EPTSO NOSTALGIC.
Nice writeup, I haven't watched the video yet but I shall now. Although I believe you had left out some factors.
Defense, the Defender's Advantage and SC2 - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RogerX
New Zealand3180 Posts
SO NOSTALGIC. Nice writeup, I haven't watched the video yet but I shall now. Although I believe you had left out some factors. | ||
|
-stOpSKY-
Canada498 Posts
On January 21 2012 00:50 statikg wrote: Sorry, the greatness of the starcraft franchise has always revolved around the fact that offence is the best defence. The stationary defensive buildings fulfil specific rolls and if you made them more powerful you would actually see alot less multitasking and alot more deathball type play. Think about it a little bit. Not going to lie, I didnt read it all but I read most of it. Judging from your post I dont think you read anything more than the title. As it stands what he is saying is that the less offensive and more passive you play the better off you are. For example on Artosis stream multiple times he has stated that he would rather turtle (maybe slightly harass) and just keep taking bases and reinforce // turtle up econ. Just because you play a defenders advantage does not mean you cant harass with small groups of units, you see Grubby do this ALL the time with drops and blink stalkers. You see CatZ do it with his crazy overlord usage, and White-Ra with his warp prisms. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On January 21 2012 13:21 Treehead wrote: Yeah, I hear that. I like to keep an open mind, because I don't think many of us have a solid idea on what engagements should be, and how exactly they should be different. I just think we had a concept in our head of how it would look and feel and then what we are seeing is that this concept isn't meshing well with the actual game. I think a lot of people would like more defensively oriented games - but maybe they wouldn't. It really all depends on how the engagements feel. I personally think that every idea we throw out there will *sound* wrong to most people, but hopefully something will make it through to the game that *feels* better. Better to watch, and better to play. Personally, I have a pretty solid idea about what makes an exciting game to watch I also happen to think that most people would agree with me... Here's a few thoughts. 1. Engagements, or at least the threat of engagements should occur throughout the game, these engagements should evolve over the course of the game as armies grow and tech up. 2. There should be a balance between the slippery slope and perpetual comeback. (old article but an interesting read if you are interested in game design). If a player loses a close engagement they shouldn't just die or there is only one engagement per game but they should be at a disadvantage otherwise engagements have no consequences and so feel purposeless. 3. Clever battle tactics and good execution should have an effect on the outcome of an engagement. I'd say that the primary disagreement you see in these threads, before people even talk about what might be done to change things, is whether SC2 has these things well balanced or not. I agree with the OP that while SC2 does things well, it could do things better. Some match ups are more interesting than others. For me PvT is a boring game to watch or play. Looking at my short, incomplete list above I'd say that: 1. In PvT there are usually very few engagements and they tend to look very similar. Early it's bio vs. gateway, later add templar/ghosts colossus/viking. 2. PvT has a very sharp slippery slope, in many cases if you lose 1 engagement, even by a small margin, the game is over. 3. Battle tactics are simplistic. We both have a ball... Did he EMP my ghosts? Did I position and control my vikings well? Is he stutter stepping? These are the only questions that need answering and for the most part they are pretty binary. All these things are a matter of taste of course, you might feel that the sharp slippery slope in this match up is a good thing, or that the battle tactics are hard enough to execute and complex enough for it to be interesting. But for me the whole thing lacks depth. I agree that the defenders advantage being a little stronger in PvT would help the situation as it would reduce slippery slope and add stronger positional considerations when thinking tactically. It's also possible that we might see wilder tech because you could defend with fewer units and tech harder and you might see greater unit variety because harassment would become more important, though that's really tough to predict. On January 21 2012 00:39 Treehead wrote: Maps are really important – just about every problem we have in the game could conceivably be addressed with maps, so it’s worth noting that even without the units and gameplay we feel we need to have for equitable and entertaining competition, maps can fix it. This is a really well observed point. I think it's a big contributing factor that lead to BW's famed balance. But in order to really balance a map, a map maker needs a strong and diverse toolkit. I think a stronger high ground advantage would be one way to give map makers the tools to balance the game. On January 21 2012 12:04 Arghnews wrote: I like the idea of def advantage, but it seems you'll struggle to give it to zergs, severly lacking in ranged dps units that are good in defence (i.e NOT roaches, Hyrdras only - and Hyrdras suck). This is an important point as a slightly stronger defenders advantage will effect different matchups in different ways. On January 21 2012 23:02 LaLuSh wrote: You can't expect to implement the same sort of defender's advantage as in BW. The single biggest factor to SC2 playing out so differently from BW is the revision of mineral gathering. They entirely changed max saturation levels; they changed how much each subsequent produced worker is worth; they changed the amount of workers required to harvest gas to smoothen the effects of the former; they introduced macro mechanics and warp-in. All speeding up the game, all lessening the effects a higher number of expansions. There was a great thread about this but i couldn't find it. Largely it comes down to the old SCV AI being shitty so lower saturation increased mineral intake in an incremental way. I think this would help encouraging players to take more bases but I don't think it means that the defenders advantage wouldn't also change the game for the better. Although you might well have a point. On January 22 2012 02:46 Treehead wrote: The above is probably not true for TvT, but it may be that I've not watched the right TvTs - I tend to watch games featuring Protoss. You should try a few TvZs and TvTs, they aren't flat out more interesting to watch than other match ups but you are missing out on the whole breadth of play that is available in the game. | ||
|
Thombur
95 Posts
Looking at the mirror matchups the difference in defender's advantage between the races is even more obvious. In PvP it is very hard to expand early, in ZvZ it is a lot easier and in TvT it is usually no problem what so ever. Edit: Just heard a brilliant idea, make protoss able to chronoboost their cannons. | ||
|
Mr. Black
United States470 Posts
On January 21 2012 09:18 Alacast wrote: I agree wholeheartedly with your argument here. I feel like to some degree, however, you're imposing a bit of your own (justifiable) bias against many posters who whine "OP/nerf/change/fix" every day onto a poster that intentionally refused to take some sort of "here's my ideas on how to 'fix' this problem." I dislike those types of posts just as much as you do, yet I think discussing certain aspects of the game can be vitally important to the development of new strategies and thought processes that elevate peoples' play. You are right. Basically, I need to just stop reading these threads and, when I do, rather than responding, I need to (for my own good) just go play the game or do something better with my time. At the very least, these threads shouldn't make me mad :D | ||
|
BandonBanshee
Canada437 Posts
On January 21 2012 03:04 Mataza wrote: I´m gonna cite Day[9]: "The system is never flawed" My opinion is that there already is defender´s advantage. Basically an even bigger defender´s advantage would also mean that it is unreasonable to attack early on. Right now, pressure builds exist because Defenders advantage is not overwhelming. Typical rush builds lose if the first attack isn´t successful(obvious). Right now, SC2 games begin at about the time where the first feasible oppurtunity for aggression is. If there was no feasible alternative to a greedy start, you could just fast forward this part of gameplay because its always the same(That´s why Blizzard gives you now 6 workers instead of the 4 you got in SC:BW). Taking your Huk replay, he did not scout for an attack and his army was out of position. All he needed to do was keep a probe or a stalker at his opponents ramp or keep his army in the right spot. But he didn´t. He *could* have delayed the attack with 5 forcefields or engaged in equal terrain. Instead he had to crawl down a ramp which is in range of 3 Tanks. Tl;dr: The issue isn´t as big as you make it be. Huk lost in this game because of mistakes, like lack of scouting. Remember that Blizzard already announced changes do that end for HotS(summons a cannon on building). I might not have said it outright yet, but you seem to be just another balancewhiner. Have a nice day. How does being super passive aggressive help at all? This guy wrote a massive essay about discussion points he thinks we should be talking about but anyone who doesn't agree is like "LOL QQ MORE BABY". | ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
On January 21 2012 08:51 Falling wrote: I think from the number of base trades we see, there is definitely merit to the OP. Even if we use SC2 is a new game argument, was there really that much base trading in 99-00? It used to be a pretty rare thing (like once or twice in an entire season of GOM Classic that I can remember- 3 relocation of floating all the barracks and factories to another corner), but in SC2 it's pretty common where pro's just say to hell with it, I can't get back in time, let's see who can kill stuff faster. Having said that, while tough defences are necessary for more harassment, more expansions, and more tech builds, there also needs to be some pretty good siege units late game to break the fortifications. Broodlords/Guardians, Darkswarms, or Doom Drops, Carriers, Mothership/Arbiter recalls, and uh... mass dropship/medivacs and tanks? Or Nukes and Battlecruisers? Not really sure. Point is, late game needs a way to bust down tougher defences without being overpowered where it's just a mothership rush. ...SC was infinitely worse of a game than SC2 as far as balance goes in 99-00 (as far as it was understood, of course). That is such a worthless analogy. New game argument still stands. They don't have all the same problems. | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
1) Everyone complains about the unit balls, and normally they point out the pathing because with it all the units clumped up really makes it look like a ball.However, the problem lies not only on them being so close to each other, but also the sheer number of units contained. 2) The best games seem to be where back and forth action keeps happening. And that's really hard with a) units that make it impossible to retreat (slow, fungal, forcefields) b) small defender's advantage. I hope someone from Blizz really take a look a these factors. | ||
|
Xacalite
Germany533 Posts
just wanted to ask if you (the OP) have considered posting this on the blizzard forums. As far as i know blizzard does read its own forums. I think this article is very well written and deserves to be at least looked at by blizzard. | ||
|
Treehead
999 Posts
On January 23 2012 18:37 Xacalite wrote: ive posted my opinion in this thread before so I'm not gonna report. but I'm happy to see the reactions of the majority of people here. just wanted to ask if you (the OP) have considered posting this on the blizzard forums. As far as i know blizzard does read its own forums. I think this article is very well written and deserves to be at least looked at by blizzard. Good point, perhaps I will. Though, at this point, there hasn't exactly been a resoundingly positive response. The most recognizable poster who has responded on this topic, LaLush, has indicated that they think heightened defenses would cause more problems than they would solve. | ||
|
Snijjer
United States989 Posts
| ||
|
Treehead
999 Posts
On January 24 2012 01:21 Snijjer wrote: There is isn't a defenders advantage in Risk. Attacking player is usually rolling 3 die to the defenders 2... There is one, just not for large army sizes (which is actually fine, since large armies don't tend to stay on the board without attacking long - i.e. you very seldomly have an attacking and defending force of 10 or higher). Defender gets the tie on dice rolls. In other words, if the attacker rolls a 6, a 2 and a 1, and the defender rolls a 6 and a 2, the attacker loses two armies. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10761 Posts
SC/BW: Terran: Siegetanks for Terran were just stronger and basically just "better" at defending than their SC2 counterparts, in combination with Vultures/Mines they held ground way better... Seeing a few Tanks actually made you think if you should charge them due to the damage you will take from Mines while you run up to them... Attacking a siegeline was a way bigger commitment than it is in SC2 (where Mech isn't even viable against P anymore?...). They also had way more impressive cannon sound in SC/BW  ... Oh how I hated that sound :D..Protoss vs Z: Templars + Cannons (or Reavers + Cannons) let you defend seriously big scary attacks when you reacted/controlled it well. You truly needed overwhelming forces to go "in there" or had to have some way of dealing with the templar/reaver before you sent in the bulk of your army... Else you would end up with a big sea of blood and next to no success wondering why the fuck your playing zerg because this is obviously imba .Zerg vs Terran (mainly): Defiler + Lurkers + Scourge = YOU SHALL NOT PASS (whiteout detection and melee units or/and irradiate/storm) :p. This sometimes looked downright stupid when 2-3 Lurkers held of a giant Terran ball just because the Terran lost his Vessels and had no way to hurt the Lurkers under Swarm..  .Or in short:: SC2 is not necessarily lacking a "natural" defensive advantage (I HATED that in WC3)... It is lacking unit combinations that can be EXTREMLY cost efficient at holding ground/defending a base against WAY superior forces. I mean... You think a well placed Immortal whiteout much support killing 6 Roaches on it's own is "cost efficient"? Lol, a Reaver only killing 6 (cheap) units would be called a failure/waste and be laughed at by his friends... | ||
|
Simbojimbo
United Kingdom4 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
On January 24 2012 01:37 Treehead wrote: There is one, just not for large army sizes (which is actually fine, since large armies don't tend to stay on the board without attacking long - i.e. you very seldomly have an attacking and defending force of 10 or higher). Defender gets the tie on dice rolls. In other words, if the attacker rolls a 6, a 2 and a 1, and the defender rolls a 6 and a 2, the attacker loses two armies. This is a bit off topic, but the size of the armies doesn't matter if it's more than 2 attacking and more than 1 defending in risk. The odds favor the attacking units (you can look up the math). On topic -- I disagree with the OP. i think SC2 (especially most recent GSL) is becoming truly awesome to watch the way it currently is. I wish to let pros progress without changing the game. There have been some truly insane back and forth games with battles all over the map | ||
|
BlueBoxSC
United States582 Posts
I think that the game is fair, as you said, but it can always be improved. That's what I think you were going for, and I agree. | ||
|
FatkiddsLag
United States413 Posts
| ||
|
Romandragon
20 Posts
The defender should not have any advantage and the attacker should have an advantage for rush builds. The rusher is at a disadvantage should their rush fail so obviously the only reason people would rush is if they have an advantage when rushing. Now the sooner they rush the greater they are at a disadvantage should the rush fail, so this should translate into greater attacking advantage. Rushes can be a build-order win but again this is not a problem with the "defenders advantage" but rather it is simply a build order win. And for your example with Huk, can you argue Huk played particularly well? Simply saying the attacker did not play well is not fair to the defender who arguably played worse. The attacker had better positioning, timing, and most importantly Huk made multiple mistakes. Huk lost not because of his lack of defenders advantage but because he was outplayed. Lastly, emphasis on the early game is not a bad thing. Already the early game is often extremely boring, if there was even less emphasis on it no one would bother watching the first 8 minutes of a game or so. So taking emphasis off the early game is a poor idea, imo, since it would become even more boring than it already is. II. Death-ball style combat This is a problem with the death-ball not with defenders advantage. A greater defender's advantage would not address the death ball "problem". People would find it even easier to make deathballs and would have less incentive for attacks. If attacking expansions with 20 food is already difficult, then a greater defender's advantage would discourage these types of attacks. III. Maps Your main point here is that maps should have easier to defend expansions, less vulnerable / open, etc. Obviously this favors some races over others. For instance in ZvP, Zerg is at a disadvantage as Protoss accumulates more bases. Maps with easier to defend bases are a huge disadvantage to the Zerg players. IV. Protoss A 26 food Terran army should lose to a 26 defending gateway Protoss army since the Protoss army has sentries. So the sentries can just forcefield the ramp and instead of being a 26 food vs 26 food the Terran's army is split and it becomes an easier battle. And assuming gateway units are weaker than bio units, then the Terran has sufficient defenders advantage as well. Protoss static defense may be weaker than Terran and Zergs, but Protoss can also warp in wherever there is a pylon. Near instant reinforcement is fairly strong defender's advantage. V. Conclusion The problems noted are not related to defender's advantage but are related to the metagame and current balance issues. | ||
|
Sejanus
Lithuania550 Posts
On January 24 2012 01:56 Simbojimbo wrote: tl;dr Rhetorical question: why TL doesn't implement some sort of minimum age / literacy requirement to post in forums? I mean, I just watched planet of apes a few mins ago, and before I start with analogies I better change the topic... I don't necessarily agree with OP on every single point he made, but they are very well thought points backed by strong arguments. I believe that theoretically fixing early defense can improve SC2 greatly. But will it? Depends on implementation of course. I hope Blizzard is looking into this. I always believed (and still do) that WoL is more of a test than a complete game. HotS will most likely be the same. By the time of LotV Blizzard will have enough data to make a perfect game they probably intend to. Until then I'm just not taking SC2 balance issues too seriously. It's like playing beta, of sorts... | ||
|
Treehead
999 Posts
On January 24 2012 03:30 Romandragon wrote: I. Rush Builds The defender should not have any advantage and the attacker should have an advantage for rush builds. The rusher is at a disadvantage should their rush fail so obviously the only reason people would rush is if they have an advantage when rushing. Now the sooner they rush the greater they are at a disadvantage should the rush fail, so this should translate into greater attacking advantage. Rushes can be a build-order win but again this is not a problem with the "defenders advantage" but rather it is simply a build order win. And for your example with Huk, can you argue Huk played particularly well? Simply saying the attacker did not play well is not fair to the defender who arguably played worse. The attacker had better positioning, timing, and most importantly Huk made multiple mistakes. Huk lost not because of his lack of defenders advantage but because he was outplayed. Lastly, emphasis on the early game is not a bad thing. Already the early game is often extremely boring, if there was even less emphasis on it no one would bother watching the first 8 minutes of a game or so. So taking emphasis off the early game is a poor idea, imo, since it would become even more boring than it already is. II. Death-ball style combat This is a problem with the death-ball not with defenders advantage. A greater defender's advantage would not address the death ball "problem". People would find it even easier to make deathballs and would have less incentive for attacks. If attacking expansions with 20 food is already difficult, then a greater defender's advantage would discourage these types of attacks. III. Maps Your main point here is that maps should have easier to defend expansions, less vulnerable / open, etc. Obviously this favors some races over others. For instance in ZvP, Zerg is at a disadvantage as Protoss accumulates more bases. Maps with easier to defend bases are a huge disadvantage to the Zerg players. IV. Protoss A 26 food Terran army should lose to a 26 defending gateway Protoss army since the Protoss army has sentries. So the sentries can just forcefield the ramp and instead of being a 26 food vs 26 food the Terran's army is split and it becomes an easier battle. And assuming gateway units are weaker than bio units, then the Terran has sufficient defenders advantage as well. Protoss static defense may be weaker than Terran and Zergs, but Protoss can also warp in wherever there is a pylon. Near instant reinforcement is fairly strong defender's advantage. V. Conclusion The problems noted are not related to defender's advantage but are related to the metagame and current balance issues. I. Rush builds will always be at an obvious advantage. If you're rushing, there's a window where you have more units. Increased defender's advantage doesn't mess with that - it just messes with how effective it is. Right now, the most siginificant defender's advantage there really is comes in the form of ramps and "well he can pull probes". With the Huk replay, it seems like you're saying someone should have to play really well just to make it to the midgame. Is it fair given Huk's mistakes that he was able to siege down the expo? Probably. But is it good game design that Huk's mistakes cost him the game, while his opponent lose almost nothing in the engagement with Huk's army? I'd argue that this isn't great design, personally. And that's not to say "marine/tank imba!", because in the context of a game where rushing or being rushed happens often and takes huge advantage off of any mistakes for all races and strategies, it's fine. What I'm saying is - I don't like that, and it seems I'm not alone. Regarding games being uninteresting - do you think TvT is boring? I don't, personally, and there often aren't large scale rush builds being geared up for then in TvT either (from what I hear, not exactly a terran expert). II. I'm not saying it should be something available all over the map, or even that I know what it is exactly - I'm just pointing at a problem - early and late game, defense against big, direct pushes is very difficult. IV. Forcefielding a ramp implies no early expand, or sacrificing one. This almost always leads to an overwhelming bio push shortly after the terran's expansion kicks in. V, I like to think that the metagame hasn't arbitrarily completely ignored a viable option for defense yet. Maybe it has, this is another possible source of "heightened defense" - learning a trick that makes defense easier. If that's out there, great! I'm just doubtful it is. I believe the game is relatively balanced within the context of what the game is. If you're trying to macro every game or rush every game, it won't seem like it, but the fact that GSL Code S remains pretty split between the three races (bit more emphasis on Terran) tells me it isn't hopelessly unbalanced. | ||
| ||
