Also it's pretty funny people complaining about the game going to fast. This is where skill comes into play. When the game slows down there is less micro possible. I like the fact that there is a lot more micro possibilities in SC2.
Warcraft 3 was much much MUCH slower, so by your logic it had less micro possibilities than sc2?
On January 19 2012 06:23 Wombat_NI wrote: fewer units like marauders and roaches and I'll be a happy man.
The problem with roaches was how blizzard changed their design to be that sort of mass-attack unit, albeit one that's only effective more around the early or mid-game not late. They were on their way to making a pretty good micro unit. terran also has reapers, but they botched them up quite a bit too, I'd say.
I liked the concept of a microable, meatshield kind of unit that can regenerate and have mobility via burrow. That's not how they function nowadays though, as THE A-move unit which is disappointing. I actually think this isn't so much a problem with the design of the unit per se, but Blizzard not anticipating just how efficiently professional players could produce them, I mean I've seen players hit max in 13/14 minutes with them.
Marauder is just an obnoxious, boring unit with a stupid ability. Marines are really, really good units, but as they take micro to use efficiently and also have a discernible weakness to aoe they are fine.
Even though i fully agree with the OP, i have to yet again say the same thing: Blizzard has stated numerous times they want games to end fast (5-20min), otherwise they won't appeal to casual players which means things will always stay as they are. Why do you think Steppes of War came from? They just removed it cause it was just too imbalanced for some strategies and made games end even faster than those 5-20min.
If there was a way to keep games short if wanted for the casual player while doing what you said, then that would be it.
I wonder if Blizzard truly believes that, the fact is that casual players don't play, and Blizzard is better off getting people interested in watching competitive and selling tickets.
I agree with most things excepted the static defense part. I think static defense is strong enough right now but I also think they aren't making enough of them yet. For exmple even in BW they would make tons of turrets in their base but right now in sc2, terrans usually make like 4 which is fine in the beginning but not so much later on.
Another thing I don't agree with is saying that a PF is a huge commitment. I do not agree with this at all because if you have a PF and like 3/4 tanks(using ur examples of leaving marines behind) then you actually dont need the marines there.
Also in maps where you can expand towards your opponent a PF is so much more valuable than an orbital. Sure you might lose out on mules but you;re exchanging it for a Strong point on the map that you can leave your army with and if the enemy attacks you there then it's great positioning for you. It's also a good place for your army to retreat if/when you see the battle's going sour
I can sort of see a point in battles being longer but I couldn't disagree more with the whole "more zone control units" and "better static defence".
I absolutely hate RTS games where come down to sitting on a great position that is almost unbreakable for the opponent. I've quit so many RTS games because of this. I much prefer fast paced all over the place kind of gameplay.
I remember playing wc3 and it was all fun and stuff until some orc or human player decided to bloody mass towers all over the goddamn map and go for a +1 hour game play of base trading and harassment. Was so incredibly boring and the game almost felt broken because of it. Also in all other RTS games I've played I absolutely despised maps where it was all about controlling an awesome map position because it was almost unbreakable, just to wait for your opponent to give up out of boredom.
Agree completely, most games especially TVP are decided by one engagement fore example. I love TVTs where the game goes on for a while with both players dropping and killing scvs etc, it seems much more like the player with the better multitask and mechanics will win in the end. Unfortunately all the other MU are starkly different IMO and shouldn't be based around 1 fight.
Casual players are the BIGGEST, by far, whiners about rushes/cheese/allins or however you want to categorise it. All Blizzard's desire for shorter games does is alienate the serious player, while doing nothing to mitigate this by appealing to the casual player.
That's why I don't understand Blizzard's reasoning. For a start you are not likely to pick up a significant number of new players if they didn't get Wings of Liberty. For those who stopped playing after playing WoL, there was probably a reason for that, namely they didn't like/enjoy the game enough. You aren't getting those players back, so make alterations to your upcoming expansions to keep the active playerbase onside.
The only outlet that I know of that is getting new players into Starcraft are those who get into it through watching streams of MLGs and the likes. This is only anecdotal but I know of 5 people who really got enthused by clicking links on my Facebook out of curiosity, and really getting into the game that way.
Every single casual gamer I played with, or who got the game the same time as me, no longer plays the game, and isn't buying Heart of the Swarm because they game is 'too hard'. Remember Artosis
The knowledge needed to recognise and hold efficiently the massive varieties of all-ins that are viable in this game is a lot more than the good players, with many accumulated hours of play and TL browsing actually recall. It is specifically this aspect of the game that ruined all my friends' enthusiasm for the game, well at least those who stopped playing it. The easier game engine doesn't help in this situation, because the players that they will be up against have the same engine, with all that entails.
TLDR, Blizzard: Make this game as good an E-sport game as it can be, and within reason ignore the casual playerbase, it is casual observers that don't own the game that are the untapped market. Most players who quit after WoL are not going to pick up HoTS just because it has a few new units, at least among those I know. A more interesting, balanced and varied HoTS will also see a higher proportion of those currently playing the game, remain, at least in my humble opinion.
On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote: Conclusion: Stalkers I personally feel that Stalkers are one of the most well designed units in the entire game. They don't kill things exceptionally fast, really gain a heavy edge in terms of your ability to micro them and even have an upgrade that lets them become extremely strong in the hands of a skilled player. Have you ever lost to a player using a lot of stalkers (outside of allins) where it felt awful and terrible? Where it felt like there was nothing you could do he just clicked a couple of buttons and autowon? I haven't. The problem is so many units destroy stalkers in the right conditions. A reasonable number of lings in a ling roach situation allows the zerg player to a-move the stalkers and there's nothing they can do, blink only helps so much. What about if they get fungled? gg. Terran has marauders? gg. Toss made immortals? gg. Each of those situations requires the stalker player to micro his ass off to survive, but the Marauder, Immortal, Ling/Roach or Infestor player has to do almost nothing to smash the stalkers to pieces. This needs to change.
There is something else that makes me rage: The need for zerg to have better awareness than other races. The infestor more or less is the siege tank/colossus equivalent for zerg, with its advantages and disadvantages. A couple good fungals can feel overpowered, but getting those huge infestors into the right position without getting them sniped by 2 stimmed marauders/a ghost/4 blink stalkers/colossus/whatever requires a lot of tactical decisions from the zerg. And even then, you will probably lose them, since your units are not ranged and if you cannot fungal 100% your units will often time not be able to prevent/scare off the opponent from sniping your infestors. Furthermore, and this makes me sometimes really angry, is the space control aspect of siege tank/colossus. Place a tank/colossus on your cliff, your opponent walks in, and your unit fires automatically. Infestors do not. For one base entrance this may seem easy, but what about having 5 locations you want/need to defend? As pointed out, Spine crawlers do not always do the job. I often times even get 3 spores behind my mineral line, since 3 spines cannot even defend an 8 marine drop (whereas the spores have a chance to kill the medivac before unloading (most)). The only zerg units that do not pose a game-losing move when getting caught off guard seem to be roaches (and hydras early zvp, brood lords late game in zvp if covered by a lot of roaches), since they will at least fire back, whereas all other zerg units usually cost the game if you don't look for a split second (half your ling army running into hellion/siege tanks/marines, banelings running into siege tanks, 30 mutalisks worth 3k/3k! dying in 2 seconds to 20 stimmed marines etc
On January 19 2012 06:18 Blasteroids wrote: This post is somewhat silly because the op is complaining the some things in starcraft 2 are not as they were in Brood War in terms of the flow of the game. Of course Starcraft 2 will be different and what's bad in your eyes might be good in someone else's eyes. Furthermore Stalkers are great! In PvZ mass stalkers can go around picking of bases, killing units that are separated. Things like funglegrowth and maruaders are necessary or else stalkers would just be to strong. If you don't like how starcraft 2 plays out go back to Brood War and don't say that there's a design flaw because that's your opinion not someone else's on how starcraft 2 plays out. Finally all units are good against somethings and garbage against others. If units were good against everything and really good against others it was that way in Brood War and its that way in Starcraft 2. As far as zoning units Blizzard addressed this problem with in Hots with units like the Tempest and the Swarm Host
Ah yes, you young'uns have clearly never played or watched much pro BW. Check out a few games, get past the low-res graphics, and you will find the game to be much more exciting and much more nuanced than SC2. All we're saying is that SC2 hasn't lived up to the reputation of its predecessor, and there are many design mechanics that could be utilized to "fix" SC2.
Saying that someone will find BW much more exciting shows your bias. I've watched my fair share of BW and to me it just feels very slow and bland after watching SC2. To each his own?
On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote: Conclusion: Stalkers I personally feel that Stalkers are one of the most well designed units in the entire game. They don't kill things exceptionally fast, really gain a heavy edge in terms of your ability to micro them and even have an upgrade that lets them become extremely strong in the hands of a skilled player. Have you ever lost to a player using a lot of stalkers (outside of allins) where it felt awful and terrible? Where it felt like there was nothing you could do he just clicked a couple of buttons and autowon? I haven't. The problem is so many units destroy stalkers in the right conditions. A reasonable number of lings in a ling roach situation allows the zerg player to a-move the stalkers and there's nothing they can do, blink only helps so much. What about if they get fungled? gg. Terran has marauders? gg. Toss made immortals? gg. Each of those situations requires the stalker player to micro his ass off to survive, but the Marauder, Immortal, Ling/Roach or Infestor player has to do almost nothing to smash the stalkers to pieces. This needs to change.
There is something else that makes me rage: The need for zerg to have better awareness than other races. The infestor more or less is the siege tank/colossus equivalent for zerg, with its advantages and disadvantages. A couple good fungals can feel overpowered, but getting those huge infestors into the right position without getting them sniped by 2 stimmed marauders/a ghost/4 blink stalkers/colossus/whatever requires a lot of tactical decisions from the zerg. And even then, you will probably lose them, since your units are not ranged and if you cannot fungal 100% your units will often time not be able to prevent/scare off the opponent from sniping your infestors. Furthermore, and this makes me sometimes really angry, is the space control aspect of siege tank/colossus. Place a tank/colossus on your cliff, your opponent walks in, and your unit fires automatically. Infestors do not. For one base entrance this may seem easy, but what about having 5 locations you want/need to defend? As pointed out, Spine crawlers do not always do the job. I often times even get 3 spores behind my mineral line, since 3 spines cannot even defend an 8 marine drop (whereas the spores have a chance to kill the medivac before unloading (most)). The only zerg units that do not pose a game-losing move when getting caught off guard seem to be roaches (and hydras early zvp, brood lords late game in zvp if covered by a lot of roaches), since they will at least fire back, whereas all other zerg units usually cost the game if you don't look for a split second (half your ling army running into hellion/siege tanks/marines, banelings running into siege tanks, 30 mutalisks worth 3k/3k! dying in 2 seconds to 20 stimmed marines etc
Good post in general but as an argument against this. Mutas in ZvP are massively forgiving as pretty much nothing in the Protoss arsenal is actually good at killing them.
I do agree, SC2 is very fast and that is good in some ways but bad in this. I personally COMPLETELY agree that it would be REALLY nice to be able to actually do some more wc3 micro in battle. That said, I think it would be interesting but not practical if Bliz literally just halved the dmg that everything does. Just to try it. Would be interesting. Haha
But you must remember, that SC2 is a macro game. Building another army to replace your first will always trump microing your arse off Of course, some micro is needed, but that's a given. A shame, but hey, that's what we play.
I think the biggest factors that make the game uninteresting are;
-Like the OP said, the counter system of armoured/light is too extreme. The fact that situations exist where you get unit X because of unit Y's vulnerability to bonus damage just seems so shallow. Immortals are the guiltiest of these units, as they are so extremely situational but there are only really gimmicks that try to make it a unique unit.
-The full strength of an army can be brought to bear on a small area. It's not just that units clump up it's how even collosus stand over armies, since it's that way by design I dont think it will ever be seen as a 'problem'.
-Large powerful armies are too mobile. This comes back to the last point. If you make powerful units have some setup time or awkward movement (siege tanks/reavers) or spells that force units to reposition (darkswarm) battles become so much more dynamic. Right now all you can hope to do is maximize surface area (or in some cases as toss restrict it) and really there is no thought of action involved in either.
On January 19 2012 07:01 Arghnews wrote: I do agree, SC2 is very fast and that is good in some ways but bad in this. I personally COMPLETELY agree that it would be REALLY nice to be able to actually do some more wc3 micro in battle. That said, I think it would be interesting but not practical if Bliz literally just halved the dmg that everything does. Just to try it. Would be interesting. Haha
But you must remember, that SC2 is a macro game. Building another army to replace your first will always trump microing your arse off Of course, some micro is needed, but that's a given. A shame, but hey, that's what we play.
Of course macro does trump micro hands down, but look at the PvT matchup. Within that, it often comes down to one huge engagement after a handful of skirmishes. If we're going to have a 25 minute game decided in one battle, it should be longer than ten/twenty seconds! Imagine a big elongated battle in the late stages of the GSL, MC and MarineKing microing their little hearts out, both the protagonists getting shot by GOM's reaction cam, a single bead of sweat running down each of their respective faces
I defy anybody to say that that wouldn't be awesome.
i think ppl just now figuered out the flaws of SC2 because they get so good in it, at the beginning nobody was "very" good at the game. Chess in the early years had absolutely the same problems as sc2 ^^
On January 19 2012 07:08 Tumor wrote: i think ppl just now figuered out the flaws of SC2 because they get so good in it, at the beginning nobody was "very" good at the game. Chess in the early years had absolutely the same problems as sc2 ^^
really? chess? ...I can't imagine chess having balance issues lol
On January 19 2012 07:05 Slaptoast wrote: I think the biggest factors that make the game uninteresting are;
-Like the OP said, the counter system of armoured/light is too extreme. The fact that situations exist where you get unit X because of unit Y's vulnerability to bonus damage just seems so shallow. Immortals are the guiltiest of these units, as they are so extremely situational but there are only really gimmicks that try to make it a unique unit.
-The full strength of an army can be brought to bear on a small area. It's not just that units clump up it's how even collosus stand over armies, since it's that way by design I dont think it will ever be seen as a 'problem'.
-Large powerful armies are too mobile. This comes back to the last point. If you make powerful units have some setup time or awkward movement (siege tanks/reavers) or spells that force units to reposition (darkswarm) battles become so much more dynamic. Right now all you can hope to do is maximize surface area (or in some cases as toss restrict it) and really there is no thought of action involved in either.
Your last point is actually a great one. I was discussing with a Terran friend how I think the collosus should be changed, for the purposes of this discussion it should be noted that I play Protoss.
My proposed change is really simple, like many of the best fixes that Blizzard have implemented thus far are. The collosus should not have close to it's current movespeed. It's fast enough to keep up with the deathball and has all the gateway units as a buffer regardless of the ability of the player at the keyboard.
If Blizzard aren't going to sort out the ridiculous balling of units, then they need to change movement speeds more radically to make multiple control groups obligatory, rather than as an optional thing. With the collosus, it'll slow down death pushes as you'll have to re-position frequently or have your isolated collosi flanked.
The balling is such a pain, I mean I will perfectly pre-spread my army, but when the time comes to engage I am spending more time trying to spread everything back out the second I order things to attack than anything else.
I hope blizzard realizes that this game needs radical change. I want more units and spells to micro! ff storm fungal and emp are all bad spells in my opinion. You cant micro vs any of them. Instead of emp I would put an EMP field which drains shields/energy per second over time so the protoss could micro out of it. Also making ffs have hp but no target priority would create some interesting situations. You could try to do as much damage as possible or kill the ff and run away. Hunter seeker missile is a good spell in my opinion because if it hits it does massive damage but you can micro out of it so it does not do much dmg. As to unmicroable units... they are no fun. Roaches thors immortals .etc are unmicroable(in my opinion) and you can't get "more" out of them by microing.
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.
I never understood these kind of comments - 'go play BW'. What's wrong with wanting to make the game better? if there is smth good in bw why shouldn't we adopt it.
if you have nothing to contribute to discussion just move on pls.
Because SC2 and BW are not the same game?
If half of the QQers about SC2 had things their way, we'd be playing BW right now with SC2 graphics.
If we were playing BW with SC2 graphics, we'd have a perfect game.
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.
I never understood these kind of comments - 'go play BW'. What's wrong with wanting to make the game better? if there is smth good in bw why shouldn't we adopt it.
if you have nothing to contribute to discussion just move on pls.
Because SC2 and BW are not the same game?
If half of the QQers about SC2 had things their way, we'd be playing BW right now with SC2 graphics.
If we were playing BW with SC2 graphics, we'd have a perfect game.
You realize that already exists, right? It's called SC2BW.
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.
I never understood these kind of comments - 'go play BW'. What's wrong with wanting to make the game better? if there is smth good in bw why shouldn't we adopt it.
if you have nothing to contribute to discussion just move on pls.
Because SC2 and BW are not the same game?
If half of the QQers about SC2 had things their way, we'd be playing BW right now with SC2 graphics.
If we were playing BW with SC2 graphics, we'd have a perfect game.
Bit over the top haha, but if you're a BW fan that's a perfectly fair desire!
BW has more interesting games than SC2, but is too mechanically demanding to go back to. I mean I was pretty young when it came out, dabbled in BGH and have only got into the pro scene with purchasing SC2, but as a purely viewing experience it's superior. However it is genuinely too tough for a new player, the macro is just super hard, intimidatingly so considering a lot of the players still on have been playing for years. Nothing wrong with cherry picking what made Brood War such a great spectacle that it is still shown on TV in Korea (units spacing out for one), while ironing out a few of the issues with the UI.
That said I've lost faith in Blizzard making wholescale changes to the game, which is a shame. Does anybody remember the balls they showed in wholly revising Warcraft 3 when the Frozen Throne came out? What happened to that company?
I agree with most of what you said. I really would like to see the game change to allow for more micro and allow the units to be more effective.
I just wanted to add that I think macro mechanics also are a key problem. I think they should be there, but not as big of a focal point. I love the way chrono boost works because it allows you to make more decisions. If you chrono boost warp gates, your attack can come faster than it normally would. Or you could chrono boost workers and your attack comes slower but with a stronger economy behind it. It leaves room for choices that I think lead to unique builds. The other races kinda get shafted. For zerg you have to hit all your injects in a timely manner or you lose - no choices there its just something you do. Terran has a few choices - faster money or vision - which is more interesting than what zergs gets to do, but still its just something that you do and still doesnt really leave much room for a choice to be made. Scan every few minutes and drop mules in between. If your bad or doing an all-in then supply drop.
Not sure if this is really related, but just wanted to throw it out there.
I actually like the idea of slowing down the game speed just slightly, not that it's too fast to be played now, but everyone who has played on "normal" speed knows it feels so slow, but!! You get a more done and die less to random stuff. Imagine a speed between the two, the people with sick sick apm would do 3-4 pronged attacks instead of 2 and the early ling/roach vs hellion micro battle would be something both sides would want to take serious. It's very true that when sc2 feels most hopeless is when you hit the unforgiving things in a match, .5 sec too late, or a wrong click and your army is gone or all your workers are gone. Anyway love to see how the game played out on normal speed in a tournament with pro players.
I feel like the biggest difference is that SC2 is about positioning the army (deathball) while other successful RTS games (BW, CoH, etc) are more about positioning the individual units. The fact that many pros keep the majority of their army on one or two hotkeys exacerbates this point.
Units like Colossus or Immortals are the biggest offenders of this off the top of my head. If they are in range, it's only about how many you have rather than how you use them (barring special AoE cases like EMP). It would be incredible if it was about how you used EACH one rather than how many you had in your ball. Hard counters can work if they are specialized late game units but when you have such quick access they become boring and binary.
Day9's Frisbee and baseball talk was relevant to this although it seemed to assume that hard counter/limited units at any stage are bad with I disagree with.
On January 19 2012 07:08 Tumor wrote: i think ppl just now figuered out the flaws of SC2 because they get so good in it, at the beginning nobody was "very" good at the game. Chess in the early years had absolutely the same problems as sc2 ^^
really? chess? ...I can't imagine chess having balance issues lol
It wasn't balance as much as design flaws though. I'm sure that chess must've had problems with it that evolved over time.
That said I've lost faith in Blizzard making wholescale changes to the game, which is a shame. Does anybody remember the balls they showed in wholly revising Warcraft 3 when the Frozen Throne came out? What happened to that company?
I dunno brother. I dunno. I miss them though. Wherever they are, I hope that eSport heaven's suiting them well.
I bet 75%+ of the games I watch or play in end very, very decisively with a big engagement going to one player or the other. Very few games are decided with slow, sweeping gameplay where each player deals and receives multiple blows. This is because of four factors that I'm really started to get fed up with in the game and I'm going to list them off here.
or just watch players like Thorzain, morrow, dimaga...etc.
While I like the stalker unit, I also feel that there have to be some extreme counters to it otherwise everyone would just go mass blink stalker in every single matchup. It's already the most standard build in PvP, the most common and strongest unit composition in PvZ (with small deviations and mixes to complement it, or just as a 2 base all-in), and a very strong all-in for PvT. It's a good thing that players can mix them into compositions and they have a lot of utility, but they need to also be a liability in some situations.
People should remember that in threads like these, balance=/=design. Just because something has a design flaw doesn't mean it's imbalanced. The OP is not talking about balance, he's talking about what he thinks are bad design flaws in the game. Design flaws are what lead to boring games and we as players and viewers just want to make sure that this doesn't happen.
Edit: Also its not BW vs SC 2 for the sake of being BW vs SC 2. Its BW vs SC 2 because many people feel BW has some designs that SC 2 could adopt and/or improve upon. If BW were a badly designed game then people wouldn't be talking about it anymore; because SC 2 beats BW in all the other aspects (graphics, game engine etc).
This same exact thread pops up every 2-3 weeks. It's actually unbelievable. SC2 v. BW, gogogogogo!
I disagree wholeheartedly with the OP. Watch some of the GSL January games -- there are a bunch in there that are just gems (I won't spoil anything), but that have engagements going on all over the map for extended periods of time.
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.
I never understood these kind of comments - 'go play BW'. What's wrong with wanting to make the game better? if there is smth good in bw why shouldn't we adopt it.
if you have nothing to contribute to discussion just move on pls.
Because SC2 and BW are not the same game?
If half of the QQers about SC2 had things their way, we'd be playing BW right now with SC2 graphics.
If we were playing BW with SC2 graphics, we'd have a perfect game.
You realize that already exists, right? It's called SC2BW.
its a far cry to bw. i've played it awhile ago, maybe it improved a lot by now but it was very buggy and the unit proportions were off, couldn't even block chokes. plus, you can't really play with how custom games work.
i just think those who played bw for years have little more say on what is good/bad with sc2 (i'm not talking about "oh i used to play when i was a kid"), and people are just brushing it off like they're whining, when they're only trying to make the game better through discussion/awareness.
i mean, i think everyone agrees the old b.net system was better for custom games, we're complaining, we want the older system back or make the current one better.(its my personal opinion that blizzard did this on purpose to decrease popularity of custom games to keep AutoMM active). this complaint is no different with sc2 gameplay. there's something wrong, something needs to be said, and its being said. no need to brush off, treating it like cries. the complaints are valid.
the shredder being added fucking boggles my mind on what they're doing to the game (hard unit counter, not micro-countered, like spider mines). this unit is up there with mothership in my eyes, units that dont belong. this is the type of thing that prevents me to believe "blizzard is doing their best to live up to its predecessor".
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?
Hm... People tend to easily forget that mutas cost 100 100... 3 mutas is 300 300, more than a thor, and how stupid would it be to have a thor alone? thats not the point... Mutas are a game investment, in the sense that if you really go muta, well thats it, you go muta, unless your opponent did a major mistake, you're going to have to invest 70/90% of your gas on muta tech, I see so many people QQ about mutas like they were some kind of free unit like zerglings -_-
I definitely agree with the fact that units do to much damage and that there's to much countering going on especially in low tier units. The only thing is that the pros are getting much better with the control of there units and I say just give it some more time and we will see a different game being played. I feel that there's been so much emphasis on the strategies to be used and getting all your timings right that micro hasn't been touched on 100%. Such as remember MMA stunning everyone with his multi drops and we couldn't believe how he did it. With more dedicated micro to battles units are going to survive longer and its going to be more dynamic of a game. The aggressive type players are starting to come out ahead in each match up and will likely continue.
On January 19 2012 06:51 BrassMonkey wrote: If you think spines are bad then you have never played zerg my friend
Spines are literally amazing
see: any good zerg out there
OP isn't wrong when he says that a spine crawler can't kill marine with medivac support.
Spine crawlers are pretty bad.
Rough approximations of how many units you'll barely need to kill a spine
6 marines with stim 3 zealots 5 roaches
The matter of the fact is, focus firing spines with any number of units and they're useless. I do it all the time in my ZvZs.
Maybe you have never played zerg my friend.
So... they're bad because they require double their resource cost to kill, take no supply, and can reposition? Spine crawlers are amazing.
Think about it this way, they can defend against 6 marines with stim, but you often don't have just 6 marines, and certainly not if you have stim. These are rough values, and generally speaking, you use many more units per assault. Even in smaller attacks, I would still send more than 3 zealots per Zerg base to deal with the hatch or spines. They might be "good," earlier-game but they seem to fall apart later on.
I just want to chime in on a couple of points: *I'm actually ok with the levels of defenders advantages we have now. If it got much steeper, we would see alot of zero harass, long stalemate type games. Maybe spines could take a little buff (I'm Terran), but otherwise I think the game rewards an appropriate amount of aggression. *My biggest grievance, like others, is the "x counters y" game development ethos. In the end, that will kill this games longevity... because it completely disincentivizes (not sure if thats a word lol) creativity and different styles. What BW had right was a less rigid countering system, but compositions that were much more microable. This leads to more unique and interesting matches.
Seriously... Can you watch another 10 years of TvP? Stalkers.. I need marauders. Collossi.. get vikings. Marine... get HT. Awful.
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.
- unmicroable units (most of them are extremely limited) I call bullshit, let me cite some units that become better with micro: stalkers, marine, marauder, zergling, roach, hydra, corrupter, phoenix, void ray, banshee, viking, WORKERS, helions, immortals, templar, ghost, infestor.
- spells that take away the ability to micro units (forcefield, neural parasite and fungal) instead of spells that encourage micro (dark swarm and radiate) Let me introduce you to my little friend, called the dark archon, who has the spells: Maelstrom, freezes organic units in place for 7 seconds, Oh right he had another spell! called mindcontrol.
- lack of units that can hold a position on the map (especially for zerg and protoss) -> no real map control aspect to the game I beg to differ, zerg has creep and burrowed banes, toss has storm and forcefield the best map holder in the game
- stuff clumps together in a tight ball leading to 1 big clash scenarios that are utterly boring Pathing.
Disagree with OP, not because I actually have a stance on the issue, but because his points are not all that great.
Zergling surround is unforgiving and negates micro? Part of micro is positioning so you dont get surrounded... Starcraft 2 takes a huge amount of micro. The only race that doesn't receive as much benefit from micro is zerg. However zerg still gets huge advantages from positioning, which i believe is a form of micro as well. FE. a three pronged surround vs straight line/ ball.
As for zoning... baneling bombs are the closest thing zerg has at the moment, which I agree is not adequate. Toss doesn't have much either. Terran however has seige tank and planetary fortress, which works tremendously well in tvt and tvz zoning, not so well vs toss.
Static defenses aren't good? Static defenses are amazing! They are way better than they were in broodwar. Look at the missile turret. Bunker. Cannons. Are we playing the same game? On the other hand, are stronger static defenses the way to go? They force convergent strategies that are reliant on defense. Simply put, if the advantage of the defender becomes too strong, brilliant and entertaining forms of early aggression as well as mid game aggression will disappear. Do you really want every game to be a 20 minute macro/turtle fest?
More importantly, SC2 is not Broordwar. Nor is it WC3 where everything takes a year to die. Although I agree that the game is too simple in counters due to the fact that some units are way too powerful against others ie. broodlord, colossus, stim marines. This however does not mean that every unit should be as versatile or vanilla as the stalker. Why should hellions be better vs armored? they were not designed for that. A one unit composition should never beat a dual unit composition given equal strategy.
Well... When starcraft 2 came out I was hoping for a bw kind of game with just other units & better graphics but I can genuinely say that sc2 isn't half as enjoyable as bw.. People saying bw requires too much to go back to.. If you put in the effort then I don't see why people would not be able to pick it up over time.
But, before someone thinks I'm trying to say we should all go back to bw, I just hope that Blizzard shows the community that they know what's best for the game & actually fix sc2.
I always see people hoping that the bw community & players will switch.. I think it's safe to say that the majority of the bw community has played sc2 before & there's a reason why they don't switch. For the pro's... Ofcourse, they have their contracts ect... But honestly sc2 is way too noob friendly in the eyes of people who have been playing bw since the beginning & at a decent level + things like Colossus speed, or just the unit itself is something silly, thors are silly, mules are silly, warping units is silly imo, larva injects, auto mining, 250 units per hotkey if i'm not mistaken, multiple buildings per hotkey (tho this isn't as silly as 250 units per hotkey), creep spread for zergs to get their units running faster,...
I remember seeing someone say that mules should be taken out, chrono boost as well & larva injects too.. & someone came on & jumped on him & said that that's a big part of the game & the game would be broken if they'd take this out... Then how did we have the best times of our lives on bw.. I wonder. Sure, game speed/unit speed & other aspects in sc2 are quite different but.. For me personally & I think this is for a lot of other bw players as well, sc2 has been a disappointment so far.
I hardly play it because I personally believe that it would be in the best interest of the game to dumb it down to the bone like.. Just dumb the game down drasticly & you'll have a way more enjoyable game. Now the game does things for you that you should be doing yourself...
+ In sc2 I got the feeling that a bad player can beat a good player if they do something silly & whatnot & honestly.. The better player should win & with sc2 it's more like a coin flip & I think it's disgusting.
This is one of the first posts I've seen that can be classified as 'design' that isn't just thinly veiled QQing, which is nice. The points you make are very well thought-out. Hopefully Blizzard will realize how wrong the ball vs. ball theme is and switch to a more interesting type of game in HotS. **remembers David Kim saying HotS Thor is an a-move-friendly unit** Never mind.
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.
I never understood these kind of comments - 'go play BW'. What's wrong with wanting to make the game better? if there is smth good in bw why shouldn't we adopt it.
if you have nothing to contribute to discussion just move on pls.
Because SC2 and BW are not the same game?
If half of the QQers about SC2 had things their way, we'd be playing BW right now with SC2 graphics.
If we were playing BW with SC2 graphics, we'd have a perfect game.
You realize that already exists, right? It's called SC2BW.
its a far cry to bw. i've played it awhile ago, maybe it improved a lot by now but it was very buggy and the unit proportions were off, couldn't even block chokes. plus, you can't really play with how custom games work.
i just think those who played bw for years have little more say on what is good/bad with sc2 (i'm not talking about "oh i used to play when i was a kid"), and people are just brushing it off like they're whining, when they're only trying to make the game better through discussion/awareness.
i mean, i think everyone agrees the old b.net system was better for custom games, we're complaining, we want the older system back or make the current one better.(its my personal opinion that blizzard did this on purpose to decrease popularity of custom games to keep AutoMM active). this complaint is no different with sc2 gameplay. there's something wrong, something needs to be said, and its being said. no need to brush off, treating it like cries. the complaints are valid.
the shredder being added fucking boggles my mind on what they're doing to the game (hard unit counter, not micro-countered, like spider mines). this unit is up there with mothership in my eyes, units that dont belong. this is the type of thing that prevents me to believe "blizzard is doing their best to live up to its predecessor".
Great post man. I personally love Starcraft 2, it brought me back into the RTS genre after years of playing mostly FPS games, but to deny that it can be improved is nonsensical. If you think it can be improved, then generally you will use as a point of reference Brood War, regarded as THE best competitive RTS of all time. It is not fanboyism, just logical.
HoTS announcement really got me down, I mean I was in denial for a week thinking the Protoss changes were interesting, but deep down I knew they were (at least as stated at the time) pretty terrible.
Tempest - A-move unit that doesn't even counter mutalisks given the timing that it would come out. Looks like operating like an airborne Collosus, I live in fear that lategame will consist of Collosus/Tempest deathballs. Replicant - Gimmicky unit added to a race that many who don't play it regard as gimmicky to begin with. Oracle - Actually a cool concept of a unit, quite like the possibilities with this, but in the absence of other decent units, pretty underwhelming. Recall - Will either be too strong an ability and broken, or toned down to the extent that it's not good anymore.
If Blizzard can't get the units right, what hope do they have to balance the other issues the serious community has with the game?
On January 19 2012 08:13 scMellOw wrote: Well... When starcraft 2 came out I was hoping for a bw kind of game with just other units & better graphics but I can genuinely say that sc2 isn't half as enjoyable as bw.. People saying bw requires too much to go back to.. If you put in the effort then I don't see why people would not be able to pick it up over time.
But, before someone thinks I'm trying to say we should all go back to bw, I just hope that Blizzard shows the community that they know what's best for the game & actually fix sc2.
I always see people hoping that the bw community & players will switch.. I think it's safe to say that the majority of the bw community has played sc2 before & there's a reason why they don't switch. For the pro's... Ofcourse, they have their contracts ect... But honestly sc2 is way too noob friendly in the eyes of people who have been playing bw since the beginning & at a decent level + things like Colossus speed, or just the unit itself is something silly, thors are silly, mules are silly, warping units is silly imo, larva injects, auto mining, 250 units per hotkey if i'm not mistaken, multiple buildings per hotkey (tho this isn't as silly as 250 units per hotkey),...
I remember seeing someone say that mules should be taken out, chrono boost as well & larva injects too.. & someone came on & jumped on him & said that that's a big part of the game & the game would be broken if they'd take this out... Then how did we have the best times of our lives on bw.. I wonder. Sure, game speed/unit speed & other aspects in sc2 are quite different but.. For me personally & I think this is for a lot of other bw players as well, sc2 has been a disappointment so far.
I hardly play it because I personally believe that it would be in the best interest of the game to numb it down to the bone like.. Just numb the game down drasticly & you'll have a way more enjoyable game. Now the game does things for you that you should be doing yourself...
+ In sc2 I got the feeling that a bad player can beat a good player if they do something silly & whatnot & honestly.. The better player should win & with sc2 it's more like a coin flip & I think it's disgusting.
I agree with this, but I find that it`s still not the worst game I've ever played. My only hope is that they change the game in the following expansions to make it less dumbed down.
On January 18 2012 21:52 dream-_- wrote: I haven't played that much SC2, but for some reason this thread interested me. I think that what people are seeing is not so much a problem, as it is a difference. Yes it is true we did not have the "hard counters" in BW that we do in SC2, but I think that makes the game better as opposed to worse. It creates a situation where players are no longer able to play blind and still maintain a strong position in the game. If I am blindly massing roaches while my opponent has an observer over my army and makes 15 immortals to counter that while I build corrupters to counter his colo that I think are coming, I die. Period. As harsh as that can seem in specific instances and certain games (ESPECIALLY, I might add, to the lower or mid tier level player), I think it is vital to the game play as a whole.
You're probably one of like 5 people in the whole world who claim to prefer stone-paper-scissor mechanics in an RTS. How is it fun for the game to be about sitting back, scouting opponent, waiting for them to pick a tech path, then win because you picked the counter? Or pick a composition and lose simply because he picked another, whether by luck or scouting?
There are counters in BW too, it's just on a more reasonable level where having a worse composition doesn't mean you lose immediately.
Note of importance: Stone-paper-scissor is not a strategy game.
But you are missing the key point on which the game is BASED, information is king, if you go mass roaches and i scout that i go immortals, you NEED to scout my immortals else u die, this is a game of information.
On January 19 2012 08:23 The Stapler wrote: the problem is less the units and design (balance and pathing, etc..) and more on most players being impatient
"fix this, fix that and i want it now"
let things play out and see what happens
most people say they want BW but they don't want SC2 to develop like BW did
just be patient and play the game....figure stuff out with what the current patch gives you.
My feeling is that a lot of players feel that since Blizzard's been making RTS games for such a long time, that they'd be used to fixing problems or changing gameplay.
On January 18 2012 21:52 dream-_- wrote: I haven't played that much SC2, but for some reason this thread interested me. I think that what people are seeing is not so much a problem, as it is a difference. Yes it is true we did not have the "hard counters" in BW that we do in SC2, but I think that makes the game better as opposed to worse. It creates a situation where players are no longer able to play blind and still maintain a strong position in the game. If I am blindly massing roaches while my opponent has an observer over my army and makes 15 immortals to counter that while I build corrupters to counter his colo that I think are coming, I die. Period. As harsh as that can seem in specific instances and certain games (ESPECIALLY, I might add, to the lower or mid tier level player), I think it is vital to the game play as a whole.
You're probably one of like 5 people in the whole world who claim to prefer stone-paper-scissor mechanics in an RTS. How is it fun for the game to be about sitting back, scouting opponent, waiting for them to pick a tech path, then win because you picked the counter? Or pick a composition and lose simply because he picked another, whether by luck or scouting?
There are counters in BW too, it's just on a more reasonable level where having a worse composition doesn't mean you lose immediately.
Note of importance: Stone-paper-scissor is not a strategy game.
But you are missing the key point on which the game is BASED, information is king, if you go mass roaches and i scout that i go immortals, you NEED to scout my immortals else u die, this is a game of information.
Most people want a game with a lot of balanced, viable compositions that you can tailor in one direction or another depending on what you scout, not 'mass x unit v mass y unit, player one scouts mass x so switches to mass z' which is pretty terrible.
Good strategy games have units that have synergy together in compositions and get better when well positioned and controlled. SC2 does have that to be fair but there are a few unit interactions that are of the 'x counters y' type.
On January 18 2012 21:52 dream-_- wrote: I haven't played that much SC2, but for some reason this thread interested me. I think that what people are seeing is not so much a problem, as it is a difference. Yes it is true we did not have the "hard counters" in BW that we do in SC2, but I think that makes the game better as opposed to worse. It creates a situation where players are no longer able to play blind and still maintain a strong position in the game. If I am blindly massing roaches while my opponent has an observer over my army and makes 15 immortals to counter that while I build corrupters to counter his colo that I think are coming, I die. Period. As harsh as that can seem in specific instances and certain games (ESPECIALLY, I might add, to the lower or mid tier level player), I think it is vital to the game play as a whole.
You're probably one of like 5 people in the whole world who claim to prefer stone-paper-scissor mechanics in an RTS. How is it fun for the game to be about sitting back, scouting opponent, waiting for them to pick a tech path, then win because you picked the counter? Or pick a composition and lose simply because he picked another, whether by luck or scouting?
There are counters in BW too, it's just on a more reasonable level where having a worse composition doesn't mean you lose immediately.
Note of importance: Stone-paper-scissor is not a strategy game.
But you are missing the key point on which the game is BASED, information is king, if you go mass roaches and i scout that i go immortals, you NEED to scout my immortals else u die, this is a game of information.
But SC2 information is almost always incomplete.
Look at TvZ. Terran opens Reactor Hellion, and puts marines on the outskirts of his base. He can follow up with 3CC, 2 port cloakshee, marine/hellion elevator, marine /wstim hellion timing, maurauder hellion all in, hellion expand.... how should you scout that? Even pros say a lot you're just guessing and preparing for as much as you can without hurting your economy too much.
blizzard is gonna make this game how they like it. Unless MLG/GSL and everyone just magically jumps on board to a custom version of SC2 where all the "bad" things are fixed then great! BUT THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. As I've said, it's blizzards game. WoL is done, there won't be any major changes to the SC2 engine, that's staying around for EVER, blizzard even confirmed that the game engine they are using is going to remain the same (with obvious updates to improve the engine) throughout all expansions. When HotS rolls around, blizzard is only worried about the balance they aren't worried about the effectiveness of splash damage or unit counters as far as how great of a spectator sport it is. No, if they are going to be changing any AOE or unit counters it's going to be for balance reasons not because it makes the game more stale.
On January 18 2012 19:58 k3m4 wrote: fuckin ridiculous how everybody whines about balance n stuff. just fuck off and play, you'll get better and win. Daily 400 showed me onc again what's important and what's not. Balance is only important if you're work for blizzard and design the balance and then you shouldn't whine about it but improve it obviously
User was warned for this post
This guy I feel was unjustly warned because he's right. We aren't the SC2 design team so it's really stupid for us to argue when design philosophies won't ever change. I'm all for discussing balance in SC2 because that's important but the design of SC2? Despite what people may think, blizzard doesn't listen to the community for design opinions they handle all of that internally and once it's set in stone it remains in the game forever and everything is balanced around it and that's where they get community feedback from.
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.
- unmicroable units (most of them are extremely limited) I call bullshit, let me cite some units that become better with micro: stalkers, marine, marauder, zergling, roach, hydra, corrupter, phoenix, void ray, banshee, viking, WORKERS, helions, immortals, templar, ghost, infestor.
While some of them require a form of micro, a lot of it is a pale shadow compared to what you could do in BW. I don't particularly care how many BW units carry on from SC2 to BW. What I do care is that all the units new and old retain its micro control potential. If you compare phoenix micro to wraith micro or BW muta micro to SC2 muta micro it's not even close. Sure you can say it's a different game, but it's also a lesser game as long as that precise control is relegated to a couple units like m&m.
Do we want our game to be even more awe inspiring or do we want to keep shoving these amazing ideas into the corner because that was then, and this was now. Almost every modern RTS game I can think of has seen a decline in the ability to control their armies in favour of automation (SupCom2 is my favourite example). SC2 retains some of the ideas of the past, but could adopt a few more.
On January 19 2012 08:09 nicotn wrote: - spells that take away the ability to micro units (forcefield, neural parasite and fungal) instead of spells that encourage micro (dark swarm and radiate) Let me introduce you to my little friend, called the dark archon, who has the spells: Maelstrom, freezes organic units in place for 7 seconds, Oh right he had another spell! called mindcontrol.
Context is pretty key. As in how hard is it to tech to, use, and its cost. First you have to get to templar tech, then Dark Archon costs 200/250 Mind control costs 200/200, 2 minutes of research and using it took 150 of 200-250 energy and burned all the shields, leaving it with 25 health and so was rarely if ever used.
Maelstrom costs another 100/100 and is only occasionally used as it is a big investment that needs to pay for itself when you could have made high tempars or archons. It costs 100 of your 200-250 energy. If it was anywhere as common and easy to use as FF and FG it would be equally as irritating. It is a pretty big apm sink, so if you could get a good maelstrom off (catch the muta or pin down ultralisks) and then follow it up with a storm or two, that's actually really impressive compared to smart casting spam 't.'
On January 19 2012 08:09 nicotn wrote: - lack of units that can hold a position on the map (especially for zerg and protoss) -> no real map control aspect to the game I beg to differ, zerg has creep and burrowed banes, toss has storm and forcefield the best map holder in the game
- stuff clumps together in a tight ball leading to 1 big clash scenarios that are utterly boring Pathing.
Creep and banelings are cool, but they don't function the same way. Banelings do not hold ground, but they can force a player to back-up temporarily. But once they're used, they're dead. They can't indefinitely choke up a small corridor. Consider. You have a ton of burrowed banelings, Terran sets up, scans, sieges and kills them all. Or if there's only a few, they scan, stim forward and kill them. That doesn't sound like holding position to me. That relies on the element of surprise and good predictive power. Compared to when tanks set up, that immediately creates a zone where if you move in, you're going to get hit hard. (Now this is a weak comparison because SC2 tanks get sniped way too easily, so they don't actually hold ground near as well as they used to.)
Zerg's style of play of constantly retreating, retreating during a push while they remax is a good indicator that they don't have anything to hold a position. Except when they spam spine crawlers- that's really the only thing Zerg has to slow down a push in time for the rest of the army to arrive- short of endlessly retreating until they are ready to counter-attack.
Storms definitely do not control space because individually they just get murdered or at least they need something in front of them like a ton of cannons- and they run out of storms pretty quick. FF actually can close off gaps and in particular block off small chokes, so I guess that one might be map controller.
To control space it needs to be something that can shut down lanes of movement very cost-effectively So tanks with mines in front and maybe vultures inbetween, Lurkers on ramps. It's more like how on the top of ramps, Terran can wall-off and keep a few units behind for defence and hold off attacks until more units can arrive. It's the same idea, just applied on the field or at expansions.
@emc- re first paragraph. Probably true, but that just makes it depressing.
On January 19 2012 08:49 emc wrote: blizzard is gonna make this game how they like it. Unless MLG/GSL and everyone just magically jumps on board to a custom version of SC2 where all the "bad" things are fixed then great! BUT THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. As I've said, it's blizzards game. WoL is done, there won't be any major changes to the SC2 engine, that's staying around for EVER, blizzard even confirmed that the game engine they are using is going to remain the same (with obvious updates to improve the engine) throughout all expansions. When HotS rolls around, blizzard is only worried about the balance they aren't worried about the effectiveness of splash damage or unit counters as far as how great of a spectator sport it is. No, if they are going to be changing any AOE or unit counters it's going to be for balance reasons not because it makes the game more stale.
On January 18 2012 19:58 k3m4 wrote: fuckin ridiculous how everybody whines about balance n stuff. just fuck off and play, you'll get better and win. Daily 400 showed me onc again what's important and what's not. Balance is only important if you're work for blizzard and design the balance and then you shouldn't whine about it but improve it obviously
User was warned for this post
This guy I feel was unjustly warned because he's right. We aren't the SC2 design team so it's really stupid for us to argue when design philosophies won't ever change. I'm all for discussing balance in SC2 because that's important but the design of SC2? Despite what people may think, blizzard doesn't listen to the community for design opinions they handle all of that internally and once it's set in stone it remains in the game forever and everything is balanced around it and that's where they get community feedback from.
Why are there 2/3 threads like this every week? Because maybe some people think it's an area that can be improved. The game balance is actually pretty good, but for many people has a lot of boring mechanics, and playstyles, especially the PvT matchup.
Why are Blizzard so loathe to overhaul issues of design, when they did a massive, massive overhaul of Warcraft 3 when The Frozen Throne came out? These were changes that received much acclaim and took that game to another level. Why just outright rule it out in every interview?
Blizzard is within its right to appeal to casuals who know fuck all about the game, but are the things they do to appeal to them are even appeasing them? Every thread on the Bnet forums is 'collosus imbalanced' or '3 rax imbalanced'. The 'rush friendly' and '15-20 minute games' that have been routinely justified as being in there solely to appeal to all levels of player, are the EXACT things that casual players QQ about on the Battlenet forums. Just take a look.
The developers should listen to TL more because, in general there is actual thought behind our community's suggestions. There is disagreement, there are idiots, but there is a standard of posting that is generally enforced.
The casuals will stop playing the game if it becomes boring to them, just as serious players might, so to try and actually introduce the variety that will retain customers. This can only be done by overhauling at least some of the design.
An example is the carrier, which is pretty much broken. Everyone who has played Protoss has thought 'wow these are a cool unit' and experimented before discovering it is entirely useless, part of this is due to the stupid balling of high DPS units just shredding the interceptors of the carrier, and the carrier being unmicroable. The reason the carrier doesn't work isn't just a balance one, but also partly down to the Ui and how units interact in general.
A change that would make something like the carrier viable and not gimmicky would appease both casual and serious players. The casuals will get to play around with a badass capital ship, the serious players will get some added variety in builds and strategies they can utilise.
Once again this is a thread being made complaining about the parts of the game that make it hard. Seriously, if you get caught completely out of position you think you don't deserve to get punished? Then don't get caught out of position? Obviously?
Who cares about immortals on unsieged tanks? Seriously? How is that even a legitimate complaint?
As far as needing splash/FF to deal with marines, I don't quite know what to say. Yes you do. You also need FF or splash to deal with Roaches. And this is quite frequently true with blink stalkers as well. This makes "mass unit" styles of play actually viable. Is that a bad thing?
Needing support with your tanks is true in almost every single rts game with artillery. I have no idea how that is a complaint. Seriously what?
Static defenses are not awful at all. Compared to BW they are actually ridiculously good. Seriously, just look at the stats. I have absolutely no idea how you say that. Haven't you ever been cannon rushed???
It really sounds like you want all the races to be like Protoss. You want every race to have the same kind of units with the same kind of playstyle. You want every race to have beefy units that won't die really fast. I'm sorry, but that's just not this game, and it's not brood war either. Starcraft is awesome because there is only one Stalker and only one Protoss. There is only one zergling, roach, hellion, marauder, immortal etc. All of the units are unique both in their role and their stats. That's what makes the game much better than every other.
On January 18 2012 21:52 dream-_- wrote: I haven't played that much SC2, but for some reason this thread interested me. I think that what people are seeing is not so much a problem, as it is a difference. Yes it is true we did not have the "hard counters" in BW that we do in SC2, but I think that makes the game better as opposed to worse. It creates a situation where players are no longer able to play blind and still maintain a strong position in the game. If I am blindly massing roaches while my opponent has an observer over my army and makes 15 immortals to counter that while I build corrupters to counter his colo that I think are coming, I die. Period. As harsh as that can seem in specific instances and certain games (ESPECIALLY, I might add, to the lower or mid tier level player), I think it is vital to the game play as a whole.
You're probably one of like 5 people in the whole world who claim to prefer stone-paper-scissor mechanics in an RTS. How is it fun for the game to be about sitting back, scouting opponent, waiting for them to pick a tech path, then win because you picked the counter? Or pick a composition and lose simply because he picked another, whether by luck or scouting?
There are counters in BW too, it's just on a more reasonable level where having a worse composition doesn't mean you lose immediately.
Note of importance: Stone-paper-scissor is not a strategy game.
But you are missing the key point on which the game is BASED, information is king, if you go mass roaches and i scout that i go immortals, you NEED to scout my immortals else u die, this is a game of information.
But SC2 information is almost always incomplete.
Look at TvZ. Terran opens Reactor Hellion, and puts marines on the outskirts of his base. He can follow up with 3CC, 2 port cloakshee, marine/hellion elevator, marine /wstim hellion timing, maurauder hellion all in, hellion expand.... how should you scout that? Even pros say a lot you're just guessing and preparing for as much as you can without hurting your economy too much.
Well, TvZ scouting has been a problem for quite some time tho, so that's a exception.
On January 19 2012 09:04 DoubleReed wrote: Once again this is a thread being made complaining about the parts of the game that make it hard. Seriously, if you get caught completely out of position you think you don't deserve to get punished? Then don't get caught out of position? Obviously?
Who cares about immortals on unsieged tanks? Seriously? How is that even a legitimate complaint?
As far as needing splash/FF to deal with marines, I don't quite know what to say. Yes you do. You also need FF or splash to deal with Roaches. And this is quite frequently true with blink stalkers as well. This makes "mass unit" styles of play actually viable. Is that a bad thing?
Needing support with your tanks is true in almost every single rts game with artillery. I have no idea how that is a complaint. Seriously what?
Static defenses are not awful at all. Compared to BW they are actually ridiculously good. Seriously, just look at the stats. I have absolutely no idea how you say that. Haven't you ever been cannon rushed???
It really sounds like you want all the races to be like Protoss. You want every race to have the same kind of units with the same kind of playstyle. You want every race to have beefy units that won't die really fast. I'm sorry, but that's just not this game, and it's not brood war either. Starcraft is awesome because there is only one Stalker and only one Protoss. There is only one zergling, roach, hellion, marauder, immortal etc. All of the units are unique both in their role and their stats. That's what makes the game much better than every other.
People are complaining based on it as a purely spectator activity, and the battles ending too quickly, which is a legit complaint.
Also nobody is claiming it makes the game too hard, if anything people are claiming that the game is too forgiving and there is less to separate good players from bad players.
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.
- unmicroable units (most of them are extremely limited) I call bullshit, let me cite some units that become better with micro: stalkers, marine, marauder, zergling, roach, hydra, corrupter, phoenix, void ray, banshee, viking, WORKERS, helions, immortals, templar, ghost, infestor.
- spells that take away the ability to micro units (forcefield, neural parasite and fungal) instead of spells that encourage micro (dark swarm and radiate) Let me introduce you to my little friend, called the dark archon, who has the spells: Maelstrom, freezes organic units in place for 7 seconds, Oh right he had another spell! called mindcontrol.
- lack of units that can hold a position on the map (especially for zerg and protoss) -> no real map control aspect to the game I beg to differ, zerg has creep and burrowed banes, toss has storm and forcefield the best map holder in the game
- stuff clumps together in a tight ball leading to 1 big clash scenarios that are utterly boring Pathing.
When he says micro he doesn't mean pulling back the injured unit. Yes that is micro and makes units more effective, but it isn't interesting. In Brood War units had different micro, you didn't micro dragoons the same way you microed vultures.
The Dark Archon is a dumb example because it was a higher tiered unit that was super expensive and typically very rarely seen. It costs too much to be worth what it did. In SC2 sentries are available almost from the get go. Infestors come with lair. They're both cheaper then they should be and very easy to get alot of.
And burrowed banelings aren't good at holding ground. Toss armies have observers. They just insta-die. You might get a lucky baneling hit on a group of marines but from then on as long as the terran is careful he shouldn't hit anymore. Doesn't take long to make a raven when you already have a starport for medivacs.
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.
- unmicroable units (most of them are extremely limited) I call bullshit, let me cite some units that become better with micro: stalkers, marine, marauder, zergling, roach, hydra, corrupter, phoenix, void ray, banshee, viking, WORKERS, helions, immortals, templar, ghost, infestor.
- spells that take away the ability to micro units (forcefield, neural parasite and fungal) instead of spells that encourage micro (dark swarm and radiate) Let me introduce you to my little friend, called the dark archon, who has the spells: Maelstrom, freezes organic units in place for 7 seconds, Oh right he had another spell! called mindcontrol.
- lack of units that can hold a position on the map (especially for zerg and protoss) -> no real map control aspect to the game I beg to differ, zerg has creep and burrowed banes, toss has storm and forcefield the best map holder in the game
- stuff clumps together in a tight ball leading to 1 big clash scenarios that are utterly boring Pathing.
When he says micro he doesn't mean pulling back the injured unit. Yes that is micro and makes units more effective, but it isn't interesting. In Brood War units had different micro, you didn't micro dragoons the same way you microed vultures.
The Dark Archon is a dumb example because it was a higher tiered unit that was super expensive and typically very rarely seen. It costs too much to be worth what it did. In SC2 sentries are available almost from the get go. Infestors come with lair. They're both cheaper then they should be and very easy to get alot of.
And burrowed banelings aren't good at holding ground. Toss armies have observers. They just insta-die. You might get a lucky baneling hit on a group of marines but from then on as long as the terran is careful he shouldn't hit anymore. Doesn't take long to make a raven when you already have a starport for medivacs.
And I think he is complaining about the pathing.
How do you propose making units more microable? I think more divergence in unit movespeeds would be a good start to this process
Also interesting to me is that micro doesn't seem to scale in importance with correlation to the increasing size of armies. I mean some early game engagements showcase truly sick micro in all of its forms, but this doesn't continue to the lategame
On January 19 2012 09:04 DoubleReed wrote: Once again this is a thread being made complaining about the parts of the game that make it hard. Seriously, if you get caught completely out of position you think you don't deserve to get punished? Then don't get caught out of position? Obviously?
Who cares about immortals on unsieged tanks? Seriously? How is that even a legitimate complaint?
As far as needing splash/FF to deal with marines, I don't quite know what to say. Yes you do. You also need FF or splash to deal with Roaches. And this is quite frequently true with blink stalkers as well. This makes "mass unit" styles of play actually viable. Is that a bad thing?
Needing support with your tanks is true in almost every single rts game with artillery. I have no idea how that is a complaint. Seriously what?
Static defenses are not awful at all. Compared to BW they are actually ridiculously good. Seriously, just look at the stats. I have absolutely no idea how you say that. Haven't you ever been cannon rushed???
It really sounds like you want all the races to be like Protoss. You want every race to have the same kind of units with the same kind of playstyle. You want every race to have beefy units that won't die really fast. I'm sorry, but that's just not this game, and it's not brood war either. Starcraft is awesome because there is only one Stalker and only one Protoss. There is only one zergling, roach, hellion, marauder, immortal etc. All of the units are unique both in their role and their stats. That's what makes the game much better than every other.
People are complaining based on it as a purely spectator activity, and the battles ending too quickly, which is a legit complaint.
Also nobody is claiming it makes the game too hard, if anything people are claiming that the game is too forgiving and there is less to separate good players from bad players.
Pfff, right. "Look at all the stuff I have to do to beat this or that" is basically the general tone of things. "I get caught out of position once and then I lose!"
No. Good players know how to avoid these situations. Good engagements are incredibly necessary in this game. High damage means that micro needs to be way way way faster in order for it to work. All of these things raise the skill cap. And we see it all the time.
Did you see that crazy Thorzain split against Puma? Where it looks like his army is going to die but then he does a ridiculous split and avoids almost all the siege tank fire? That shit is awesome, and it also is incredibly fast.
This game is forgiving? Please tell me one place where the OP suggests that the game is too forgiving. No, this is a whine thread, telling people what the playstyle of starcraft is supposed to be. I'm sorry but I'm a zerg player. I don't have stalkers and I don't want stalkers.
On January 19 2012 06:18 Blasteroids wrote: This post is somewhat silly because the op is complaining the some things in starcraft 2 are not as they were in Brood War in terms of the flow of the game. Of course Starcraft 2 will be different and what's bad in your eyes might be good in someone else's eyes. Furthermore Stalkers are great! In PvZ mass stalkers can go around picking of bases, killing units that are separated. Things like funglegrowth and maruaders are necessary or else stalkers would just be to strong. If you don't like how starcraft 2 plays out go back to Brood War and don't say that there's a design flaw because that's your opinion not someone else's on how starcraft 2 plays out. Finally all units are good against somethings and garbage against others. If units were good against everything and really good against others it was that way in Brood War and its that way in Starcraft 2. As far as zoning units Blizzard addressed this problem with in Hots with units like the Tempest and the Swarm Host
Ah yes, you young'uns have clearly never played or watched much pro BW. Check out a few games, get past the low-res graphics, and you will find the game to be much more exciting and much more nuanced than SC2. All we're saying is that SC2 hasn't lived up to the reputation of its predecessor, and there are many design mechanics that could be utilized to "fix" SC2.
Starcraft 2 is more popular and its surpassed BW in that respect. A lot of what made BW difficult were bugs and the way the old game was designed. A lot of those bugs and parts of its game design were removed in sc2 which made sc2 easier also the game wouldn't be as easy. Also I think sc2 has surpassed BW in every respect except in some parts of game play (ex. popularity, accessibility to new players, etc.)
99% of the problems with sc2 could be fixed with a slightly slower (read: fast) game-play. All of the other "issues" in these threads are just exacerbated results of the game moving too fast. Here are a few semi-strawman-esque videos that I stumbled on earlier that give an idea of how difficult it is to have perfect micro.
Obviously no one is going to have the ~15000 apm required to perfectly split marines against banelings but it gives an idea of just how ridiculously difficult VERY GOOD micro is. That just leads to a-click death balls because few human beings are even capable of doing much more.
EDIT: you'll have to go to youtube and read the descriptions to see that apm numbers that the author posted.
Makes scouting extremelly extremelly important however and that is a thing that is good. But for example in PvT the terran can deny early scouting so extremelly easy making it very frustrating as alot of builds looks identical. I do however agree on the dmg bit, blizzard was out to add dynamic and diversity with this but it kinda backfired.
On January 19 2012 09:04 DoubleReed wrote: Once again this is a thread being made complaining about the parts of the game that make it hard. Seriously, if you get caught completely out of position you think you don't deserve to get punished? Then don't get caught out of position? Obviously?
Who cares about immortals on unsieged tanks? Seriously? How is that even a legitimate complaint?
As far as needing splash/FF to deal with marines, I don't quite know what to say. Yes you do. You also need FF or splash to deal with Roaches. And this is quite frequently true with blink stalkers as well. This makes "mass unit" styles of play actually viable. Is that a bad thing?
Needing support with your tanks is true in almost every single rts game with artillery. I have no idea how that is a complaint. Seriously what?
Static defenses are not awful at all. Compared to BW they are actually ridiculously good. Seriously, just look at the stats. I have absolutely no idea how you say that. Haven't you ever been cannon rushed???
It really sounds like you want all the races to be like Protoss. You want every race to have the same kind of units with the same kind of playstyle. You want every race to have beefy units that won't die really fast. I'm sorry, but that's just not this game, and it's not brood war either. Starcraft is awesome because there is only one Stalker and only one Protoss. There is only one zergling, roach, hellion, marauder, immortal etc. All of the units are unique both in their role and their stats. That's what makes the game much better than every other.
People are complaining based on it as a purely spectator activity, and the battles ending too quickly, which is a legit complaint.
Also nobody is claiming it makes the game too hard, if anything people are claiming that the game is too forgiving and there is less to separate good players from bad players.
Pfff, right. "Look at all the stuff I have to do to beat this or that" is basically the general tone of things. "I get caught out of position once and then I lose!"
No. Good players know how to avoid these situations. Good engagements are incredibly necessary in this game. High damage means that micro needs to be way way way faster in order for it to work. All of these things raise the skill cap. And we see it all the time.
Did you see that crazy Thorzain split against Puma? Where it looks like his army is going to die but then he does a ridiculous split and avoids almost all the siege tank fire? That shit is awesome, and it also is incredibly fast.
This game is forgiving? Please tell me one place where the OP suggests that the game is too forgiving. No, this is a whine thread, telling people what the playstyle of starcraft is supposed to be. I'm sorry but I'm a zerg player. I don't have stalkers and I don't want stalkers.
Forgiving in that there is less to differentiate truly good players from less good players. In time that may well happen but it's been a consistent theme since Beta (and not just from Idra). In a game where macro is easier, and strategies are pretty standardised compared to a year ago, it often comes down to one short battle, after a 30 minute game. If that is how the game should be, then that's fine by all means, but if it is to devolve to a 1 big engagement game, then that engagement should have to be controlled better to get optimal results.
Familiar with your example, it was cool, and over in a near split second (pun intended.)
Compare with.
Notice that there was a battle, it actually lasted for a sustained period of time, with continuous excellent micro. I'm not even from a BW background so don't characterise me as some fanboy. People happy to accept things that could be improved and continuing to buy them is part of the reason so many shitty games exist nowadays that could have been genuinely awe-inspiringly great.
It makes me wish that Blizzard had the balls to make a massive gameplay change in HOTS after always pointing out that expansions are where big changes can be made because balance is totally reset anyway. Unfortunately, I just don't think they are brave enough and relatively happy with where SC2 is at the moment to try something that dramatic.
Even if they had a public test server with a massive change implemented so they could get feedback from the community it would be awesome.
@Alcast Actually slowing down the gamespeed wouldn't really help. The game would be slower and so you'd have more time, but it wouldn't necessarily lead to very precise micro if the game engine doesn't allow it. SupCom2 the units move at a snails pace and yet there really isn't much more to do because of it. You can control more groups of armies, but you can't control an individual group any better. They just sort of do their own thing.
I don't really know the technical side of it, but it partly has to do with being able to manually cancel movement animation when switching from moving to attacking so you can do quick attack, retreat, attack, retreat, etc. (Whether using hold position or the patrol button to do the chinese triangle.) But if the game engine itself doesn't allow these precise click movements, even slowing it down won't help. In fact some things can get harder- BW muta micro is actually harder on slower speeds. In BW you had 5 or 6 speeds slower than what pro's played at, but I doubt you'd get better micro by playing it on slowest. (Even Normal is painful to play on.)
Scaling back some of the base damage on a lot of the auto attack units might help with battles ending too quickly. It was probably an over-reaction from complaints over WC3's last forever units. A happy medium would be nice.
Consider this level of control that was possible at one point: Mutalisk vs Scourge: Chinese Triangle This was an insanely hard maneuver to pull off- I've figured out muta micro, but I still can't really do this one yet. And yet really awesome to behold. Is there any equivalent? Or similarly difficult, but impressive micro that can be pulled off? Edit: because visuals are better
Its because of the perspective of the game. They should narrow the camera of the game so less units can fit onscreen and so siege units actually fire across the screen not just fire half of it.
On January 19 2012 09:26 Peleus wrote: It makes me wish that Blizzard had the balls to make a massive gameplay change in HOTS after always pointing out that expansions are where big changes can be made because balance is totally reset anyway. Unfortunately, I just don't think they are brave enough and relatively happy with where SC2 is at the moment to try something that dramatic.
Even if they had a public test server with a massive change implemented so they could get feedback from the community it would be awesome.
I think they will probably make some changes, but basically they want to keep it Wings of Liberty +1, so just as many people (if not more) purchase it. The design team isn't huge, and they have to work to a budget in terms of time and money, so I just don't think they have the resources to change the game in a big way and test it.
It makes better sense to go with what you know a lot of people like, than try to change it for an improved system at the risk of it going awry and the game having a poor reception. Adequate is almost always better than 'good with the chance of bad' in these situations unfortunately.
These sound like your complaints, not actually the OP's. The fact is that the OP is not saying it should be like BW. He's saying it should be more like Warcraft 3 imo. The OP didn't really say that macro is too easy or anything like that.
The only thing this addresses is the high-damage output complaint. Personally, I don't really think that's a terrible thing necessarily, as it enforces higher skill cap for micro. Really, I see the only issue being Ball vs Ball, but that mentality is seriously being shifted away from now because of the power of splash damage. We are finding solutions to the issue, and hopefully HotS will provide us with more.
On January 19 2012 09:26 Peleus wrote: It makes me wish that Blizzard had the balls to make a massive gameplay change in HOTS after always pointing out that expansions are where big changes can be made because balance is totally reset anyway. Unfortunately, I just don't think they are brave enough and relatively happy with where SC2 is at the moment to try something that dramatic.
Even if they had a public test server with a massive change implemented so they could get feedback from the community it would be awesome.
I think they will probably make some changes, but basically they want to keep it Wings of Liberty +1, so just as many people (if not more) purchase it. The design team isn't huge, and they have to work to a budget in terms of time and money, so I just don't think they have the resources to change the game in a big way and test it.
It makes better sense to go with what you know a lot of people like, than try to change it for an improved system at the risk of it going awry and the game having a poor reception. Adequate is almost always better than 'good with the chance of bad' in these situations unfortunately.
Conjecture time. How much influence do Activision have, if any? I mean, all I need to say is Modern Warfare and I think many in here will shudder.
I only say this because Blizzard overhauled The Frozen Throne (the expansion pack to Warcraft 3) much more radically than almost any changes proposed here would make the next incarnation of SC2. Especially with the cash cow of WoW behind them, they should have more scope to take risks, not less.
From minor issues, to big ones, we're paying customers who have a right to voice our opinions, and if Blizzard had any sense they would at least take some notice of them. I just do not buy the argument that the casuals will be put off by mooted changes to the game, casuals are the guys you should base the least of your development around as they are the least discerning consumers of games. I am a moderately serious player and have bought 3 copies of the game, it's the serious community that should be listened to.
God, I would even pay some kind of additional fee if they would get round to fixing Bnet2.0 and the namechanges were implemented co-op replays were introduced etc
On January 19 2012 09:30 Falling wrote: @Alcast Actually slowing down the gamespeed wouldn't really help. The game would be slower and so you'd have more time, but it wouldn't necessarily lead to very precise micro if the game engine doesn't allow it. SupCom2 the units move at a snails pace and yet there really isn't much more to do because of it. You can control more groups of armies, but you can't control an individual group any better. They just sort of do their own thing.
I don't really know the technical side of it, but it partly has to do with being able to manually cancel movement animation when switching from moving to attacking so you can do quick attack, retreat, attack, retreat, etc. But if the game engine itself doesn't allow these precise click movements, even slowing it down won't help. In fact some things can get harder- BW muta micro is actually harder on slower speeds. In BW you had 5 or 6 speeds slower than what pro's played at, but I doubt you'd get better micro by playing it on slowest. (Even Normal is painful to play on.)
Scaling back some of the base damage on a lot of the auto attack units might help with battles ending too quickly. It was probably an over-reaction from complaints over WC3's last forever units. A happy medium would be nice.
I didn't realize there were physical / engine restrictions that held it back. Without, honestly, much experience in either game (play casually), it seems to me that SC2 supports better player->unit caabilities than BW ever did. For example the stutter stepping of bio is generally pretty responsive. I'm not advocating that units react slows, only that they move/attack slower. These two may be inseparable, but I don't have the technical knowledge to know. I think the idea of giving people more than a snowball's chance in hell to actually do something with their units before they're all dead would be a step in the right direction. That's personally what makes this game fun to watch for me.
On January 19 2012 09:30 Falling wrote: @Alcast Actually slowing down the gamespeed wouldn't really help. The game would be slower and so you'd have more time, but it wouldn't necessarily lead to very precise micro if the game engine doesn't allow it. SupCom2 the units move at a snails pace and yet there really isn't much more to do because of it. You can control more groups of armies, but you can't control an individual group any better. They just sort of do their own thing.
I don't really know the technical side of it, but it partly has to do with being able to manually cancel movement animation when switching from moving to attacking so you can do quick attack, retreat, attack, retreat, etc. But if the game engine itself doesn't allow these precise click movements, even slowing it down won't help. In fact some things can get harder- BW muta micro is actually harder on slower speeds. In BW you had 5 or 6 speeds slower than what pro's played at, but I doubt you'd get better micro by playing it on slowest. (Even Normal is painful to play on.)
Scaling back some of the base damage on a lot of the auto attack units might help with battles ending too quickly. It was probably an over-reaction from complaints over WC3's last forever units. A happy medium would be nice.
I didn't realize there were physical / engine restrictions that held it back. Without, honestly, much experience in either game (play casually), it seems to me that SC2 supports better player->unit caabilities than BW ever did. For example the stutter stepping of bio is generally pretty responsive. I'm not advocating that units react slows, only that they move/attack slower. These two may be inseparable, but I don't have the technical knowledge to know. I think the idea of giving people more than a snowball's chance in hell to actually do something with their units before they're all dead would be a step in the right direction. That's personally what makes this game fun to watch for me.
Well I'm not very technical with this sort of thing, so I don't know whether it is game engine or latency. But it does seem that even when trying to recreate the micro potential moments in SC2BW, Maverick's had a hell of time trying to overcome the engine's default (for muta micro for instance.)
I know I posted this on another thread, but look at the difference between these very similar builds (in concept) SC2 vs BW
In both cases you can probably skip to the 5 minute mark to where the action begins. You have pretty similar harassment. An air harassment build designed to take out workers and overlords.
But look at the very crisp and precise control that BW game engine allowed. Vs the gliding movement of phoenix combined with backwards moving shot that in comparison looks pretty sloppy and really require a small amount of control in comparison.
Now the real kicker is almost every unit in BW had that level of control potential. Not every unit scaled so well to get such impressive results, but the game engine allowed for very precise movements.
M&M stutter step is a start, but there's so few units that you can actually get that much potential out of- and the type of micro we're talking about is vastly different than move your collosi back a tiny bit or move them forward a little bit.
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.
- unmicroable units (most of them are extremely limited) I call bullshit, let me cite some units that become better with micro: stalkers, marine, marauder, zergling, roach, hydra, corrupter, phoenix, void ray, banshee, viking, WORKERS, helions, immortals, templar, ghost, infestor.
- spells that take away the ability to micro units (forcefield, neural parasite and fungal) instead of spells that encourage micro (dark swarm and radiate) Let me introduce you to my little friend, called the dark archon, who has the spells: Maelstrom, freezes organic units in place for 7 seconds, Oh right he had another spell! called mindcontrol.
- lack of units that can hold a position on the map (especially for zerg and protoss) -> no real map control aspect to the game I beg to differ, zerg has creep and burrowed banes, toss has storm and forcefield the best map holder in the game
- stuff clumps together in a tight ball leading to 1 big clash scenarios that are utterly boring Pathing.
When he says micro he doesn't mean pulling back the injured unit. Yes that is micro and makes units more effective, but it isn't interesting. In Brood War units had different micro, you didn't micro dragoons the same way you microed vultures.
The Dark Archon is a dumb example because it was a higher tiered unit that was super expensive and typically very rarely seen. It costs too much to be worth what it did. In SC2 sentries are available almost from the get go. Infestors come with lair. They're both cheaper then they should be and very easy to get alot of.
And burrowed banelings aren't good at holding ground. Toss armies have observers. They just insta-die. You might get a lucky baneling hit on a group of marines but from then on as long as the terran is careful he shouldn't hit anymore. Doesn't take long to make a raven when you already have a starport for medivacs.
And I think he is complaining about the pathing.
How do you propose making units more microable? I think more divergence in unit movespeeds would be a good start to this process
Also interesting to me is that micro doesn't seem to scale in importance with correlation to the increasing size of armies. I mean some early game engagements showcase truly sick micro in all of its forms, but this doesn't continue to the lategame
Honestly 90% of the micro tricks in BW were just bugs that people were able to find and exploit, muta stacking, vulture patrol micro, etc, were all different, each required you to know exactly the timing you needed to click and press keys and each created different interactions between the units. Vultures were terrible against goons, but if you surround the goons and put down spider mines around them all the sudden the vultures could get some really efficient kills along with the risk of losing all your vultures to an errant mine. Each race had different non-spellcasters that had micro tricks that changed the game, and in general the spellcasters had more interesting and difficult spells. In BW seeing an army get blanketed in storms was amazing to see because for each of those storms you knew the player had to select each Templar individually and cast the storm. Seeing four storms cover an army instantaneously was fucking amazing because somehow they were able to be that fast. In SC2 just "t click" a couple times and you're done. I think Hunter Seeker Missile has enormous potential to be a really awesome spell that would be fun to watch and play, terran casts it and it requires a response from the other player or else it will be huge damage, but with proper control it might not do anything at all. I think it needs a range buff before it will ever get used in mass though.
Hate to turn it into a BW is harder type of post but its hard not to when it comes to spellcasters
In this day and age I don't think the system should be made so those bugs exist but it should be made so that the units are more varied and require different control. Or if they don't want to make the units have more unique interactions with control, make the early spells less punishing. As a zerg player I don't find it fun to watch a two base push form terran get cancelled out by two fungals that happen to catch 20 marines. And I certainly don't find it fun to see forcefields and a wall make zerg aggression pointless.
Lotta things were changed that allows SC2 to be decided by one big battle...
Lurkers for Zerg were taken out so Terran can mass up marines and still defeat Banelings and Baneling bombs with scans and Siege Tanks
Helions were way too OPed at first. Now they're ok but with Blue Flame they can kill so many drones with good control compared with Vultures from BW where you actually needed good micro to kill a fair amount of drones.
Vulture vs Helion. Watch as it takes skill to decimate a worker line compared to making a Reactor factory and spamming Helions and right click a worker and take out so many drones with little effort.
Allowing everything to be controlled in 1 group. Technically you can control 100 marines and stim them all at once and rape face instead of having to micro. This is probably the most important part because it makes u say hey my whole army can be controlled in 1 group might as well just go for one big ass attack. Compared to BW when Flash and Jaedong attack on countless fronts. And it's not just 1 big battle in the Center in BW more like A million as all their units are controlled individually.
And yeah I'd rather have goaliths then terran making like 3 Thors and stopping that big group of Mutas...
and In BW: Marine + Medic was equal to Muta if you have great micro. But Jaedong on the other hand is more then human :D
You don't see that in SC2 because one...mutas have way different control then in BW...They're reactions are slighty slower it seems like and you can group one big group of Marines together and they all clump together and can one shots...making Muta harass like BW a thing of the past
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.
- unmicroable units (most of them are extremely limited) I call bullshit, let me cite some units that become better with micro: stalkers, marine, marauder, zergling, roach, hydra, corrupter, phoenix, void ray, banshee, viking, WORKERS, helions, immortals, templar, ghost, infestor.
- spells that take away the ability to micro units (forcefield, neural parasite and fungal) instead of spells that encourage micro (dark swarm and radiate) Let me introduce you to my little friend, called the dark archon, who has the spells: Maelstrom, freezes organic units in place for 7 seconds, Oh right he had another spell! called mindcontrol.
- lack of units that can hold a position on the map (especially for zerg and protoss) -> no real map control aspect to the game I beg to differ, zerg has creep and burrowed banes, toss has storm and forcefield the best map holder in the game
- stuff clumps together in a tight ball leading to 1 big clash scenarios that are utterly boring Pathing.
When he says micro he doesn't mean pulling back the injured unit. Yes that is micro and makes units more effective, but it isn't interesting. In Brood War units had different micro, you didn't micro dragoons the same way you microed vultures.
The Dark Archon is a dumb example because it was a higher tiered unit that was super expensive and typically very rarely seen. It costs too much to be worth what it did. In SC2 sentries are available almost from the get go. Infestors come with lair. They're both cheaper then they should be and very easy to get alot of.
And burrowed banelings aren't good at holding ground. Toss armies have observers. They just insta-die. You might get a lucky baneling hit on a group of marines but from then on as long as the terran is careful he shouldn't hit anymore. Doesn't take long to make a raven when you already have a starport for medivacs.
And I think he is complaining about the pathing.
How do you propose making units more microable? I think more divergence in unit movespeeds would be a good start to this process
Also interesting to me is that micro doesn't seem to scale in importance with correlation to the increasing size of armies. I mean some early game engagements showcase truly sick micro in all of its forms, but this doesn't continue to the lategame
Honestly 90% of the micro tricks in BW were just bugs that people were able to find and exploit, muta stacking, vulture patrol micro, etc, were all different, each required you to know exactly the timing you needed to click and press keys and each created different interactions between the units. Vultures were terrible against goons, but if you surround the goons and put down spider mines around them all the sudden the vultures could get some really efficient kills along with the risk of losing all your vultures to an errant mine. Each race had different non-spellcasters that had micro tricks that changed the game, and in general the spellcasters had more interesting and difficult spells. In BW seeing an army get blanketed in storms was amazing to see because for each of those storms you knew the player had to select each Templar individually and cast the storm. Seeing four storms cover an army instantaneously was fucking amazing because somehow they were able to be that fast. In SC2 just "t click" a couple times and you're done. I think Hunter Seeker Missile has enormous potential to be a really awesome spell that would be fun to watch and play, terran casts it and it requires a response from the other player or else it will be huge damage, but with proper control it might not do anything at all. I think it needs a range buff before it will ever get used in mass though.
Hate to turn it into a BW is harder type of post but its hard not to when it comes to spellcasters
In this day and age I don't think the system should be made so those bugs exist but it should be made so that the units are more varied and require different control. Or if they don't want to make the units have more unique interactions with control, make the early spells less punishing. As a zerg player I don't find it fun to watch a two base push form terran get cancelled out by two fungals that happen to catch 20 marines. And I certainly don't find it fun to see forcefields and a wall make zerg aggression pointless.
True, actually quite interesting as well. Many of the gameplay mechanics that are taken for granted in a lot of competitive games are just bugs, or at least the exploitation of something to carry out a function that the designers didn't envisage. Rocket/grenade jumping is something I remember being blown away by when I was 8 and playing the classic Marathon series, animation canceling is in a ton of games, especially fighting games.
Regardless of where your points of reference are, be it from BW, the epic micro potential of WC3, or even elsewhere, it doesn't invalidate them as something that could potentially improve the game.
What race you play shouldn't matter either. The collosus is my least favourite unit in the game for two reasons, namely it doesn't get any better with control, really, and secondly it fits into the 'hard counter' category, which I dislike.
This is actually really well put together, and very interesting food for thought. No race bias or anything, just speculation on the state of the game. I definitely agree with this. All of it. 10/10
I disagree with everything stated in the OP. If you want to compare stats you'll find that damage in SC2 is lower compared to units in BW. The difference comes from more difficult mechanics and worse AI. Because of the easier mechanics in SC2 it's much more easier to macro. People are maxing out at the 15 minute mark while in BW it took people twice as long in order to achieve the same. This creates more fast paced action and I guess more damage all around, but it's not because units have too much firepower.
Defensive structures are also significantly buffed in SC2 compared to BW, but they seem weaker again because there are more units running around.
In terms of zoning, that's an issue that Blizzard is trying to address in HotS. They're introducing units that aren't part of the death ball to try to get more unit spread around the map. If it's successful then maybe you'll begin to notice the reduced damage going around.
I would also argue that BW had harder counters than in SC2. When you can micro 2 reavers to take out entire zerg armies it's easy to see how powerful certain units can be against others. There's nothing remotely like that in SC2. A single well placed psi-storm would annihilate a muta ball, you'd be lucky to get half health off of mutas in SC2.
On January 19 2012 10:33 shortsteve wrote: I disagree with everything stated in the OP. If you want to compare stats you'll find that damage in SC2 is lower compared to units in BW. The difference comes from more difficult mechanics and worse AI. Because of the easier mechanics in SC2 it's much more easier to macro. People are maxing out at the 15 minute mark while in BW it took people twice as long in order to achieve the same. This creates more fast paced action and I guess more damage all around, but it's not because units have too much firepower.
Defensive structures are also significantly buffed in SC2 compared to BW, but they seem weaker again because there are more units running around.
In terms of zoning, that's an issue that Blizzard is trying to address in HotS. They're introducing units that aren't part of the death ball to try to get more unit spread around the map. If it's successful then maybe you'll begin to notice the reduced damage going around.
I would also argue that BW had harder counters than in SC2. When you can micro 2 reavers to take out entire zerg armies it's easy to see how powerful certain units can be against others. There's nothing remotely like that in SC2. A single well placed psi-storm would annihilate a muta ball, you'd be lucky to get half health off of mutas in SC2.
The thing is...one...you can clump more units together into a deathball...which means more units can fire at a target . Take for example marines. You can clump 20marines together into one neat ball and stim and one shot mutas easily. Compared to BW where u need Medics to help your Marines along with Missile turrets to fend off Muta Harass. And you can only control 12 units at a time. So theres no easy I WIN button like in SC2.
Defensive structures are NOT more buff...SUnken Colonies did 40dmg compared to Spine Crawler's 25. Sunken Colonies cud 2 shot marines. 3 Sunken Colonies wud be able to hold ur base against an early pressure of Marine Medic until either Lurkers or Mutas came out. Now in SC2 just get a few marines clumped together and target down Spine Crawlers so fast that not one marine will be killed.
On January 19 2012 10:33 shortsteve wrote: I disagree with everything stated in the OP. If you want to compare stats you'll find that damage in SC2 is lower compared to units in BW. The difference comes from more difficult mechanics and worse AI. Because of the easier mechanics in SC2 it's much more easier to macro. People are maxing out at the 15 minute mark while in BW it took people twice as long in order to achieve the same. This creates more fast paced action and I guess more damage all around, but it's not because units have too much firepower.
Defensive structures are also significantly buffed in SC2 compared to BW, but they seem weaker again because there are more units running around.
In terms of zoning, that's an issue that Blizzard is trying to address in HotS. They're introducing units that aren't part of the death ball to try to get more unit spread around the map. If it's successful then maybe you'll begin to notice the reduced damage going around.
I would also argue that BW had harder counters than in SC2. When you can micro 2 reavers to take out entire zerg armies it's easy to see how powerful certain units can be against others. There's nothing remotely like that in SC2. A single well placed psi-storm would annihilate a muta ball, you'd be lucky to get half health off of mutas in SC2.
The thing is...one...you can clump more units together into a deathball...which means more units can fire at a target . Take for example marines. You can clump 20marines together into one neat ball and stim and one shot mutas easily. Compared to BW where u need Medics to help your Marines along with Missile turrets to fend off Muta Harass. And you can only control 12 units at a time. So theres no easy I WIN button like in SC2.
Defensive structures are NOT more buff...SUnken Colonies did 40dmg compared to Spine Crawler's 25. Sunken Colonies cud 2 shot marines. 3 Sunken Colonies wud be able to hold ur base against an early pressure of Marine Medic until either Lurkers or Mutas came out. Now in SC2 just get a few marines clumped together and target down Spine Crawlers so fast that not one marine will be killed.
The Spine Crawler attacks faster than a sunken. overall the spine crawler does more damage in a given time period than a sunken. it's also cheaper too.
This game has barely been out. Go look at BW pro videos the year it came out and check to see their 'micro.' People are still finding out ways to abuse the game and it wont be fully realized for quite some time.
And I found Thorazain's split much more amazing and fun to watch than the vult micro.
On January 19 2012 10:33 shortsteve wrote: I disagree with everything stated in the OP. If you want to compare stats you'll find that damage in SC2 is lower compared to units in BW. The difference comes from more difficult mechanics and worse AI. Because of the easier mechanics in SC2 it's much more easier to macro. People are maxing out at the 15 minute mark while in BW it took people twice as long in order to achieve the same. This creates more fast paced action and I guess more damage all around, but it's not because units have too much firepower.
Defensive structures are also significantly buffed in SC2 compared to BW, but they seem weaker again because there are more units running around.
In terms of zoning, that's an issue that Blizzard is trying to address in HotS. They're introducing units that aren't part of the death ball to try to get more unit spread around the map. If it's successful then maybe you'll begin to notice the reduced damage going around.
I would also argue that BW had harder counters than in SC2. When you can micro 2 reavers to take out entire zerg armies it's easy to see how powerful certain units can be against others. There's nothing remotely like that in SC2. A single well placed psi-storm would annihilate a muta ball, you'd be lucky to get half health off of mutas in SC2.
The thing is...one...you can clump more units together into a deathball...which means more units can fire at a target . Take for example marines. You can clump 20marines together into one neat ball and stim and one shot mutas easily. Compared to BW where u need Medics to help your Marines along with Missile turrets to fend off Muta Harass. And you can only control 12 units at a time. So theres no easy I WIN button like in SC2.
Defensive structures are NOT more buff...SUnken Colonies did 40dmg compared to Spine Crawler's 25. Sunken Colonies cud 2 shot marines. 3 Sunken Colonies wud be able to hold ur base against an early pressure of Marine Medic until either Lurkers or Mutas came out. Now in SC2 just get a few marines clumped together and target down Spine Crawlers so fast that not one marine will be killed.
The Spine Crawler attacks faster than a sunken. overall the spine crawler does more damage in a given time period than a sunken. it's also cheaper too.
Sometimes increased attack speed doesn't make it even. In BW the Sunken was much better than the Spine is in SC2 against marines even with an increased attack speed. Sunken would 2 shot marine in BW and in SC2 its a 2 shot for Spine vs marine and 3 shot if the marines have combat shield. So basically the Sunken vs Marine model in BW was much more efficient for zerg seeing as the terran will always get combat shield eventually.
On January 19 2012 10:33 shortsteve wrote: I disagree with everything stated in the OP. If you want to compare stats you'll find that damage in SC2 is lower compared to units in BW. The difference comes from more difficult mechanics and worse AI. Because of the easier mechanics in SC2 it's much more easier to macro. People are maxing out at the 15 minute mark while in BW it took people twice as long in order to achieve the same. This creates more fast paced action and I guess more damage all around, but it's not because units have too much firepower.
Defensive structures are also significantly buffed in SC2 compared to BW, but they seem weaker again because there are more units running around.
In terms of zoning, that's an issue that Blizzard is trying to address in HotS. They're introducing units that aren't part of the death ball to try to get more unit spread around the map. If it's successful then maybe you'll begin to notice the reduced damage going around.
I would also argue that BW had harder counters than in SC2. When you can micro 2 reavers to take out entire zerg armies it's easy to see how powerful certain units can be against others. There's nothing remotely like that in SC2. A single well placed psi-storm would annihilate a muta ball, you'd be lucky to get half health off of mutas in SC2.
The thing is...one...you can clump more units together into a deathball...which means more units can fire at a target . Take for example marines. You can clump 20marines together into one neat ball and stim and one shot mutas easily. Compared to BW where u need Medics to help your Marines along with Missile turrets to fend off Muta Harass. And you can only control 12 units at a time. So theres no easy I WIN button like in SC2.
Defensive structures are NOT more buff...SUnken Colonies did 40dmg compared to Spine Crawler's 25. Sunken Colonies cud 2 shot marines. 3 Sunken Colonies wud be able to hold ur base against an early pressure of Marine Medic until either Lurkers or Mutas came out. Now in SC2 just get a few marines clumped together and target down Spine Crawlers so fast that not one marine will be killed.
The Spine Crawler attacks faster than a sunken. overall the spine crawler does more damage in a given time period than a sunken. it's also cheaper too.
Even if that was true, which isn't since sunkens are obviously stronger, the problem is there is not enough time when a ball of marines shred it to death within 3 seconds.
Also people, something many people seem to ignore is that SC2 is 16 : 9 where BW was 4 : 9 ? (I hope this ratio is the correct one, might not be though) So there is wider perspective to see. Because of that, it's easier to move around and harder to constrict space. That also increases the firepower potential of units.
On January 19 2012 15:42 Kanil wrote: Sunken colonies do explosive damage, they don't one shot marines. Think 20+20 armored, if you aren't familiar with BW's damage system.
Ahh yeah my bad been too long since I played, and I don't watch anymore except for In_dove's stream occasionally
Helions were way too OPed at first. Now they're ok but with Blue Flame they can kill so many drones with good control compared with Vultures from BW where you actually needed good micro to kill a fair amount of drones.
Vulture vs Helion. Watch as it takes skill to decimate a worker line compared to making a Reactor factory and spamming Helions and right click a worker and take out so many drones with little effort.
Hellions are probably pretty easy to use..... in fucking platinum T_T
BW is a much slower game, and I like it for that. SC2 micro is EXTREMELY fast paced, and ya know I kinda like that too.
Almost all units seem to have an extremely strong damage output
"Strong"' is relative, thus it's impossible for "almost all" units to have extremely strong demage output.
and become unstopable in certain situations
Show proof that it's true. You, not seeing ways to deal with something, doesn't mean that there are none.
The heavy splash damage units are able to absolutely crush certain kinds of units with very little ability to micro out of the situation.
What? Units that are countered by AOE have always faster or equal speed to those AOE demage dealing units.
There's even spells in the game to lock units in place until they get crushed.
And just like all units, casters with those spells can be countered.
I think that's enaugh. You just make invalid point after invalid point through the whole post, all of which is whining and displaying your inability to find solutions in the game
Almost all units seem to have an extremely strong damage output
"Strong"' is relative, thus it's impossible for "almost all" units to have extremely strong demage output.
I admire your attempt at logic, yet it is flawed: Strong damage output is relative to other unit's HP, not other units' DPS, as you are assuming.
On January 19 2012 15:51 Dariusz wrote: I think that's enaugh. You just make invalid point after invalid point through the whole post, all of which is whining and displaying your inability to find solutions in the game
Yes; I too am annoyed by the QQ blog posts on game design clouding my precious SC2 discussion haven. However, your BM bleeds through the words inability & whining. Techno does not approve.
On January 19 2012 06:18 Blasteroids wrote: This post is somewhat silly because the op is complaining the some things in starcraft 2 are not as they were in Brood War in terms of the flow of the game. Of course Starcraft 2 will be different and what's bad in your eyes might be good in someone else's eyes. Furthermore Stalkers are great! In PvZ mass stalkers can go around picking of bases, killing units that are separated. Things like funglegrowth and maruaders are necessary or else stalkers would just be to strong. If you don't like how starcraft 2 plays out go back to Brood War and don't say that there's a design flaw because that's your opinion not someone else's on how starcraft 2 plays out. Finally all units are good against somethings and garbage against others. If units were good against everything and really good against others it was that way in Brood War and its that way in Starcraft 2. As far as zoning units Blizzard addressed this problem with in Hots with units like the Tempest and the Swarm Host
but Starcraft 2 's unit designs are just plain booring, so he is using an example from a game where units were still pretty retarded (in terms of AI) but there was a set of tricks to maximize on their efficiency and use. Sure, there were some units that completely hard countered other units but they dont completely make them utterly useless (for example, helions get completely hard countered by roaches, helions can probably kill 4 or 5 when roaches can kill like 2x-3x the number, even when micro is involved). After that, unit compositions become more skill based and won't just be "oh i have X amount of units vs his Y amount of units i will be able to own him because i have more units that hard counter his units".
Another reason why people probably want SC2 to be like BW is also because maybe its supposed to be starcraft, they want the legacy of a complete skill based, micro and macro intensive game but with just a new touch of graphics, new units, but that same old nostalgia that BW gave. If they wanted the game to be something else, why not call it COD2011:Tactical Imbalance or something like that?
There's even spells in the game to lock units in place until they get crushed.
And just like all units, casters with those spells can be countered.
I think that's enaugh. You just make invalid point after invalid point through the whole post, all of which is whining and displaying your inability to find solutions in the game
Colosi are impossible to deal with vs T or vs Z if you don't have a lot of air support, and i mean ALOT. thats one good example for you.
The proof? You play the game, please tell me you haven't had a player mass just one unit and just overwhelm you with it (cough marines maybe?)
AOE units have insanely higher DPS to individual units, not to mention their attacks also radiate withitin a certain radius, you basically need more units to counter them or split them in a certain way and hit AOE units before they can shoot a 2nd volley
Right now, spells are just impossible to counter once casted, and even before casted it is way to hard to stop it, it depends on your opponents mistake of a stupid cast.
Thats enough, i dont even know what you wrote or what league you played in, but it is definitely not very high. Once you get to masters, you understand a lot of this stupid shit that happens due to the fact that the other person just made more workers than you and just won the game, and i don't believe thats a true display of skill.
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.
This kind of argument is the most retarded kind there is. People complaining about a subject don't need to be reminded that they can quit anytime. It's obvious that they love the game and want it to be better and leaving it is not the solution.
When you have a gf you just go back to your ex when she does something you don't like or you actually prefer if she changed in a better person.
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.
This kind of argument is the most retarded kind there is. People complaining about a subject don't need to be reminded that they can quit anytime. It's obvious that they love the game and want it to be better and leaving it is not the solution.
When you have a gf you just go back to your ex when she does something you don't like or you actually prefer if she changed in a better person.
These people on the internet....
Its sad a specially if lead designer tells you the same...
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.
The OP isn't about not liking the design of SC2 compared to BW, it's about flaws in the design which BW didn't have. Going back to BW won't remove those issues from SC2.
I think it must be emphasized that modern RTS game design would dictate that BW has poor game design, whereas SC2 is superior in almost every way. However, most of us very well know that BW shines due to the limitations it imposes on it's players (no auto-mine, no MBS, no smart cast, etc.). Hell, a lot of people who play other RTS complain that SC2 is even far behind on modern RTS game design (the ability to move and attack in particular). Again, we all know that the limitation of having to move and then manually choose when to attack adds more micro/skill to the game. Just interesting food for thought seeing as this conversation of SC2 mechanics vs BW mechanics comes up so often.
On January 19 2012 16:08 LanTAs wrote: Colosi are impossible to deal with vs T or vs Z if you don't have a lot of air support, and i mean ALOT. thats one good example for you. The proof? You play the game, please tell me you haven't had a player mass just one unit and just overwhelm you with it (cough marines maybe?)
If i lost to someone massing marines that means i played incorrectly. It's not an indication of a flaw in the game because i lost to simple "strategy". Colossi are not impossible to deal with, without air support. You can just spread and attack in multiple spots at once. 1 colossus alone will lose to few marauders that together cost less than the colossus. It's a matter of compositions and positioning. You can also destroy robo bay, you can use faster units to attack places where there are no colossi etc. There are ways do deal with colossi without air support, but also with. Why shouldn't you be required to make correct units in order to deal with other stuff? Why are you complaining? You're saying that it's wrong that units can be countered and at the same time you're saying that it's wrong that some things (in your opinion) can't be countered. You make absolutely no sense at all.
AOE units have insanely higher DPS to individual units, not to mention their attacks also radiate withitin a certain radius, you basically need more units to counter them or split them in a certain way and hit AOE units before they can shoot a 2nd volley
So what stops you from doing that? You can build counter units, build aoe units of your own, split, avoid, attack somewhere else or gather more resources and win even by trading cost ineffectively. There are many ways of dealing with it, what's your problem? Too hard? Sucks for you.
Right now, spells are just impossible to counter once casted, and even before casted it is way to hard to stop it, it depends on your opponents mistake of a stupid cast.
Why the fuck should you be able to do so? What the fuck? "Oh i walked 15 clumped marines into a fungal and i couldn't move out of it". You have to prevent it. That's the skill you have to use. Spread your units before, scan, scout with 1 marine in front. Basicly, think and play well. How is that a flaw in the game, that thinking and making more actions can benefit you while not thinking ahead can hurt you? It's great fucking design on that part.
Thats enough, i dont even know what you wrote or what league you played in, but it is definitely not very high. Once you get to masters, you understand a lot of this stupid shit that happens due to the fact that the other person just made more workers than you and just won the game, and i don't believe thats a true display of skill.
No comment. You're either a troll or a person with severe intellectual deficits. In either case there is no point in further discussion with you.
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.
This kind of argument is the most retarded kind there is. People complaining about a subject don't need to be reminded that they can quit anytime. It's obvious that they love the game and want it to be better and leaving it is not the solution.
When you have a gf you just go back to your ex when she does something you don't like or you actually prefer if she changed in a better person.
These people on the internet....
Its sad a specially if lead designer tells you the same...
I don't read too much of the forums, nor do I post many replies because every forum on the internet is full of jockeys that will insult someone's intelligence, discredit them, and overall show their internet elitism through words. I am just posting my opinion, my position, and I am insulting no one for thinking otherwise. I agree with the OP 110% on most of the points he made, so I'll share mine.
However, this topic hits home for me. As a Terran player myself (in broodwar and sc2, Terran 4 life lol) I have noticed for a looooong time (ever since the Archon got some love being immune to slow and gaining some range) that Protoss is supremely strong (impossible to deal with) in late game TvP regardless of situational circumstances, having a huge economic lead/doing a lot of mid game damage/early game successful harassment (personal experience, personal opinion). The more I watch of GSL, the more that the point you made about the mechanics of the game are becoming true. I am not a Terran fanboy. My favorite player is NesTea. I play Terran, it is not my wish to watch every tournament be won by a Terran player. Pretty much, any time a TvP goes to the 18 minute mark, the Terran player should just do us all a favor and GG out of the game. TvP isn't the only issue, but it's the only issue that I truly understand because I have personal experience with it. From an observer standpoint, any time in PvZ that a Protoss finds himself more than one base down from a Zerg, he should also do us all a favor and GG out of that game, unless of course, it is a late-game scenario, and the Protoss has a mothership and Archons and the zerg has a handful of Brood Lords clumped up, then the Zerg should just do us all a favor and just GG there and save us all some time. The fact that broodwar had so many memorable games that had amazing, incredible, almost impossible comebacks in the late game was something that drawn me into watching those hours-long videos of a strange and foriegn language that I didn't understand. (To name a few, iloveoov's (circa 2005) lategame TvP I can remember some incredible combacks, as well as savior. Bisu is also a comeback king when it comes to playing from behind.)
I didn't have to understand that language, because the content and gameplay was so exciting and unpredictable. It was the most entertaining game I have ever watched. Code S Ro32, Group H - NaDa, Keen, Parting and Puzzle was the most BORING day of GSL code S I have ever watched. The most exciting matches were played between NaDa and Keen. At least there, the mechanics of the players shined in the series, and the strategic game sense and army positioning brought them to victory. Not a gimmicky Nexus-first into making a massive amount of gateways, pushing out with a probe dropping proxy pylons, and warping in a ton of units and completely nullifying 3 bunkers with 20 scvs attempting to repair. Not a huge army jockeying in the middle of the map for 8 minutes. Not watching every harass attempt be cleaned up with little effort. Not watching a player die to one engagement.
Of Keen vs Puzzle on metropolis. I had known Keen lost the game when his mid game push into Puzzle's third got forcefielded and crushed. He double expanded behind it. I think some people are going to interpret this into a terran QQ post. Forgive me, but Terran is the race that I play personally, so I am only speaking from experience. It is also worthy to note that Zergs can handle Protoss death ball quite more efficiently and effectively than terran. There is a reason why PvP doesn't reach late game, ever. All races have units that die too fast, and kill things too fast. There are too many hard counters, and units that aren't good for anything. Corrupters, Vikings, Pheonix... it can be argued that Pheonix have more utility. Hydralisks---good against many things, but horribly inefficient against ground units off of creep. Immortals are hard counter to mech, but they are more than fairly good against all ground units. Siege tanks are GREAT in TvZ, but in TvP they either get hard countered, or they get efficiently soft countered by units like zealots, a unit that has true grit, and draws friendly fire splash damage. Banshees are great, but cloak is a coinflip.
tl;dr The game needs mechanics and units that prevent the other player from a-moving and winning outright. Too many hard counters makes TvP not interesting past the 12 minute mark. End game lacks the depth in mechanical skill curve to be seen distinguishable from good players - and the very best. There are some instances of which a player scouts a strategy, and may prepare and may over-prepare and still lose due to nullifying mechanics such as forcefielding structures. End game being uneventful jockeying armies pathing down the same real estate over and over until engagement is either forced, or otherwise inevitable. Mirror matches showing the true skill and mechanical genius and strategy of players rather than racial matchups. TvZ being the most exciting, PvZ TvP being the least exciting and predictable matchup. (given the current meta game of forge expand + deathball or forge expand + timing attack into 3rd base end-game high tier deathball to inevitable mothership vortexing broodlords for the win. any match going longer than 18 minutes in TvP gg terran.)
Edit: I forgot to add how completely boring PvZ is when it is mass muta. Up there with late game TvP in terms of apathy from a spectator's chair.
Dariusz, spreading units vs mass colossi is indeed pointless, as the splash damage is applied perpendicular to the direction of attack. Creating a single-file line would be more effective vs colossus alone, but would be uneventful if the colossus is accompanied by any other units. Also, the micro it would require to do so would be a bit much. It's clear that you are biased, which solidifies my position on posting on forums. Why are you so emotionally charged because someone voiced their opinion? You seem to have a lot of anger issues. It's just a forum. It's just a topic. Stay friendly and open-minded, and you might learn something from others in life.
I also want to add in regard to the previous post. I just really want Protoss games to be more entertaining. It may just be my personal preference to see back-and-forth, scrappy type games versus the balls-to-the-wall all-out engagement deciding the fate of the game. I absolutely love TvP early and mid-game, and how fragile it is, but the late game is so extremely boring, I almost can't stand it as a spectator. I guess it could also be because my RTS passion started with broodwar, a game where long, drawn out, nail-biting TvP engagements and small advantages during which... and watching the amazing micro and unit control and interesting mechanics of arbiter control, shuttle zealot bombs, reaver harass, and tank lines with turrets and vulture counter attacks with minefields, coupled with science vessel emp sniping and the occasional ghost strategy. It seemed so diverse and exciting... compared to sc2 TvP, it is the bee's knees.
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.
I never understood these kind of comments - 'go play BW'. What's wrong with wanting to make the game better? if there is smth good in bw why shouldn't we adopt it.
if you have nothing to contribute to discussion just move on pls.
Because SC2 and BW are not the same game?
If half of the QQers about SC2 had things their way, we'd be playing BW right now with SC2 graphics.
If we were playing BW with SC2 graphics, we'd have a perfect game.
You realize that already exists, right? It's called SC2BW.
its a far cry to bw. i've played it awhile ago, maybe it improved a lot by now but it was very buggy and the unit proportions were off, couldn't even block chokes. plus, you can't really play with how custom games work.
i just think those who played bw for years have little more say on what is good/bad with sc2 (i'm not talking about "oh i used to play when i was a kid"), and people are just brushing it off like they're whining, when they're only trying to make the game better through discussion/awareness.
i mean, i think everyone agrees the old b.net system was better for custom games, we're complaining, we want the older system back or make the current one better.(its my personal opinion that blizzard did this on purpose to decrease popularity of custom games to keep AutoMM active). this complaint is no different with sc2 gameplay. there's something wrong, something needs to be said, and its being said. no need to brush off, treating it like cries. the complaints are valid.
the shredder being added fucking boggles my mind on what they're doing to the game (hard unit counter, not micro-countered, like spider mines). this unit is up there with mothership in my eyes, units that dont belong. this is the type of thing that prevents me to believe "blizzard is doing their best to live up to its predecessor".
Yah, fair enough.
Almost everything in the transition to SC2 has turned out to be outrageously stupid. The only good things I can think up off the top of my head are a matchmaking system (which war3 had already), good observer features, and a slightly better but still pretty bad chat interface (HoN set the bar for that).
I think it wouldn't matter if individual units were fixed. I think the real core of the problem lies in how mechanics are affected. You can do complex things so much easier in SC2. Unit selection, for example, allows you to take your entire army and move it across the map, effectively. You don't really have streams of units pouring over the map, reinforcing many back-and-forth engagements. Instead you have two clumps jockeying for position, looking for the tiniest little advantage, since positional advantages and such are so hard to come by given how easy it is for both players to stay mobile in the ever-so-deadly "deathball formation". Get rid of this ugly part of the game, then worry about fixing the specific boring units such as colossi. I do like all the ideas here, but the main issue really has got to be the larger problem of how we are able to control units in SC2.
Anybody have an idea what the kind of proportions of posters who think 'SC2 is fine, leave it alone' vs 'SC2 has great potential but could do with a few mechanical changes' is?
On January 20 2012 01:30 Wombat_NI wrote: Anybody have an idea what the kind of proportions of posters who think 'SC2 is fine, leave it alone' vs 'SC2 has great potential but could do with a few mechanical changes' is?
A poll would be nice indeed. The thing is I really do enjoy watching and playing SC2, not sure I could say the same about BW since I never played the multiplayer. But it sure doesn't sound like much fun. I am a bit confused by people who basically want to make SC2:BW, when BW *still exists* and from what I gather has an active competitive scene still.
Yeah, well how much you want to change things will vary. For me it's a bit less clumping, more variety in unit move speeds and a few other small things solely aimed at trying to prevent deathballing. Others want like, auto-mining taken off but I'm not that extreme
The points you made here make complete sense. Hard counters do give a strategic advantage to the game, but they probably are doing far too much at the moment. There needs to be ways to discourage how all-in friendly the game is right now and your solution with better static defenses could do just that.
I've long said too much DPS is the problem, since beta in fact. I wanted marines to have 5 damage instead of 6 (This was when stim was way faster to research, you could make barracks without supply depots, bunkers/barracks built faster, etc...)
Honestly though that's just how the game works now. I wouldn't change it for anything; sc2 is about fast thinking and fast play more than anything... and in HOTS my burrow movement banelings will create a sea of salty tears that I will quench my thirst with all day every day.
In my opinion the problem with Starcraft 2 as opposed to Brood War is that you can never flee from a battle; once you engage your blob, you will either kill his blob or lose your own. So what do I mean by this?
TvZ: you retreat your army and then all his faster zerglings will surround your army.
ZvT: tanks and marines will get in so many shots on you it will be more cost effective to just attack.
PvT: marauders will slow you.
TvP: force fields.
PvZ: all of your sentries are now gone to zerglings.
ZvP: force fields.
All those you-can't-leave spells and the speed of zerglings just begs for this to happen. So unless that changes this all-in mentality will stay.
I truly agree with this post. Very well thought out and several excellent points, especially the ones about static defense and hard countering vs soft countering.
On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote: Have you ever lost to a player using a lot of stalkers (outside of allins) where it felt awful and terrible? Where it felt like there was nothing you could do he just clicked a couple of buttons and autowon? I haven't.
Umm, have you ever lost to a blink stalker all-in in ZvP? I have. It sucks. I felt awful. I felt mad.
On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote: Have you ever lost to a player using a lot of stalkers (outside of allins) where it felt awful and terrible? Where it felt like there was nothing you could do he just clicked a couple of buttons and autowon? I haven't.
Umm, have you ever lost to a blink stalker all-in in ZvP? I have. It sucks. I felt awful. I felt mad.
He specifically said outside of all-ins in the OP.
I love this OP. Basically spelled out all of my concerns/complaints I have with SC2's pacing and unit design in general. The issue with "zoning" and ineffective static defense is my BIGGEST gripe. Also, why in the hell did they move the medic to the dropship (medivac)?!?! Streamlining for dummies for the win.
The problem with this is obviously one of balance -- blizzard simply CAN'T make these changes in wings of liberty.
Now, lets move to a point where blizzard CAN make such changes: Heart of the Swarm. Unforchidently, the way the game is looking now with all of its fancy spells and such the problems mentioned in the OP will only be worse and harder to get away from. Pray that Activision doesn't run SC2 into the ground too quickly
I hate how all matchups boils down to "don't let them get to that point or you lose" Don't let P turtle to 3 bases, must kill zerg within 10 minutes, must defend against terrans first early push or the games over"
I agree with everything but weak static defense, broodwar static defense was even weaker but it didn't matter since you used tanks/mines/lurkers/etc to defend while also having some turrets/sunkens/etc, stronger siege units is all you need, you don't need stronger static defense on top of stronger siege unless you really want every game played ever to last over an hour because allins really wouldn't be viable anymore at all
On January 19 2012 10:33 shortsteve wrote: I disagree with everything stated in the OP. If you want to compare stats you'll find that damage in SC2 is lower compared to units in BW. The difference comes from more difficult mechanics and worse AI. Because of the easier mechanics in SC2 it's much more easier to macro. People are maxing out at the 15 minute mark while in BW it took people twice as long in order to achieve the same. This creates more fast paced action and I guess more damage all around, but it's not because units have too much firepower.
Defensive structures are also significantly buffed in SC2 compared to BW, but they seem weaker again because there are more units running around.
In terms of zoning, that's an issue that Blizzard is trying to address in HotS. They're introducing units that aren't part of the death ball to try to get more unit spread around the map. If it's successful then maybe you'll begin to notice the reduced damage going around.
I would also argue that BW had harder counters than in SC2. When you can micro 2 reavers to take out entire zerg armies it's easy to see how powerful certain units can be against others. There's nothing remotely like that in SC2. A single well placed psi-storm would annihilate a muta ball, you'd be lucky to get half health off of mutas in SC2.
The thing is...one...you can clump more units together into a deathball...which means more units can fire at a target . Take for example marines. You can clump 20marines together into one neat ball and stim and one shot mutas easily. Compared to BW where u need Medics to help your Marines along with Missile turrets to fend off Muta Harass. And you can only control 12 units at a time. So theres no easy I WIN button like in SC2.
and the more clumped up your marines are, the more effective banelings will be.
Just like Thor will force Muta to be magicboxed which in turn will make it more suspectible to stimmed marine
you can't just 1A in all situation and hope to win
see clumped marines ? withdraw mutas, send in banelings. the marines are splited ? send in mutas and lings.
Theorycrafting is nice and all, but cant many of these changes be corrected in the map editor? Theorycrafting feels dirty, because often people neglect how much has changed due to player advancement from beta to now, and the giant resent button many of these changes would have on the metagame, with no guarantee of it being better comeptitively just better for the playstyle of the person suggesting it.
I agree, this is very well thought out. I don't like the "Go back to BW" comments, this is just a game flaw, and hopefully by enter the void this will be fixed. Or another train of thought is that the game will just shift! More side attacks, pokes and prods, and I do believe we need bigger maps. Think of Tal'Darim, if you move your entire army across the map, mutas can come in, ruin your economy and get to the main fight even before you engage!
On January 20 2012 16:00 Gobbles wrote: If you think storm does too much damage now, don't play BW
But there was is a significant difference that you dont address... in BW the units dont clump up like in in SC2, so the damage is in some way the same, in SC2 its easy to hit 20+ units with one storm if u play against lings or MM, in BW you get a good hitt if you land a storm on 5 Hydras (Its like 18 months since I played BW, so dont slaughter me if my memory is bad).
But the thing that is that we always compare SC2 to BW... And I am not sure how much of the same game Blizzard wanted it to be, I agree that BW was a better game, and im still hoping that SC2 will become just as good with the years, and im prepared to wait a couple more Afterall its already very fun and good to watch.
I guess in a nutshell, SC2:BW=LoL:DotA. Too fast-paced, hardly enough time to allow the passive side proper reacting, rewards aggressive A-moving playstyle too much, destruction to survivability ratio of units way too high.
With respect, the premise of the initial post seems to be "I lose when I am caught with my pants down. I don't like this."
Many of the "problems" you describe are simply different ways of saying "I wish it was easier to sit in my castle and kill things that run at me."
I apologize for being so blunt as I realize you are venting, but I really disagree with your characterization of game play. Watching any good streamer (Spanishiwa and MC come to mind - the former for his verbal insight and the latter for his brilliant execution), one can see that the game is so, so much deeper than the opaque reflection on the surface of the lake.
On January 20 2012 07:17 magnaflow wrote: I hate how all matchups boils down to "don't let them get to that point or you lose" Don't let P turtle to 3 bases, must kill zerg within 10 minutes, must defend against terrans first early push or the games over"
That's a big problem as well... there's too much "do this or you lose" instead of "do this or this or this". I think part of it is the hard counter philosophy... cost-effectiveness of certain units is so high against their target that it becomes boring because you have no option but making that unit. People complain that you should scout and that is a part of the game and if you lose because of that it's your fault etc etc but EVEN if you scout, it's still boring as hell, because you have no options.
Overall I think the warp-gate/chrono/inject/reactor mechanics is a big part of the problem. You take too much of the strategy part out of the game. Example: I understand that zerg is a reactive race but how many times did you see a zerg produce 70 zerglings at once in BW? Not too many cause no one had 35 larvae in stock unless they had 12 hatcheries. Now in SC2...
Also that 'no way of running from a battle' problem that someone pointed out is very annoying as well, since in the mid and late game that's (or should be) one of the best ways to measure ur opponent army size and composition. I see lots of pros throwing zealots and lings at armies to try and get some info but it's kinda retarded that the game forces you to do that.
I feel the same. Maybe a general HP boost to almost everything in the game would make things a lot more interesting, though it'd change some other aspects of the game such as the effectiveness of drop play.
Some of the points you make are good, and perhaps we'll see a bit more of these missing dynamics in HOTS. But when you make statements like this...
On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote:... What about if they get fungled? gg. Terran has marauders? gg. Toss made immortals? gg. Each of those situations requires the stalker player to micro his ass off to survive, but the Marauder, Immortal, Ling/Roach or Infestor player has to do almost nothing to smash the stalkers to pieces. This needs to change.
...it brings me back to the reality that this is just another ignorance-fueled ramble that really should be in the blogs section. Starcraft 2 is what it is. Learn to play the game as it was designed, and stop the biased whining. Sorry if I'm being harsh.
On February 01 2012 02:30 jaerak wrote: Some of the points you make are good, and perhaps we'll see a bit more of these missing dynamics in HOTS. But when you make statements like this...
On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote:... What about if they get fungled? gg. Terran has marauders? gg. Toss made immortals? gg. Each of those situations requires the stalker player to micro his ass off to survive, but the Marauder, Immortal, Ling/Roach or Infestor player has to do almost nothing to smash the stalkers to pieces. This needs to change.
...it brings me back to the reality that this is just another ignorance-fueled ramble that really should be in the blogs section. Starcraft 2 is what it is. Learn to play the game as it was designed, and stop the biased whining. Sorry if I'm being harsh.
The irony is that you are not providing any game-related argument and still thinks he is the one whining.
There are lots of no-micro vs lots-of-micro situations among all races, it just happens that he chose stalkers to give an example. If you want to explain to me how marauders are hard to micro against stalkers, go ahead.
On January 19 2012 10:33 shortsteve wrote: I disagree with everything stated in the OP. If you want to compare stats you'll find that damage in SC2 is lower compared to units in BW. The difference comes from more difficult mechanics and worse AI. Because of the easier mechanics in SC2 it's much more easier to macro. People are maxing out at the 15 minute mark while in BW it took people twice as long in order to achieve the same. This creates more fast paced action and I guess more damage all around, but it's not because units have too much firepower.
Defensive structures are also significantly buffed in SC2 compared to BW, but they seem weaker again because there are more units running around.
In terms of zoning, that's an issue that Blizzard is trying to address in HotS. They're introducing units that aren't part of the death ball to try to get more unit spread around the map. If it's successful then maybe you'll begin to notice the reduced damage going around.
I would also argue that BW had harder counters than in SC2. When you can micro 2 reavers to take out entire zerg armies it's easy to see how powerful certain units can be against others. There's nothing remotely like that in SC2. A single well placed psi-storm would annihilate a muta ball, you'd be lucky to get half health off of mutas in SC2.
The thing is...one...you can clump more units together into a deathball...which means more units can fire at a target . Take for example marines. You can clump 20marines together into one neat ball and stim and one shot mutas easily. Compared to BW where u need Medics to help your Marines along with Missile turrets to fend off Muta Harass. And you can only control 12 units at a time. So theres no easy I WIN button like in SC2.
and the more clumped up your marines are, the more effective banelings will be.
Just like Thor will force Muta to be magicboxed which in turn will make it more suspectible to stimmed marine
you can't just 1A in all situation and hope to win
see clumped marines ? withdraw mutas, send in banelings. the marines are splited ? send in mutas and lings.
You're wrong in exactly the right way. Battles should look like this, but they don't, because units die too fast and the more units you have in an engagement the less you'll lose. It's not worth it to micro like that in realistic scenarios because of the points the OP raised.
I think it's interesting what you say about "no true siege units". People so often go on about how siege tanks in sc2 are good siege units, and no other race gets them, but realistically they can't control ground on their own. I don't think EVERY race should have them, because I don't believe all races should be the exact same.
Your game sounds horrible. So... we turtle up, mass up THE good unit(since you want all units to be good vs. all units) and pretty much guarantee that we play our games BGH-style.. max armies then attack and see who wins. Does not sound fun.
I get all the parallels between BW, but what you described wouldnt be like BW. It would just be a really bad, unfun SC2.
Read the OP, skipped the rest. Firepower is not a problem. In BW, the amount of firepower was ridiculous. Storms could one-shot hydras, and tank range was ungodly. Lings were way stronger and could tear down buildings faster. Three lurkers could shred marine/medic. The idea that terran bio could ever be viable against terran mech would have been laughable.
High firepower makes micro more important, and mistakes more costly. I think SC2 has a good balance right now.
On February 01 2012 13:26 YMCApylons wrote: Read the OP, skipped the rest. Firepower is not a problem. In BW, the amount of firepower was ridiculous. Storms could one-shot hydras, and tank range was ungodly. Lings were way stronger and could tear down buildings faster. Three lurkers could shred marine/medic. The idea that terran bio could ever be viable against terran mech would have been laughable.
High firepower makes micro more important, and mistakes more costly. I think SC2 has a good balance right now.
Yeah but you forget that in BW units didn't clump up, so the firepower wasn't concentrated in a big ball of death like in SC2. And also two of your examples are regarding siege units, one of the OP points.
On February 01 2012 13:26 YMCApylons wrote: Read the OP, skipped the rest. Firepower is not a problem. In BW, the amount of firepower was ridiculous. Storms could one-shot hydras, and tank range was ungodly. Lings were way stronger and could tear down buildings faster. Three lurkers could shred marine/medic. The idea that terran bio could ever be viable against terran mech would have been laughable.
High firepower makes micro more important, and mistakes more costly. I think SC2 has a good balance right now.
A bit debatable on whether you can really micro that much against these high damage and splash units. Also, units such as the collosus don't really require that much micro imo.
I always wonder if the pros like this game. Sure it's good money and everyone likes money but really like it as in would play 8 hours a day if they wernt paid. Terrible terrible damage, BO loses and poor defenders advatage/zone control bugs me as well and I play infrequently compared to BW and other games.
I agree that there should be more zoning units in the game, and Blizzard has said they think so too, but your other complains are just whining. Starcraft has always been an unforgiving game where the circumstances of an engagement can cause one of two "equal" armies to absolutely crush the other. It's the nature of the game. Starcraft has a much lower hit point to dps ratio when compared to most other RTSs. Units die fast, move fast, and battles can be over in seconds. Whether that is a good thing or not is just a matter of opinion, and in most Starcraft fans' opinions, it is.
On February 01 2012 14:34 tdt wrote: I always wonder if the pros like this game. Sure it's good money and everyone likes money but really like it as in would play 8 hours a day if they wernt paid. Terrible terrible damage, BO loses and poor defenders advatage/zone control bugs me as well and I play infrequently compared to BW and other games.
Many don't.. At least not as much as they would like to. Cloud spoke a bit about this in the Podcast/INterview he gave after the Homestorycup (iirc).
alot of things u said is true, but the thing about units being strong against some stuff and weak against other is bs. that is actully a REALLY good thing to have in the game, it brings out a new dimension and forces players to mix out their army instead of just maxing out on the best unit, so i cant see how u can even argue in any way that it should be removed.
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.
Yeah ok, let's completely niglect that Mutas are air units that can fly with a speed faster then stimmed marines, and can cost effectively kill it's supposed to be counter unit. You know someone's ignorant when they try to discuss balance with pure supply and resources, Let's make my thors transform in to battleships with 3+ speed and bouncing damage so that i can harass?
He is speaking about things like an Immortal or, even worse, the Corruptor. Units which have very specific roles and are only viable against certain targets due to certain characteristics of themselves or their targets. This creates a nearly purely "reactive" unit... There is next to no possible situation, whiteout getting ridiculous, where you can make your Immortals truely "pay off" against Mairnes or Zerglings.. You can just try to keep em alive to break the enemies base down faster, else? They are basically useless no matter "how" you use them now. They are very one dimensional units.
Marine, Hydra and Stalkers are "better" designed... They get countered HARD by certain units and excel against others. But they still can be (very) cost effective even against their counters when attacking from an advantageous position.
Example: In general a Stalker/Colossus army will just walk over a very Hydra heavy army. But when that Hydra army is coming from 3 directions things can look very different very fast, suddenly the Hydras is kicking his counters ass because hes able to bring in his DPS.... Sadly this next to never happens thanks to retarded forcefields, mapdesign and in general to small armies... but it would at least be possible.
On February 01 2012 13:26 YMCApylons wrote: Read the OP, skipped the rest. Firepower is not a problem. In BW, the amount of firepower was ridiculous. Storms could one-shot hydras, and tank range was ungodly. Lings were way stronger and could tear down buildings faster. Three lurkers could shred marine/medic. The idea that terran bio could ever be viable against terran mech would have been laughable.
High firepower makes micro more important, and mistakes more costly. I think SC2 has a good balance right now.
Yeah but you forget that in BW units didn't clump up, so the firepower wasn't concentrated in a big ball of death like in SC2. And also two of your examples are regarding siege units, one of the OP points.
Yeah, BW units didn't move around in balls, which would basicly die to 2 storms or a few banelings (not in BW, but you get my point).
I think unit clumping is both a huge problem - and also the main reason for this feeling of insane dps. Looking at bio balls and such it's just because you have ALOT of units in range firing at the same time.
On February 01 2012 14:34 tdt wrote: I always wonder if the pros like this game. Sure it's good money and everyone likes money but really like it as in would play 8 hours a day if they wernt paid. Terrible terrible damage, BO loses and poor defenders advatage/zone control bugs me as well and I play infrequently compared to BW and other games.
Many don't.. At least not as much as they would like to. Cloud spoke a bit about this in the Podcast/INterview he gave after the Homestorycup (iirc).
Cloud is Cloud though, he's really outspoken about the flaws of SC2 and anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. Not saying he's necessarily always wrong, but still.
Well.. I have more problems finding a Pro stating that SC2 is better than WC3 or SC/BW or even a "truely good game" than finding pros that don't seem too happy with many things in it .
While I agree with quite a bit, I don't understand what people mean when they say "too much firepower" in SC2. Brood War had it in droves. Reavers, Scourge, Siege Tanks, Dragoons etc. all had very high firepower. If anything a lot of the damage in SC2 seems gimped to compensate for the better AI and UI.
Even so, talking about firepower is kind of a moot point because its just relative to everything else in the game. The zone control and defender's advantage arguments are legit though, and I would like to see SC2 develop better mechanics for these.
On February 01 2012 14:34 tdt wrote: I always wonder if the pros like this game. Sure it's good money and everyone likes money but really like it as in would play 8 hours a day if they wernt paid. Terrible terrible damage, BO loses and poor defenders advatage/zone control bugs me as well and I play infrequently compared to BW and other games.
Noone except the very top pros actually make enough money to sustain themselves on sc2 alone. If they didnt enjoy sc2 they would have quit a long time ago.
On January 18 2012 18:46 bokeevboke wrote: there is endless list of issues and flaws in sc2 design. funny that people only now started to discuss it. I was crying about it since the beginning. I hope blizzard will take some notes and improve in HotS. Otherwise I already lost interest in stacraft 2. I think these are the most important things to work on: - defender's advantage and zone controlling (this is the reason TvT is very good matchup) - unit clumping (need to spread a bit) - terrible terrible damage syndrome.
a majority of the design flaws were so extremely obvious, many people saw them at first glance. there is a however the problem that quite a few people are opposed to remove these flaws, because they think it would the game more like broodwar (which is made out to be a bad thing...). And, sadly, Blizzard belongs to these people. Instead of striving to make the best game ever, they want to reinvent the wheel with mechanics that have been prooven to be bad game design in many many other RTS games. (they are basicially arguing that a good wheel doesn't have to be round but that it can also be square.)
quite a few significant changes would have to be made to the game to take it to the next level (i.e. make it more interesting and fun to watch and play) and blizzard is afraid of this. I guess they fear to lose a lot of players or even to destroy the pro gaming community. or maybe they also just want something of their own, and not something that was created by other designers (i.e. SC/BW). maybe they really don't know what to do, because they lack the understanding of the problems. maybe it's just activision meddling with the studio, forcing them to focus their manpower on money making additions like the marketplace, add-ons that draw in casual players, etc.
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.
Yeah ok, let's completely niglect that Mutas are air units that can fly with a speed faster then stimmed marines, and can cost effectively kill it's supposed to be counter unit. You know someone's ignorant when they try to discuss balance with pure supply and resources, Let's make my thors transform in to battleships with 3+ speed and bouncing damage so that i can harass?
What the hell? Why should one unit stop a huge amount of mutalisks? If you want to stop mutas you needs turrets + thors or marines + thors. It's not rocket science.
On February 01 2012 20:05 Velr wrote: Well.. I have more problems finding a Pro stating that SC2 is better than WC3 or SC/BW or even a "truely good game" than finding pros that don't seem too happy with many things in it .
Still they don't play WC3 or SC:BW. You will always find far more people complaining about how things they are involved in are, than complaining about things that don't influence them at all.
As long as SC2 is more popular in e-sports and play, the most important factors for success are in its hands. Everything else will always be argumentations of taste.
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.
Yeah ok, let's completely niglect that Mutas are air units that can fly with a speed faster then stimmed marines, and can cost effectively kill it's supposed to be counter unit. You know someone's ignorant when they try to discuss balance with pure supply and resources, Let's make my thors transform in to battleships with 3+ speed and bouncing damage so that i can harass?
What the hell? Why should one unit stop a huge amount of mutalisks? If you want to stop mutas you needs turrets + thors or marines + thors. It's not rocket science.
and the even better argument is, that hardly anyone plays mutalisks against mass thor builds, but mass thor builds are being played succesfully against zerg. That's when you really know someone is ignorant.
On February 01 2012 19:26 Velr wrote: He is speaking about things like an Immortal or, even worse, the Corruptor. Units which have very specific roles and are only viable against certain targets due to certain characteristics of themselves or their targets. This creates a nearly purely "reactive" unit... There is next to no possible situation, whiteout getting ridiculous, where you can make your Immortals truely "pay off" against Mairnes or Zerglings.. You can just try to keep em alive to break the enemies base down faster, else? They are basically useless no matter "how" you use them now. They are very one dimensional units.
I can't think about an RTS game without such units... BW: Firebats, Valkyries, Corsairs, Scourge, Devourer, high templar, archon... The unit design of some of those is probably even worse than their SC2 counterparts. The difference is not in the unit design, but once again in the amount of units attacking in a battle. In BW less units shoot (and splash doesn't hit as many units), so the "exponential grow" component of "unit X counters unit Y" gets nearly neglected. But it has nothing to do with unit design, just with pathing and AI.
On February 01 2012 13:26 YMCApylons wrote: Read the OP, skipped the rest. Firepower is not a problem. In BW, the amount of firepower was ridiculous. Storms could one-shot hydras, and tank range was ungodly. Lings were way stronger and could tear down buildings faster. Three lurkers could shred marine/medic. The idea that terran bio could ever be viable against terran mech would have been laughable.
High firepower makes micro more important, and mistakes more costly. I think SC2 has a good balance right now.
A bit debatable on whether you can really micro that much against these high damage and splash units. Also, units such as the collosus don't really require that much micro imo.
Well because of the AI your units clump up. It means you need to spread your units out a lot before a big engagement and make sure you have a good concave. There is still micro but in different ways.
I actually disagree with almost your entire post. The game is already way too passive and turtle friendly due to things like defenders advantage and OP static defenses. Also god forbid players have to worry about counterattacks.
The way I see it, StarCraft 2 has too many hardcounters. I mean, the worse that Brood War in viable gameplay had was vulture vs ultralisk or something like that, but even the vulture had the mines... Yeah Goliaths outranged mutalisks by a stupid amount, but they dealt reduced damage to them... Ultralisks became progressively better vs marines with upgrades, but in SC2 they can downright get mauled my 3/3 marine due to shit dmg output vs light. The reaver was ridiculously powerful but was also a gamble in damage output. So it all evened out.
In SC2 we have situations like roach vs hellion, colossus vs ling, high templar vs marine etc etc Doesnt matter if you have lightning reflexes, you WILL lose your marines as damage is highest at the start of the storm.
On February 01 2012 20:34 Psychobabas wrote: The way I see it, StarCraft 2 has too many hardcounters. I mean, the worse that Brood War in viable gameplay had was vulture vs ultralisk or something like that, but even the vulture had the mines... Yeah Goliaths outranged mutalisks by a stupid amount, but they dealt reduced damage to them... Ultralisks became progressively better vs marines with upgrades, but in SC2 they can downright get mauled my 3/3 marine due to shit dmg output vs light. The reaver was ridiculously powerful but was also a gamble in damage output. So it all evened out.
In SC2 we have situations like roach vs hellion, colossus vs ling, high templar vs marine etc etc Doesnt matter if you have lightning reflexes, you WILL lose your marines as damage is highest at the start of the storm.
yeah, in BW you didnt have Reaver vs Marine, because noone was as stupid as to go Marines vs Protoss... same with bio vs Tank-Terran and other stuff...
On February 01 2012 20:34 Psychobabas wrote: The way I see it, StarCraft 2 has too many hardcounters. I mean, the worse that Brood War in viable gameplay had was vulture vs ultralisk or something like that, but even the vulture had the mines... Yeah Goliaths outranged mutalisks by a stupid amount, but they dealt reduced damage to them... Ultralisks became progressively better vs marines with upgrades, but in SC2 they can downright get mauled my 3/3 marine due to shit dmg output vs light. The reaver was ridiculously powerful but was also a gamble in damage output. So it all evened out.
In SC2 we have situations like roach vs hellion, colossus vs ling, high templar vs marine etc etc Doesnt matter if you have lightning reflexes, you WILL lose your marines as damage is highest at the start of the storm.
yeah, in BW you didnt have Reaver vs Marine, because noone was as stupid as to go Marines vs Protoss... same with bio vs Tank-Terran and other stuff...
who said anything about marine vs reaver? i said "viable gameplay"
On February 01 2012 20:34 Psychobabas wrote: The way I see it, StarCraft 2 has too many hardcounters. I mean, the worse that Brood War in viable gameplay had was vulture vs ultralisk or something like that, but even the vulture had the mines... Yeah Goliaths outranged mutalisks by a stupid amount, but they dealt reduced damage to them... Ultralisks became progressively better vs marines with upgrades, but in SC2 they can downright get mauled my 3/3 marine due to shit dmg output vs light. The BWs eaver was ridiculously powerful but was also a gamble in damage output. So it all evened out.
In SC2 we have situations like roach vs hellion, colossus vs ling, high templar vs marine etc etc Doesnt matter if you have lightning reflexes, you WILL lose your marines as damage is highest at the start of the storm.
yeah, in BW you didnt have Reaver vs Marine, because noone was as stupid as to go Marines vs Protoss... same with bio vs Tank-Terran and other stuff...
who said anything about marine vs reaver? i said "viable gameplay"
so you think it would be better if colossi/storms were even better vs bio (BW level), so that bio just becomes unplayable vs P? yeah, in bw bio vP isnt viable. the one difference is, that Im not allowed to go into the BW forum and shit all over BWs design, while evrryone who plays BW has his own thread here.
On February 01 2012 20:34 Psychobabas wrote: The way I see it, StarCraft 2 has too many hardcounters. I mean, the worse that Brood War in viable gameplay had was vulture vs ultralisk or something like that, but even the vulture had the mines... Yeah Goliaths outranged mutalisks by a stupid amount, but they dealt reduced damage to them... Ultralisks became progressively better vs marines with upgrades, but in SC2 they can downright get mauled my 3/3 marine due to shit dmg output vs light. The reaver was ridiculously powerful but was also a gamble in damage output. So it all evened out.
In SC2 we have situations like roach vs hellion, colossus vs ling, high templar vs marine etc etc Doesnt matter if you have lightning reflexes, you WILL lose your marines as damage is highest at the start of the storm.
I don't really understand how the ultra vs marine comparison fits your overall post, first you say that SC2 has too many hard counters and then say how much better it was when the ultra was a harder counter to marines in BW? Just seems like a mish-mash post of generic complaints to me, and the way SC2 handles things is of course worse by default.
Oh, and SC2 marines don't actually kill ultras when both sides are fully upgraded. They only tank damage (and kill lings) when properly spread out, you still need marauders/ghosts/tanks as damage dealers.
On February 01 2012 20:34 Psychobabas wrote: The way I see it, StarCraft 2 has too many hardcounters. I mean, the worse that Brood War in viable gameplay had was vulture vs ultralisk or something like that, but even the vulture had the mines... Yeah Goliaths outranged mutalisks by a stupid amount, but they dealt reduced damage to them... Ultralisks became progressively better vs marines with upgrades, but in SC2 they can downright get mauled my 3/3 marine due to shit dmg output vs light. The BWs eaver was ridiculously powerful but was also a gamble in damage output. So it all evened out.
In SC2 we have situations like roach vs hellion, colossus vs ling, high templar vs marine etc etc Doesnt matter if you have lightning reflexes, you WILL lose your marines as damage is highest at the start of the storm.
yeah, in BW you didnt have Reaver vs Marine, because noone was as stupid as to go Marines vs Protoss... same with bio vs Tank-Terran and other stuff...
who said anything about marine vs reaver? i said "viable gameplay"
so you think it would be better if colossi/storms were even better vs bio (BW level), so that bio just becomes unplayable vs P? yeah, in bw bio vP isnt viable. the one difference is, that Im not allowed to go into the BW forum and shit all over BWs design, while evrryone who plays BW has his own thread here.
He's talking about how in BW even units that were bad against something didn't get totally crushed. It's not true to everything, like the bio vs P example, but it's definitely true to a lot of stuff, like the vulture vs ultra example, and the fact that you could fight lurkers with marines etc.
I don't think the game should be BW with better graphics (actually that would be awesome), but I think that the overall concept design of BW should be the guideline, otherwise why call it starcraft TWO? Just call it space wars or something... I mean, just because the story continues and they're the same genre doesn't mean it's a sequel. TBH this discussion reminds me a lot the discussion about fallout 1 and 2 vs fallout 3...
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.
Yeah ok, let's completely niglect that Mutas are air units that can fly with a speed faster then stimmed marines, and can cost effectively kill it's supposed to be counter unit. You know someone's ignorant when they try to discuss balance with pure supply and resources, Let's make my thors transform in to battleships with 3+ speed and bouncing damage so that i can harass?
What the hell? Why should one unit stop a huge amount of mutalisks? If you want to stop mutas you needs turrets + thors or marines + thors. It's not rocket science.
When did i ever said that 1 unit should counter a HUGE amount of mutaliks, i was talking about it being killed cost effectively when it's supposed to counter and i was pointing out how stupid the way that he was counting balance in this case was, you're completely ignoring everything i typed, read before you answer.
Starcraft 2 in normal mode feels just like SC:BW in fast mode. Consider that. Also consider that Starcraft 2's clock and apm timings are all off, and you have to set SC2 to normal mode for apm and other clock timings to actually make any sense at all. Consider these things
On February 01 2012 20:31 Iksf wrote: I actually disagree with almost your entire post. The game is already way too passive and turtle friendly due to things like defenders advantage and OP static defenses. Also god forbid players have to worry about counterattacks.
Troll?
While you have a point in games being too passive, I think defenders advantage is a joke for both Z and P
On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote:4 Zealots can hold off a 2mara, 4 rines drop if you don't stutter micro it.
I know theres a ton of good arguements in that post. But I would like to focus on just this bit.
I just did some testing, and 4 zealots do not kill a drop of 2 marauders and 4 marines. Not even close.
No micro from either side except stim (and no one drops and don't stim). 4 zealots without speed leaves 4 marines and 1 marauder alive. 4 zealots with speed leaves 2 marines and 1 marauder alive. And if you start warping inn zealots on top of the drop (which is the most likely scenario, as no one has zealots lying around waiting for a drop to happen on top of them) not a single terran unit dies.
On February 01 2012 20:31 Iksf wrote: I actually disagree with almost your entire post. The game is already way too passive and turtle friendly due to things like defenders advantage and OP static defenses. Also god forbid players have to worry about counterattacks.
Troll?
While you have a point in games being too passive, I think defenders advantage is a joke for both Z and P
This is exactly why this game is so passive. Rubbish static defenses means you have to keep your army at home the entire time, as moving out before you get that big army usually means suicide. Terran is the only race with good static defenses, like planetarys, almost free bunkers, siege tanks and sesnro towers. Which is why terran can be active the entire game, while protoss more often than not has to sit home and defend, even if he has the army lead.
On February 01 2012 20:31 Iksf wrote: I actually disagree with almost your entire post. The game is already way too passive and turtle friendly due to things like defenders advantage and OP static defenses. Also god forbid players have to worry about counterattacks.
Troll?
While you have a point in games being too passive, I think defenders advantage is a joke for both Z and P
zergs defenders advantage is pretty huge. you always have all your units where you need them, due to their speed and creep. also with larvamechanics you can just outgrow your opponent if you can just slow him down. for P, yeah it's not that great. defensive forcefields are only to stall out and canons are still not good enough against concentrated attacks to allow for a more active P balancing.
terran on the other hand has already a bit too much imo, so that P and Z balancing has to be forced to be very defensivly or allinish.
It's not rubbish static defense. It's the lack of untis with "defensive" power.. Like the Lurker, "old" High Templars and Reavers, Siegetanks....
Static defenses were more or less the same in SC/BW, (Toss is stronger in SC2 but lacks support, Zerg "feels" weaker.. But thats hard to say whiteout Lurkers which were just absolutely integral...).
Conclusion: Stalkers I personally feel that Stalkers are one of the most well designed units in the entire game. They don't kill things exceptionally fast, really gain a heavy edge in terms of your ability to micro them and even have an upgrade that lets them become extremely strong in the hands of a skilled player. Have you ever lost to a player using a lot of stalkers (outside of allins) where it felt awful and terrible? Where it felt like there was nothing you could do he just clicked a couple of buttons and autowon? I haven't.
Actually, every fucking ZvP? I have to overcommit to countering one unit (collosus) with units that are terrible against stalkers late game (roaches are BAD against stalkers late game, corrupters are useless). Blink is AMAZING (why can't I burrow and unburrow INSTANTLY under collosus? THEY have force field and I don't...)
So basically unless I am SO ahead that I literally engage in their base, kill every single t3 unit and then remax on lings hydras and roaches before I lose all my bases, there's no way I can beat protoss. I have to be 3 bases ahead to get broodlords without just losing to him walking by and sniping every base with blink stalkers while he gets a mothership and archons. I agree with your post but there's a lot more problems than that in the game and Stalkers are one of the most versatile unit in the game, unmatched in the late game, and its terrible.
On February 01 2012 22:06 Velr wrote: It's not rubbish static defense. It's the lack of untis with "defensive" power.. Like the Lurker, "old" High Templars and Reavers, Siegetanks....
Static defenses were more or less the same in SC/BW, (Toss is stronger in SC2 but lacks support, Zerg "feels" weaker.. But thats hard to say whiteout Lurkers which were just absolutely integral...).
I don't agree with anything the op has to say, but i will agree that there need to be more interesting units in the game, for example more blink stalkers, and more phoenixs. I think that, the more you enter interesting units into the game, more units that have a high skill cap, the better the game will be, however i think that the op as a general rule is pretty poor. Not a whole heap of content there.
On January 18 2012 20:23 TotheSky wrote: 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.
Oh god i love you. Its very refreshing to see that someone isn't going to bitch and complain about the game, but rather adapt to it and not compare it to bw. Because at the end of the day, the game is much heavier counter attack based play than bw (in my experience).
I really liked the OP. I do not agree with all of his points but do agree that there seems to be something wrong with the current state of SC2.
Personally, in a make believe world, I think that the game should be slowed down a bit. Units should do less damage and minerals should be mined a little slower. That will give players the opportunity to control the game in a way that is more fun for the player and the viewer. Just my opinion.
I hear what the OP is saying but really I cannot agree with the serious design changes he's proposing.
Essentially most of this would mean less harras and whoever has the most units wins and you would usually have a straight up battle in the middle with one side slowly emerging as the victor. Seems to me that you're removing alot of the strategy so that the game more often flows in the same way, less variation. More so the direction you propose is clearly your own preference and nothing you've stated can be agreed on by all as being a true flaw in the game.
You wish SC2 had less firepower and that static defenses were stronger but that's just your STYLE and are not flaws in the game. You prefer not to be harrased at the mineral line or not lose 20 workers because you were not paying attention. In that case I reccomend you play the Supreme Commander series. That's more the game you just described. Very good game too!
For the most part I agree with OP, having played BW I felt like SC2 has to much firepower and hard counters. Felt like that since day 1, in BW you really had to work in order to kill a main, now you can snipe it easily with 4 marauders.
On January 18 2012 18:46 bokeevboke wrote: there is endless list of issues and flaws in sc2 design. funny that people only now started to discuss it. I was crying about it since the beginning. I hope blizzard will take some notes and improve in HotS. Otherwise I already lost interest in stacraft 2. I think these are the most important things to work on: - defender's advantage and zone controlling (this is the reason TvT is very good matchup) - unit clumping (need to spread a bit) - terrible terrible damage syndrome.
TvT is a good matchup? you must not play terran, friend. I can't tell you how many times it's come to the same Viking/tank wars that are drawn out to 35-40 minutes. I'm okay with a semi long game every once in a while but as it stands you either win by cheese or by playing tank wars all about positioning and how many tanks you can pump out. Every time I play a TvT I want to ragequit, not because I'm not good at using tank/viking play but because it's extremely stale and boring.
Based on this, I think you should play WC3: RoC. Not the expansion, the original. Everything was mediocre and did mediocre damage to everything.
As is, I think the problem is the opposite of what you do. Units are too general. The large, AoE stuff isn't "explosive" enough. Colossi are stupid. Tanks kinda suck vs. P. Hellions don't micro right. Marines shouldn't be able to walk over everything.
BW was built on hard counters and units sucking vs. some stuff but being great vs. other stuff. You want it to go one way, I want it to go the other.
One thing I agree about is zoning (at least for T. Zergs are extremely mobile; they don't need to "zone" in the same way T and P do, and P have FF), which is why I'm looking forward to HotS.
On February 02 2012 01:25 GeorgeForeman wrote: Based on this, I think you should play WC3: RoC. Not the expansion, the original. Everything was mediocre and did mediocre damage to everything.
As is, I think the problem is the opposite of what you do. Units are too general. The large, AoE stuff isn't "explosive" enough. Colossi are stupid. Tanks kinda suck vs. P. Hellions don't micro right. Marines shouldn't be able to walk over everything.
BW was built on hard counters and units sucking vs. some stuff but being great vs. other stuff. You want it to go one way, I want it to go the other.
One thing I agree about is zoning (at least for T. Zergs are extremely mobile; they don't need to "zone" in the same way T and P do, and P have FF), which is why I'm looking forward to HotS.
PFs, tanks, turrets and bunkers want to have a word with you.
The thing that annoyed me when SC2 came out was Void Rays vs. Protoss. The two obvious 'counters' was Stalkers or your own Void Rays.... but those are both armored which Void Rays did bonus damage against. Sentries and Phoenix did miniscule damage. If the someone had enough VRs that you wanted to specifically counter them, you're almost certainly already behind in building your own fleet of Void Rays. Stalkers weren't terrible... unless the Void Rays got to full charge.
Just seemed silly that the 'counter' to something that does bonus damage against an armor type is to build units that have the same armor type and will thus take more damage from what you're trying to stop. It happens with other units, but that was the one that always stuck in my mind.
Blizzard's pretty intelligent. Should be interesting to see how HotS turns out once the community has its hands on it.
On February 02 2012 01:25 GeorgeForeman wrote: Based on this, I think you should play WC3: RoC. Not the expansion, the original. Everything was mediocre and did mediocre damage to everything.
As is, I think the problem is the opposite of what you do. Units are too general. The large, AoE stuff isn't "explosive" enough. Colossi are stupid. Tanks kinda suck vs. P. Hellions don't micro right. Marines shouldn't be able to walk over everything.
BW was built on hard counters and units sucking vs. some stuff but being great vs. other stuff. You want it to go one way, I want it to go the other.
One thing I agree about is zoning (at least for T. Zergs are extremely mobile; they don't need to "zone" in the same way T and P do, and P have FF), which is why I'm looking forward to HotS.
I agree with this.
If the OP had its way, any matchup would be like the awful and degenerated state that PvZ is in with 2 base +3 blink stalkers vs. 3 base roaches until one side overwhelms the other.
On February 01 2012 23:14 drgoats wrote: I really liked the OP. I do not agree with all of his points but do agree that there seems to be something wrong with the current state of SC2.
Personally, in a make believe world, I think that the game should be slowed down a bit. Units should do less damage and minerals should be mined a little slower. That will give players the opportunity to control the game in a way that is more fun for the player and the viewer. Just my opinion.
This. So much of this.
A 15min game where the only noteworthy points of contention are a 2 barracks pressure followed by 1 deciding 2base push is a waste of time as a viewer.
Back and forth games where more small things contribute a victor makes for exciting games. A stalemate where suddenly one party gets a massive lead which is nearly impossible to come back from is boring.
In a way, this is also part of the reason why you see so much fluctuation in top-end players in SC2. I'm not saying skill doesn't count, but the current SC2 allows lesser-skilled players to more easily 'steal' games off of better players. I believe this is one of the main reasons idra doesn't like sc2 when compared to BW.
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.
The OP isn't about not liking the design of SC2 compared to BW, it's about flaws in the design which BW didn't have. Going back to BW won't remove those issues from SC2.
what about the countless flaws broodwar did have at a pro level ?
most of the time you are seeing great ( long ) games at the pro level unless there is a great separation in skill between the players...
I agree with this for the most part. I however think there needs to be other changes that increase defensive advantage for players instead of simply buffing the stats on the static defences. Things similar in design to the 'turn any buiding into a cannon' that they were toying with in HotS.
Stronger defensive/zoning units also appear to be their goal with HotS, at least for T and Z, so I've got a degree of trust that they know where the biggest flaw in their game is, and are working on it.
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.
The OP isn't about not liking the design of SC2 compared to BW, it's about flaws in the design which BW didn't have. Going back to BW won't remove those issues from SC2.
what about the countless flaws broodwar did have at a pro level ?
most of the time you are seeing great ( long ) games at the pro level unless there is a great separation in skill between the players...
Most of the time we are seeing long games at the pro level which have been pretty close to decided in the first five minutes.
On January 18 2012 18:46 bokeevboke wrote: there is endless list of issues and flaws in sc2 design. funny that people only now started to discuss it. I was crying about it since the beginning. I hope blizzard will take some notes and improve in HotS. Otherwise I already lost interest in stacraft 2. I think these are the most important things to work on: - defender's advantage and zone controlling (this is the reason TvT is very good matchup) - unit clumping (need to spread a bit) - terrible terrible damage syndrome.
TvT is a good matchup? you must not play terran, friend. I can't tell you how many times it's come to the same Viking/tank wars that are drawn out to 35-40 minutes. I'm okay with a semi long game every once in a while but as it stands you either win by cheese or by playing tank wars all about positioning and how many tanks you can pump out. Every time I play a TvT I want to ragequit, not because I'm not good at using tank/viking play but because it's extremely stale and boring.
If you find that boring just go bio, there's multiple ways to play it and are all effective
On January 18 2012 18:46 bokeevboke wrote: there is endless list of issues and flaws in sc2 design. funny that people only now started to discuss it. I was crying about it since the beginning. I hope blizzard will take some notes and improve in HotS. Otherwise I already lost interest in stacraft 2. I think these are the most important things to work on: - defender's advantage and zone controlling (this is the reason TvT is very good matchup) - unit clumping (need to spread a bit) - terrible terrible damage syndrome.
TvT is a good matchup? you must not play terran, friend. I can't tell you how many times it's come to the same Viking/tank wars that are drawn out to 35-40 minutes. I'm okay with a semi long game every once in a while but as it stands you either win by cheese or by playing tank wars all about positioning and how many tanks you can pump out. Every time I play a TvT I want to ragequit, not because I'm not good at using tank/viking play but because it's extremely stale and boring.
Actually tank/viking rarely happens at higher levels of play. If you want proof, just watch a bit of GomTvT. It depends on the map but it can be pretty easy to maneuver around and vikings are terrible fighting units, so you wanna avoid making them unless you have no alternative. An aggressive style of marine/tank or just pure bio is much more effective as long as you retain map control and punish your opponent whenever he tries to move around unsieged, which shouldn't be too hard considering your superior mobility.
On January 18 2012 18:46 bokeevboke wrote: there is endless list of issues and flaws in sc2 design. funny that people only now started to discuss it. I was crying about it since the beginning. I hope blizzard will take some notes and improve in HotS. Otherwise I already lost interest in stacraft 2. I think these are the most important things to work on: - defender's advantage and zone controlling (this is the reason TvT is very good matchup) - unit clumping (need to spread a bit) - terrible terrible damage syndrome.
TvT is a good matchup? you must not play terran, friend. I can't tell you how many times it's come to the same Viking/tank wars that are drawn out to 35-40 minutes. I'm okay with a semi long game every once in a while but as it stands you either win by cheese or by playing tank wars all about positioning and how many tanks you can pump out. Every time I play a TvT I want to ragequit, not because I'm not good at using tank/viking play but because it's extremely stale and boring.
Actually tank/viking rarely happens at higher levels of play. If you want proof, just watch a bit of GomTvT. It depends on the map but it can be pretty easy to maneuver around and vikings are terrible fighting units, so you wanna avoid making them unless you have no alternative. An aggressive style of marine/tank or just pure bio is much more effective as long as you retain map control and punish your opponent whenever he tries to move around unsieged, which shouldn't be too hard considering your superior mobility.
Tank/Marine (=bio vs bio opening) does exactly the same. tankline stalemates. gladly mech and bio both are strong enough, that we do see the one actionoriented (bio vs mech) "MU" pretty often out of the 3possibilities (mech v mech, bio v mech, tank/marine v tank/marine)
so yeah, TvT is great to watch, but so tankdominated, that what he said always is true: it's annoyingly long MU to play on equal level, due to statics. Yet I wouldnt want it any other way as a viewer :-)
On January 18 2012 18:46 bokeevboke wrote: there is endless list of issues and flaws in sc2 design. funny that people only now started to discuss it. I was crying about it since the beginning. I hope blizzard will take some notes and improve in HotS. Otherwise I already lost interest in stacraft 2. I think these are the most important things to work on: - defender's advantage and zone controlling (this is the reason TvT is very good matchup) - unit clumping (need to spread a bit) - terrible terrible damage syndrome.
This dead horse has been mercilessly beaten since beta. Hell, the horse has been dead since beta.
On February 02 2012 08:13 FuRRyChoBo wrote: I've been saying what OP says since I first saw fungal+banes. Way too much AoE damage, way too many "hard counter" units.
and yet out of all the "counters" you pick the two that are probably the ones with the most universal uses and led to some of the most interesting dynamics in SC2. (banelingsplits vs marine splits, tanktargetfire and ling/bling wars; banelingdrops and fungal as anti clump, detection, anti air. landmines and infestors for zone control etc...) banelings a barely efficient against marines in marine/tank compositions and against lings and other blings. still we do see them against a lot of things due to universalness. on the other hand fungals can be pretty great against nearly everything, so they are far away from being specific counters.
I dont think you have actually thought through what more powerful static defense would do. The reason people use greedy builds is because they want to build an economy while building as few units as possible.
If suddenly zerg, for example can easily hold off attacks with pure spine crawler, the obvious optimal macro strategy is to just expand as quickly as possible and turn every larva into a drone. Zerg players would build far fewer units than they do at the moment. Likewise for protoss and terran.
On February 02 2012 08:33 BronzeLeague wrote: I dont think you have actually thought through what more powerful static defense would do. The reason people use greedy builds is because they want to build an economy while building as few units as possible.
If suddenly zerg, for example can easily hold off attacks with pure spine crawler, the obvious optimal macro strategy is to just expand as quickly as possible and turn every larva into a drone. Zerg players would build far fewer units than they do at the moment. Likewise for protoss and terran.
If they did that though, Protoss and Terran would play in a similar fashion: throwing down ridiculously unsafe expansions because they can cannon/bunker it up after, and powerful timing attacks would become ultra-viable.
He's not suggesting that you can defend with just static defense, but that static defense becomes more effective than it is at the moment. You should be able to hold off a larger force in the early/midgame with static defense present, but only if you actually commit to defending. Note that some tech in the game makes static defense worthless, like siege tanks, colossi with range, brood lords etc., and that there are entire ways to avoid static defense (drops, nydus worms, flying, etc.). What stronger static defense does is weaken rushes and make tech more important.
On February 02 2012 08:33 BronzeLeague wrote: I dont think you have actually thought through what more powerful static defense would do. The reason people use greedy builds is because they want to build an economy while building as few units as possible.
If suddenly zerg, for example can easily hold off attacks with pure spine crawler, the obvious optimal macro strategy is to just expand as quickly as possible and turn every larva into a drone. Zerg players would build far fewer units than they do at the moment. Likewise for protoss and terran.
If they did that though, Protoss and Terran would play in a similar fashion: throwing down ridiculously unsafe expansions because they can cannon/bunker it up after, and powerful timing attacks would become ultra-viable.
I thought protoss were already doing that to a certain extent? Forge first expands work exactly as they do, because the Cannon alone works perfectly fine against many zerg builds.
Fact is balancing static defences is always pretty hard for the game designers. They need to be cost effective or no one would build them, but by the same token they need to be weak after a certain point or everyone would just turtle behind them.
Frankly i dislike the metagame shift in ZvP where Zergs turtle behind 20 Spines to get a broodlord ball out. Imho it shows that Zerg static defense is already too strong.
Ps: Aside from it's obvious weakness against air and units that outrange static defense, there is almost nothing that can break a Spinecrawler wall cost effectively if they are supported by Queens. That was what made the Spanishiwa builds work for a while, but you can hardly attack with Spinecrawlers which is why most people stopped playing them.
I think this is an important thread. And I really hope Blizzard reads it.
SC2 is a game of numbers, and it should be a game of creativity. I think that if you reduce the hardcounters in the game, you would increase the possibility of creativity. The games looks the same, no matter who is playing. The difference is mostly in the numbers. It should be more about clever positioning and forethought, like chess. Chess is a superior strategy game imo. Its no where as fun to watch though. But all the pieces fill a role, and no one piece works alone. And its all about zoning and pushing in a methodical way, using a grand plan, and adapting to the unforseen. SC2 should be more like chess.
Also like chess, i guess, you need more time to be methodical. And the point about unit speed and dps in BW vs SC2 is a good point of the OP.
they could probably just slow down the attack speed of all the units... i think the game was designed to be played at normal speed but then they realized that was to slow for it to be interesting so i think they just need to mess with the scale
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.
Not to rain on your enthusiasm, but the better change would be to increase Thor anti air fire rate and decrease damage per volley. If you increase Thor air splash, then magic boxing stops working. I heartfully agree though, imho photon cannons are glass cannons. The damage is good, but they have less hp than a damn pylon. Other changes are not so obvious to me, but there might be room for improvement anyway *crossfinger for HotS*.
i think in the bigger picture, some of the skill placed in micro during the battle has transferred over to skill in making the right engagements. this makes positioning, terrain and timing an even bigger factor in the outcome of a battle, and i'm perfectly fine with that. most players would rather A-move their army and fight a slow battle where they could micro to their heart's content, and if blizzard decided to go in this direction, i wont really complain either. what's important is that whether it's during battle or just before, the better skilled player can make the right decisions to control the outcome of the battle more often than not
fairly decent assessment although not really sound as a lot of your conclusions are brought on by your perception.
I will agree that most all units should be more in line with stalkers (worst dps per cost by a fairly absurd margin) and static defenses should be buffed.
Trying to equalize units and buffing static defenses also helps maps, and reduces the never ending feel that maps just need to be 'bigger', which just creates larger game flaws / 'imbalances'.
On February 02 2012 08:33 BronzeLeague wrote: I dont think you have actually thought through what more powerful static defense would do. The reason people use greedy builds is because they want to build an economy while building as few units as possible.
If suddenly zerg, for example can easily hold off attacks with pure spine crawler, the obvious optimal macro strategy is to just expand as quickly as possible and turn every larva into a drone. Zerg players would build far fewer units than they do at the moment. Likewise for protoss and terran.
If they did that though, Protoss and Terran would play in a similar fashion: throwing down ridiculously unsafe expansions because they can cannon/bunker it up after, and powerful timing attacks would become ultra-viable.
I thought protoss were already doing that to a certain extent? Forge first expands work exactly as they do, because the Cannon alone works perfectly fine against many zerg builds.
Fact is balancing static defences is always pretty hard for the game designers. They need to be cost effective or no one would build them, but by the same token they need to be weak after a certain point or everyone would just turtle behind them.
Frankly i dislike the metagame shift in ZvP where Zergs turtle behind 20 Spines to get a broodlord ball out. Imho it shows that Zerg static defense is already too strong.
Ps: Aside from it's obvious weakness against air and units that outrange static defense, there is almost nothing that can break a Spinecrawler wall cost effectively if they are supported by Queens. That was what made the Spanishiwa builds work for a while, but you can hardly attack with Spinecrawlers which is why most people stopped playing them.
Not quite. FFE works not because of the strength of a cannon, but because of the strength of a wall off with a cannon or two combined against early game zerg. Note that it is far insufficient to just rely on cannons (you need sentries too to hold all-ins), and it won't help you take a third. It's also useless against protoss and terran.
I don't like how in SC2, you need a large amount of a particular unit to do anything useful ( there are exceptions but I am mostly referring to the tier 1 level units) where instead of little micro skirmishes, big balls of units with less micro just go at it because anything else is a waste of units. For example, in BW a small squad of lings would be a relatively considerable threat depending on the situation. In SC2, you need about 24 lings before you can really do anything potentially worth the while.
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.
disagree, these are specific issues o.o and pointing out issues and suggesting design changes... u can't suggest design changes without pointing out specific issues, so what do u mean?
On February 02 2012 01:23 NoctemSC wrote: TvT is a good matchup? you must not play terran, friend. I can't tell you how many times it's come to the same Viking/tank wars that are drawn out to 35-40 minutes. I'm okay with a semi long game every once in a while but as it stands you either win by cheese or by playing tank wars all about positioning and how many tanks you can pump out. Every time I play a TvT I want to ragequit, not because I'm not good at using tank/viking play but because it's extremely stale and boring.
You just described exactly why TvT is fun and the best mirror. It's (usually) a slower paced, positional game that is the polar opposite of the deathball nonsense we get in Protoss play for instance. Instead of bashing armies into each other in single decisive engagements, you can end up trading a lot of units for minimal ground gain in an effort to slowly move into an ideal position, and a single bad engagement doesn't usually mean the game is over because of the strength of defender's advantage. You get the most thoughtful engagements, the most potential for comeback, and some of the most well-developed play in TvT. Maybe you should race switch or something.
On February 02 2012 01:23 NoctemSC wrote: TvT is a good matchup? you must not play terran, friend. I can't tell you how many times it's come to the same Viking/tank wars that are drawn out to 35-40 minutes. I'm okay with a semi long game every once in a while but as it stands you either win by cheese or by playing tank wars all about positioning and how many tanks you can pump out. Every time I play a TvT I want to ragequit, not because I'm not good at using tank/viking play but because it's extremely stale and boring.
You just described exactly why TvT is fun and the best mirror. It's (usually) a slower paced, positional game that is the polar opposite of the deathball nonsense we get in Protoss play for instance. Instead of bashing armies into each other in single decisive engagements, you can end up trading a lot of units for minimal ground gain in an effort to slowly move into an ideal position, and a single bad engagement doesn't usually mean the game is over because of the strength of defender's advantage. You get the most thoughtful engagements, the most potential for comeback, and some of the most well-developed play in TvT. Maybe you should race switch or something.
Highly agreed. TvT is a really good match up. It's just some of the maps make it not that interesting to play on (shak for example is really easy to split, making the strategy on it stale)
And btw tank/viking is not the only way to play. You're missing out on like 90% of the other units. Marine, hellion, marauder, raven, banshee, medivac, ghost, reaper, thor, battlecruiser
Pretty much every single Terran unit is useful and can be used for its own specific purpose in TvT. TvT is really quite beautiful. TvT and TvZ best matchups to me.
On January 18 2012 18:46 bokeevboke wrote: there is endless list of issues and flaws in sc2 design. funny that people only now started to discuss it. I was crying about it since the beginning. I hope blizzard will take some notes and improve in HotS. Otherwise I already lost interest in stacraft 2. I think these are the most important things to work on: - defender's advantage and zone controlling (this is the reason TvT is very good matchup) - unit clumping (need to spread a bit) - terrible terrible damage syndrome.
TvT is a good matchup? you must not play terran, friend. I can't tell you how many times it's come to the same Viking/tank wars that are drawn out to 35-40 minutes. I'm okay with a semi long game every once in a while but as it stands you either win by cheese or by playing tank wars all about positioning and how many tanks you can pump out. Every time I play a TvT I want to ragequit, not because I'm not good at using tank/viking play but because it's extremely stale and boring.
I think all mirror match-ups have their issues although ZvZ is getting better and better for me (more than just 4 min long games...). Just a though but wouldn't a Raven seaker missle wreak havoc on a viking tank mix? What level are you playing at? seems weird to me that TvT would always be tank/viking but ima zerg....
On January 18 2012 18:46 bokeevboke wrote: there is endless list of issues and flaws in sc2 design. funny that people only now started to discuss it. I was crying about it since the beginning. I hope blizzard will take some notes and improve in HotS. Otherwise I already lost interest in stacraft 2. I think these are the most important things to work on: - defender's advantage and zone controlling (this is the reason TvT is very good matchup) - unit clumping (need to spread a bit) - terrible terrible damage syndrome.
TvT is a good matchup? you must not play terran, friend. I can't tell you how many times it's come to the same Viking/tank wars that are drawn out to 35-40 minutes. I'm okay with a semi long game every once in a while but as it stands you either win by cheese or by playing tank wars all about positioning and how many tanks you can pump out. Every time I play a TvT I want to ragequit, not because I'm not good at using tank/viking play but because it's extremely stale and boring.
I think all mirror match-ups have their issues although ZvZ is getting better and better for me (more than just 4 min long games...). Just a though but wouldn't a Raven seaker missle wreak havoc on a viking tank mix? What level are you playing at? seems weird to me that TvT would always be tank/viking but ima zerg....
I think the main problem is that keeping your army in a ball is way more beneficial than splitting them up. The maps also don't help this (GSL is doing a good job of changing up the maps so it works better) but a lot of the maps are kinda "middle oriented" where the middle is basically the best position on the map and whoever controls it is in control of the whole game. Shattered temple, Xel'naga caverns, metalopolis, and Shakuras are all like this, where the only way to get into the other guys base besides the middle are from drops. This makes it easier to defend your bases (though players still have a lot of trouble with drop defense), so drops aren't as likely to do much damage. The best way to play the game is to just get a huge army and try to control the middle of the map, and it makes very dull, uninteresting games.
On February 02 2012 16:37 IMoperator wrote: I think the main problem is that keeping your army in a ball is way more beneficial than splitting them up. The maps also don't help this (GSL is doing a good job of changing up the maps so it works better) but a lot of the maps are kinda "middle oriented" where the middle is basically the best position on the map and whoever controls it is in control of the whole game. Shattered temple, Xel'naga caverns, metalopolis, and Shakuras are all like this, where the only way to get into the other guys base besides the middle are from drops. This makes it easier to defend your bases (though players still have a lot of trouble with drop defense), so drops aren't as likely to do much damage. The best way to play the game is to just get a huge army and try to control the middle of the map, and it makes very dull, uninteresting games.
It makes TvT especially boring... basically getting the center gives you such a huge advantage (especially cus you have such a great defender's advantage in TvT due to tanks, turrets, sensor towers, etc, etc) that it is really hard to lose. The other terran has to fight such a big uphill battle.
You sir deserve a medal, since you're speaking from my heart.
This should be recognized by Blizzard as a well written critic on their gamedesign and I hope we will have a day to remember in SC2 when the "overall dmg nerf" patch hits the servers
On February 02 2012 19:10 ch4ppi wrote: You sir deserve a medal, since you're speaking from my heart.
This should be recognized by Blizzard as a well written critic on their gamedesign and I hope we will have a day to remember in SC2 when the "overall dmg nerf" patch hits the servers
the "overall dmg nerf" patch was BW-->SC2.
I really don't think they should patch a lot more in that direction. They should rather give the players better options to develope a more "unitsquad"-friendly metagame. Meaning emphasizing on microable units and compositions. Meaning emphasizing on mobile strategies. Meaning emphasizing on Protoss defense. Meaning emphasizing on units that don't work to well together, but still work well. Meaning emphasizing on giving all races (not only terran) strategic options.
Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW ....
All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP.
Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW ....
All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP.
How do you want to predict that HotS won't just have a metagame in which Protoss is always warping in at the front because they can never ever lose an army as long as their nexus has 75energy and therefore they can just be aggressive with every single unit, in groups or not? How you're going to predict that zerg isn't one base swarm host/zergling rushing evergame, because they are guaranteed dmg, because if properly played they cant be beaten open field and therefore get a free siege. How do you predict that possible shredder drops just make good saturation a big gamble in vT, while mass expanding gets pretty easy due to mech builds?
The damage in BW was lower out of 2reasons: metagame and nonclumping. You simply can't predict what happens if SC2 turns more into a aggressionbased game (with very small units), than the sit back, macro up that is the general guideline right now.
Personally I don't believe that damage nerfs are the way to go. Like it's been pointed out, it will reduce the efficiency of small attack groups like drops or infestors or dts or warp-ins or runbys etc. and the game could turn out to become a big roach vs stalker battle. Because those are the units that already follow the "low dps, high HP"-path and make for some of the most boring battles, while other high dps/low HP unit battles like marines vs banelings are amongst the best things that ever happened in this game. So in conclusion: just because he has some arguments for it, doesn't mean that the counterarguments couldn't just overwhelm them... There is absolutly no way to make "roach vs stalker" battles interesting, without a lot of micro abilities like FFs, blink, Fungal, burrow and high dps units like zerglings mixed in.
Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW ....
All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP.
How do you want to predict that HotS won't just have a metagame in which Protoss is always warping in at the front because they can never ever lose an army as long as their nexus has 75energy and therefore they can just be aggressive with every single unit, in groups or not? How you're going to predict that zerg isn't one base swarm host/zergling rushing evergame, because they are guaranteed dmg, because if properly played they cant be beaten open field and therefore get a free siege. How do you predict that possible shredder drops just make good saturation a big gamble in vT, while mass expanding gets pretty easy due to mech builds?
The damage in BW was lower out of 2reasons: metagame and nonclumping. You simply can't predict what happens if SC2 turns more into a aggressionbased game (with very small units), than the sit back, macro up that is the general guideline right now.
Personally I don't believe that damage nerfs are the way to go. Like it's been pointed out, it will reduce the efficiency of small attack groups like drops or infestors or dts or warp-ins or runbys etc. and the game could turn out to become a big roach vs stalker battle. Because those are the units that already follow the "low dps, high HP"-path and make for some of the most boring battles, while other high dps/low HP unit battles like marines vs banelings are amongst the best things that ever happened in this game. So in conclusion: just because he has some arguments for it, doesn't mean that the counterarguments couldn't just overwhelm them... There is absolutly no way to make "roach vs stalker" battles interesting, without a lot of micro abilities like FFs, blink, Fungal, burrow and high dps units like zerglings mixed in.
How come lowering the DPS would make small groups useless? I disagree. Think about how many shots it take for a marine to kill a drone in BW. Does this means marines are useless in small groups against Z? Far from that. But I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples:
- Reaver drops: you could clear an entire mineral line in 2 shots, but It required a lot of micro and if you lost your shuttle, it's a pretty big hit. It was a high risk high reward play. Micro required: drop in key positions and pickup after 1 shot, repeat after every shot.
- Vulture drop/run-by: you could also clear an entir mineral line in a few seconds, but it needed to micro the vultures away from workers so they dont get trapped, and also mine the path that reinforcements will likely take, so as to prevent them from taking your vultures down. That's a lot of micro right there. Now let's see some SC2 situations:
- Marauder/Marine drops:you can clear an entire mineral line/snipe a key building. Micro required: stimpack.
- Zealot drop: you can't do too much, unless your opponent is v bad or you're doing many attacks at once. Micro required: pretty much non-existant.
Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW ....
All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP.
How do you want to predict that HotS won't just have a metagame in which Protoss is always warping in at the front because they can never ever lose an army as long as their nexus has 75energy and therefore they can just be aggressive with every single unit, in groups or not? How you're going to predict that zerg isn't one base swarm host/zergling rushing evergame, because they are guaranteed dmg, because if properly played they cant be beaten open field and therefore get a free siege. How do you predict that possible shredder drops just make good saturation a big gamble in vT, while mass expanding gets pretty easy due to mech builds?
The damage in BW was lower out of 2reasons: metagame and nonclumping. You simply can't predict what happens if SC2 turns more into a aggressionbased game (with very small units), than the sit back, macro up that is the general guideline right now.
Personally I don't believe that damage nerfs are the way to go. Like it's been pointed out, it will reduce the efficiency of small attack groups like drops or infestors or dts or warp-ins or runbys etc. and the game could turn out to become a big roach vs stalker battle. Because those are the units that already follow the "low dps, high HP"-path and make for some of the most boring battles, while other high dps/low HP unit battles like marines vs banelings are amongst the best things that ever happened in this game. So in conclusion: just because he has some arguments for it, doesn't mean that the counterarguments couldn't just overwhelm them... There is absolutly no way to make "roach vs stalker" battles interesting, without a lot of micro abilities like FFs, blink, Fungal, burrow and high dps units like zerglings mixed in.
How come lowering the DPS would make small groups useless? I disagree. Think about how many shots it take for a marine to kill a drone in BW. Does this means marines are useless in small groups against Z? Far from that. But I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples:
- Reaver drops: you could clear an entire mineral line in 2 shots, but It required a lot of micro and if you lost your shuttle, it's a pretty big hit. It was a high risk high reward play. Micro required: drop in key positions and pickup after 1 shot, repeat after every shot.
- Vulture drop/run-by: you could also clear an entir mineral line in a few seconds, but it needed to micro the vultures away from workers so they dont get trapped, and also mine the path that reinforcements will likely take, so as to prevent them from taking your vultures down. That's a lot of micro right there. Now let's see some SC2 situations:
- Marauder/Marine drops:you can clear an entire mineral line/snipe a key building. Micro required: stimpack.
- Zealot drop: you can't do too much, unless your opponent is v bad or you're doing many attacks at once. Micro required: pretty much non-existant.
See the difference?
Did you even read what I wrote: I said BW had more dps. I wrote that lowering dps could be bad.
And then you give me examples of the reaver and the vulture, two units with extremly high dps/HP-relations, even in a BW context, and how they were so much "better" than the lower dps units like marines, marauders and zealots when being droped. You are making my point! Nevertheless I want to point out here, that BW is so different due to pathing/AI, that I don't think comparing stats makes a lot of sense to begin with.
Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW ....
All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP.
How do you want to predict that HotS won't just have a metagame in which Protoss is always warping in at the front because they can never ever lose an army as long as their nexus has 75energy and therefore they can just be aggressive with every single unit, in groups or not? How you're going to predict that zerg isn't one base swarm host/zergling rushing evergame, because they are guaranteed dmg, because if properly played they cant be beaten open field and therefore get a free siege. How do you predict that possible shredder drops just make good saturation a big gamble in vT, while mass expanding gets pretty easy due to mech builds?
The damage in BW was lower out of 2reasons: metagame and nonclumping. You simply can't predict what happens if SC2 turns more into a aggressionbased game (with very small units), than the sit back, macro up that is the general guideline right now.
Personally I don't believe that damage nerfs are the way to go. Like it's been pointed out, it will reduce the efficiency of small attack groups like drops or infestors or dts or warp-ins or runbys etc. and the game could turn out to become a big roach vs stalker battle. Because those are the units that already follow the "low dps, high HP"-path and make for some of the most boring battles, while other high dps/low HP unit battles like marines vs banelings are amongst the best things that ever happened in this game. So in conclusion: just because he has some arguments for it, doesn't mean that the counterarguments couldn't just overwhelm them... There is absolutly no way to make "roach vs stalker" battles interesting, without a lot of micro abilities like FFs, blink, Fungal, burrow and high dps units like zerglings mixed in.
How come lowering the DPS would make small groups useless? I disagree. Think about how many shots it take for a marine to kill a drone in BW. Does this means marines are useless in small groups against Z? Far from that. But I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples:
- Reaver drops: you could clear an entire mineral line in 2 shots, but It required a lot of micro and if you lost your shuttle, it's a pretty big hit. It was a high risk high reward play. Micro required: drop in key positions and pickup after 1 shot, repeat after every shot.
- Vulture drop/run-by: you could also clear an entir mineral line in a few seconds, but it needed to micro the vultures away from workers so they dont get trapped, and also mine the path that reinforcements will likely take, so as to prevent them from taking your vultures down. That's a lot of micro right there. Now let's see some SC2 situations:
- Marauder/Marine drops:you can clear an entire mineral line/snipe a key building. Micro required: stimpack.
- Zealot drop: you can't do too much, unless your opponent is v bad or you're doing many attacks at once. Micro required: pretty much non-existant.
See the difference?
Did you even read what I wrote: I said BW had more dps. I wrote that lowering dps could be bad.
And then you give me examples of the reaver and the vulture, two units with extremly high dps/HP-relations, even in a BW context, and how they were so much "better" than the lower dps units like marines, marauders and zealots when being droped. You are making my point! Nevertheless I want to point out here, that BW is so different due to pathing/AI, that I don't think comparing stats makes a lot of sense to begin with.
I did read what you wrote and I pointed out the marine vs drone example to show that it's not entirely true. After that I went on a different direction that had nothing to do with DPS, as to support my argument that DPS is not the problem. To quote myself:
I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples:
Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW ....
All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP.
How do you want to predict that HotS won't just have a metagame in which Protoss is always warping in at the front because they can never ever lose an army as long as their nexus has 75energy and therefore they can just be aggressive with every single unit, in groups or not? How you're going to predict that zerg isn't one base swarm host/zergling rushing evergame, because they are guaranteed dmg, because if properly played they cant be beaten open field and therefore get a free siege. How do you predict that possible shredder drops just make good saturation a big gamble in vT, while mass expanding gets pretty easy due to mech builds?
The damage in BW was lower out of 2reasons: metagame and nonclumping. You simply can't predict what happens if SC2 turns more into a aggressionbased game (with very small units), than the sit back, macro up that is the general guideline right now.
Personally I don't believe that damage nerfs are the way to go. Like it's been pointed out, it will reduce the efficiency of small attack groups like drops or infestors or dts or warp-ins or runbys etc. and the game could turn out to become a big roach vs stalker battle. Because those are the units that already follow the "low dps, high HP"-path and make for some of the most boring battles, while other high dps/low HP unit battles like marines vs banelings are amongst the best things that ever happened in this game. So in conclusion: just because he has some arguments for it, doesn't mean that the counterarguments couldn't just overwhelm them... There is absolutly no way to make "roach vs stalker" battles interesting, without a lot of micro abilities like FFs, blink, Fungal, burrow and high dps units like zerglings mixed in.
How come lowering the DPS would make small groups useless? I disagree. Think about how many shots it take for a marine to kill a drone in BW. Does this means marines are useless in small groups against Z? Far from that. But I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples:
- Reaver drops: you could clear an entire mineral line in 2 shots, but It required a lot of micro and if you lost your shuttle, it's a pretty big hit. It was a high risk high reward play. Micro required: drop in key positions and pickup after 1 shot, repeat after every shot.
- Vulture drop/run-by: you could also clear an entir mineral line in a few seconds, but it needed to micro the vultures away from workers so they dont get trapped, and also mine the path that reinforcements will likely take, so as to prevent them from taking your vultures down. That's a lot of micro right there. Now let's see some SC2 situations:
- Marauder/Marine drops:you can clear an entire mineral line/snipe a key building. Micro required: stimpack.
- Zealot drop: you can't do too much, unless your opponent is v bad or you're doing many attacks at once. Micro required: pretty much non-existant.
See the difference?
Did you even read what I wrote: I said BW had more dps. I wrote that lowering dps could be bad.
And then you give me examples of the reaver and the vulture, two units with extremly high dps/HP-relations, even in a BW context, and how they were so much "better" than the lower dps units like marines, marauders and zealots when being droped. You are making my point! Nevertheless I want to point out here, that BW is so different due to pathing/AI, that I don't think comparing stats makes a lot of sense to begin with.
I did read what you wrote and I pointed out the marine vs drone example to show that it's not entirely true. After that I went on a different direction that had nothing to do with DPS, as to support my argument that DPS is not the problem. To quote myself:
I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples:
yeah but WHY are reaver and vulture such great drop units? dps! go and do that with the colossus if you want to do it. People have done it, and the reward is just not good enough. Why? Because the Colossus has like zero dps compared to a reaver, but has way more health.
Go and do that with roaches or stalkers, if you want to harass mineral lines with skill. burrow and blink can keep them alive for a long time, but their dps is just not high enough for the reward.
Imo it is a simple principle: small groups of units either do terrible damage, or they won't be used in small groups. All the harass units have the same abilities: high dps or high mobility. So it is either easy to harass with them or rewarding.
On February 02 2012 08:13 FuRRyChoBo wrote: I've been saying what OP says since I first saw fungal+banes. Way too much AoE damage, way too many "hard counter" units.
and yet out of all the "counters" you pick the two that are probably the ones with the most universal uses and led to some of the most interesting dynamics in SC2. (banelingsplits vs marine splits, tanktargetfire and ling/bling wars; banelingdrops and fungal as anti clump, detection, anti air. landmines and infestors for zone control etc...) banelings a barely efficient against marines in marine/tank compositions and against lings and other blings. still we do see them against a lot of things due to universalness. on the other hand fungals can be pretty great against nearly everything, so they are far away from being specific counters.
Of course they have universal uses...that's why they're broken. A million spells that negate any sort of micro that require minimal control while forcing the other player to have incredible splitting coupled with units that do way too much splash damage. Add on the "dynamic" unit movement where all of your units automatically clump up and the game becomes really, really boring.
I think Blizzard wanted the game design of Starcraft2 to really resemble BW. You can tell from the basics of the game and the role of early, basic units, their costs, damage, etc. But they made some terrible deviations that counterbalanced their attempt at making BW 2.0. Too many units deal "bonus" damages in SC2. In Starcraft1, you had units either do full damage or LESS. A lot of units only dealt half of what is written on the paper. So adding +1 defense really meant a lot. Starcraft2 has units with similar HPs as Starcraft1, but they now do either full damage or BONUS DAMAGE, which is often 1.5x of the base damage. A lot of units in Starcraft1 received +1 or +2 attackpower per weapon upgrade. But in SC2, due to the BONUS DAMAGE, it's common to see units increase tremendously in firepower after just +1 upgrade. So DPS of units in SC2 is much higher than in SC1. And to make the things more "volatile", units clump together a lot so AOE spells and splash damages deal harsh, harsh damage that often ends an otherwise 50:50 game after one engagement. As of a result, the game literally becomes one sided after one bad engagement, even though both players played evenly well for 25 minutes. Is that a bad thing? I wouldn't say it is definitely a bad thing, but it makes the game feel "cheap" and very one dimensional. Once you obtain a "deathball", you become all of a sudden really strong. That makes timing push really strong. Is that a bad thing? Let's just say if there was no "deathball" in the game, the game would be more interesting. Once you have a deathball, it becomes very very hard for your opponent to come back.
So SC2 is just this: It is still a fun and hard game to master. But it feels much more "cheap" than BW even in victory
On February 02 2012 08:13 FuRRyChoBo wrote: I've been saying what OP says since I first saw fungal+banes. Way too much AoE damage, way too many "hard counter" units.
and yet out of all the "counters" you pick the two that are probably the ones with the most universal uses and led to some of the most interesting dynamics in SC2. (banelingsplits vs marine splits, tanktargetfire and ling/bling wars; banelingdrops and fungal as anti clump, detection, anti air. landmines and infestors for zone control etc...) banelings a barely efficient against marines in marine/tank compositions and against lings and other blings. still we do see them against a lot of things due to universalness. on the other hand fungals can be pretty great against nearly everything, so they are far away from being specific counters.
Of course they have universal uses...that's why they're broken. A million spells that negate any sort of micro that require minimal control while forcing the other player to have incredible splitting coupled with units that do way too much splash damage. Add on the "dynamic" unit movement where all of your units automatically clump up and the game becomes really, really boring.
So at first you call banes and fungals "hard counters". Now you call them too universal. Furthermore I don't really want to argue design with you, when the purpose of your post is to whine about balance.
I agree with most of the stuff here, this is exactly why 1v1 isn't enoyable. It's not satifying when you A-move a deathball and jus watch the enemy die, I'd find it so much more satisfying if i'd have actually work to win with heavy micro and innovation and also be a close game. This also brings very fustrating loses when you've put just as hard work to get a decent army as your opponant and put your opponant just masses collosi and wins. Battles are too desisive in this games.
I agree that spine crawlers and cannons are too weak vs the marine with medivac support, but they are just fine against P and Z in general. If they were to buff them, they would become too strong period and you would need to hard counter spine crawlers and cannons every games with tanks, immortals etc..
I think the problem might be the healing power of the medivac more than in the static defenses being too weak.
Turrets are pretty good against mutas. In fact they are super effective !! When you have 2500 gas invested in a mutas ball, it's just normal that it 1 shots mineral only turrets. Pretty much any army in the game with 2500 worth of gas should destroy static defense.
EPT
Agree with a lot 
^^
