|
On November 14 2012 00:06 playa wrote:
As someone that played t vs p in BW, this amount of whine about bl/infestors should be kinda comical. There's just no way in hell that dealing with bl/infestor is even close in difficulty to dealing with carriers in BW, whether it be pure carriers or combined with any combination of units. You attempt to beat it the same way, take the map and attack where they aren't, until you either have to face them head on or it's obvious you have the means to win in a convincing fashion. I don't remember that much carriers are imbalanced talk, though.
Maps like daybreak are a lot harder than, say, entombed valley when it comes to dealing with bl/infestor. Point is, if maps can alter the viability of units, then it's probably not inherently imbalanced and your complaints should probably be directed at how maps are made. Or, you can simply accept that sometimes maps will favor you and other times they won't. Life.
If you're whining because you can't win but you keep playing the same style, then you probably deserve every loss and should expect more. Have to focus more on exhausting possibilities. I find "corrupter timings," like in stephano versus crank, where they are used offensively, to be far more problematic than units that I have a choice to keep evading if I choose to. Especially when all of my timings, be it a fourth or a push, hinge on not losing units to corrupters that won't die before killing them. I don't think toss players have shown much resolve; if it's not one thing zerg is using, it's going to be something else they are crying about. Should be happy that hasn't been exposed yet.
HotS is set to come out. At least wait it out and see if the tempest helps you. All this said, design wise, the infestor probably does way too much and is boring. For an outsider, z vs t looks very imbalanced to me, in part due to the infestor. Since I haven't played t vs z/looked for solutions, that may be an unfounded opinion.
Stop it. You're too smart for this thread. Leave now while you still can. Leave and never look back!
|
On Idra's point:
Hence spinecrawlers. They eliminate the mobility problem you're talking about by buying you time to get back to defend. Not to mention that creep, overlords, and changelings are practically map hacks in the late game.
|
On November 14 2012 01:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:50 bokeevboke wrote:Rabiator has fair points, Blizzard dev team are a decent AAA game developers. But surely, they're not 'epic' developers who could create legendary games, which we're looking for. And with the current state of game industry its impossible for such developers to exist. Therefore discussion of Blizzard's competency is meaningless, they've changed company direction (money comes before product). And possibly we'll never see any legendary games in the future ever  These sorts of vague, overarching statements about “legendary developers” are the main reason why Blizzard can never win. The release a Starcraft 2 in an era when every company is trying to reinvent the RTS genre, adding “features” they think will make RTS games more enjoyable. Removing resource collection, base building, direct control of units, micro or control. Feature are added to automatically build units, build bases without building placement or formation buttons to force units into specific shapes, complete with buffs for that shape. Then Blizzard comes out with Starcraft 2 and says: “Forget all that crap, we did it first and we did it best. People will build units by hand, they will scout with workers and worry about harvesting resources again. The only thing we find worth wild in this new world of RTS games are waypoints, shift commands and unlimited unit selection. Beyond that, all your stuff is crap.” and then Starcraft 2 sells 4.5 million over 2 years. Reviewers love the game, people are back to building bases, kiting units and worrying about build orders. It is like a pizza shop opening, only serving cheese pizza because its was the best and everyone being thankful for being shown that topping suck. It may be popular and easy to crap on Blizzard on TL. After all, we are comparing it to the gold standard of RTS game, perfected and shined over 10 years of play. And beyond that, there are thousands of posts where people flesh out in great detail how bad Starcraft 2 is, so you don’t even need to come up with your own reasons, they are provide for you. But people forget where RTS games were going before Starcraft 2 came out and how much it reminded people that the original ideas are the best ideas.
What I was trying to say is, not that Blizzard team is UNABLE to do a perfect sequel, but the fact that they are constrained by the budget and deadline. Therefore, there might be some things they could polish, rework or develop further, but they couldn't, since modern game corporations don't follow that style of 'game development'. Which we used to know as passion for creating something great. Thats how games like Gothic, Morrowind, Fallout 1/2, Baldur's gate, Heroes came out. You can even read the manual for these games, and you see developers cared about games. Todays' industry work on games like its just another money project.
|
|
|
On November 13 2012 19:43 bokeevboke wrote:
Developers might be qualified, but the leader always decides how things gonna be. Considering that sc2 lead designer is from C&C and BfME -esque rts games no wonder that starcraft 2 isn't what we wanted it to be. At least for majority of us.
There is a difference ib what we wanted SC2 to be – and what needed it to be.
Because it makes it simple, lets exaggerate a bit and assume SC2 would have been essentially BW in 3D with widescreen support and some changed / new news. Let's say, SC2 would have copied the quirks in the unit control (sometimes you need to use hold position, sometimes you need the patrol command for maximum effect.) The guys who were interested in BW would probably have loved the game. But how big would SC2 have been? Would it have justified 6+ years of development?
To support a game, the developer needs to make money. To make money, they need to attract the masses. To keep the masses, they also need to attract hardcore players and professional players. If this would be an easy thing to do, we had alternatives to SC2 already.
|
On November 14 2012 18:19 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 19:43 bokeevboke wrote:
Developers might be qualified, but the leader always decides how things gonna be. Considering that sc2 lead designer is from C&C and BfME -esque rts games no wonder that starcraft 2 isn't what we wanted it to be. At least for majority of us. There is a difference ib what we wanted SC2 to be – and what needed it to be. Because it makes it simple, lets exaggerate a bit and assume SC2 would have been essentially BW in 3D with widescreen support and some changed / new news. Let's say, SC2 would have copied the quirks in the unit control (sometimes you need to use hold position, sometimes you need the patrol command for maximum effect.) The guys who were interested in BW would probably have loved the game. But how big would SC2 have been? Would it have justified 6+ years of development? To support a game, the developer needs to make money. To make money, they need to attract the masses. To keep the masses, they also need to attract hardcore players and professional players. If this would be an easy thing to do, we had alternatives to SC2 already.
Even though they've gone overboard with their attempts to attract the masses through adjusting gameplay mechanics, at least in my opinion, point still stands and it'd be lovely if everyone understood that.
|
On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote:
you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get.
but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be.
There, idra has said it, and this is self evident, overcommitment to marine-tank, stalker colossus on 3 bases..
I have been holding back posting about terran and protoss going for a higher tech army because people will spew all kinds of excuses.I just want to say that p and t players should go for their own respective deathballs. (carriers, ravens, battlecruisers etc etc). T and P should have a defensive phase in the game if you want a face to face battle. Give it a moment of thought.
Many of you protoss/terran players out there, admit it, you are always going for 3 base timings and zerg just learn how to defend those better. Idra has spoken and he is not biased here.
|
On November 14 2012 16:50 graNite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 16:09 blade55555 wrote:On November 13 2012 22:35 DidYuhim wrote:On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote:On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors. maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing. you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles. even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op  (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though. "you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive" Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army. Oh, wait, you're seriously taking Idra's post. Let me laugh even harder. You do understand that of three races Zerg has the most mobility during early and mid-game, right? And the fact that Zerg can win with mid-game alone, without BroodLords and 20+ infestors? HAH HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh lord your post made me laugh. How many times do you see zerg win in mid-game alone without infestors? Oh that's right almost none. It's so rare in todays game because it's so easy to defend zerg attacks. There is a reason zergs are going for infestor/bl/corr (hint it's not because it's fun, it's the only viable thing to consistantly win games with). Do you think it's coincidence that DRG for example is trying not to play the turtle style of infestor/bl/corruptor and is now losing more? Protoss/Terrans rarely lose to zerg in the mid game anymore. So no you really have no idea what you are talking about. Please define Midgame and "win a game". I have seen tons of games recently in which zerg can defend everything and put a lot of pressure up with ling infestor and the advantage they get is so high, that they can mass infestors and go for broodlords safely. Maybe you can not finish your opponent with ling infestor as easily, but this combination is too strong and too easy to get.
I don't understand this post. It sounds like you want to disagree with him but what youre saying is agreeing with him.
You said it yourself, Zerg uses its early and mid-game tech simply to delay the opponent enough to get infestor/broods. The guy you responded to said that Zergs tend to go for infest/brood because its the only reliable strategy. You say you see lots of games where Zerg uses mid-game tech to give himself an opening to mass infest/brood.
You seem to be suggesting Zergs could consistently win at mid-game.If the advantage they get "is so high" why not finish them at mid-game then? Why let the game progress longer and give the opponent a chance to come back if you can just finish him then and there at mid-game?
|
On November 14 2012 18:40 Discarder wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote:
you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get.
but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. There, idra has said it, and this is self evident, overcommitment to marine-tank, stalker colossus on 3 bases.. I have been holding back posting about terran and protoss going for a higher tech army because people will spew all kinds of excuses.I just want to say that p and t players should go for their own respective deathballs. (carriers, ravens, battlecruisers etc etc). T and P should have a defensive phase in the game if you want a face to face battle. Give it a moment of thought. Many of you protoss/terran players out there, admit it, you are always going for 3 base timings and zerg just learn how to defend those better. Idra has spoken and he is not biased here.
Is that a troll or are you serious? Idra the shining example of an unbiased observer...
But which tech should terran then go for exactly? Ravens? Really, ravens? Against infestors? I am sure you can find one video where it worked, but really, it doesnt work. Infestors just rape ravens. And they beat battlecruisers fine too, they are pretty much ideal counter: NP on first ranks to yamato the other battlecruisers, at least make sure they cant yamato your infestors, fungal prevents them from using their normal attack because it is outside their range, and then easily 100+ 3/3 marines delivered directly below the battlecruisers (they will be roughly equal, if not better than normal marines. Slow speed not very relevant against (fungaled) battlecruisers, yes lower attack speed than stimmed marines, but their higher attack easily compensates for that against high armor targets). And otherwise you still got some corrupters around to mop up what is left.
And while not a toss player, carriers suffer from pretty much the same. Less problems with yamato (NP) and range, but their interceptors are killed of quickly.
Anyway trying to tech against a zerg is just a waste of time, they are simply so much stronger late game. Better option: 2 rax every zerg you see.
|
On November 14 2012 18:40 Discarder wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote:
you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get.
but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. There, idra has said it, and this is self evident, overcommitment to marine-tank, stalker colossus on 3 bases.. I have been holding back posting about terran and protoss going for a higher tech army because people will spew all kinds of excuses.I just want to say that p and t players should go for their own respective deathballs. (carriers, ravens, battlecruisers etc etc). T and P should have a defensive phase in the game if you want a face to face battle. Give it a moment of thought. Many of you protoss/terran players out there, admit it, you are always going for 3 base timings and zerg just learn how to defend those better. Idra has spoken and he is not biased here.
Hahahahaha. You seriously believe that?
|
On November 14 2012 00:06 playa wrote:
As someone that played t vs p in BW, this amount of whine about bl/infestors should be kinda comical. There's just no way in hell that dealing with bl/infestor is even close in difficulty to dealing with carriers in BW, whether it be pure carriers or combined with any combination of units. You attempt to beat it the same way, take the map and attack where they aren't, until you either have to face them head on or it's obvious you have the means to win in a convincing fashion. I don't remember that much carriers are imbalanced talk, though.
Maps like daybreak are a lot harder than, say, entombed valley when it comes to dealing with bl/infestor. Point is, if maps can alter the viability of units, then it's probably not inherently imbalanced and your complaints should probably be directed at how maps are made. Or, you can simply accept that sometimes maps will favor you and other times they won't. Life.
If you're whining because you can't win but you keep playing the same style, then you probably deserve every loss and should expect more. Have to focus more on exhausting possibilities. I find "corrupter timings," like in stephano versus crank, where they are used offensively, to be far more problematic than units that I have a choice to keep evading if I choose to. Especially when all of my timings, be it a fourth or a push, hinge on not losing units to corrupters that won't die before killing them. I don't think toss players have shown much resolve; if it's not one thing zerg is using, it's going to be something else they are crying about. Should be happy that hasn't been exposed yet.
HotS is set to come out. At least wait it out and see if the tempest helps you. All this said, design wise, the infestor probably does way too much and is boring. For an outsider, z vs t looks very imbalanced to me, in part due to the infestor. Since I haven't played t vs z/looked for solutions, that may be an unfounded opinion.
It took skill to properly micro Carriers in BW. You really think it takes skill to fungal an army and a-move Broodlords?
Also, Carriers had legitimate counters that didn't blow up in half a second if they make a positioning mistake. 3/3 Goliaths would murder Carriers if the Carriers are out of position, as you just FF each Carrier down and blow the fuck out of them.
Same styles? What? Terran has done the most adaptation, and Protoss has been extremely creative in how they've played lately too with alot of HT/Archon mobility styles. You act like it's so easy to get to these high tech armies when there's no possible way. Zerg's economy grows so fast that you HAVE to attack or you WILL be behind. There is no doubt about it at all. None whatsoever. So if the map is generously large at all, then you have idiotic games where the Z just outgrows and outexpands the other guy, and eventually chokes him to death or Blord/Infestor deathball him down. If the map is small enough to pressure/all-in, then you get boring ass games where T and P are doing nothing but literally 2 basing the Z into oblivion, because Z's economic growth is so strong that if you don't do massive damage you're fucked.
On November 14 2012 20:24 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 16:50 graNite wrote:On November 14 2012 16:09 blade55555 wrote:On November 13 2012 22:35 DidYuhim wrote:On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote:On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors. maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing. you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles. even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though. "you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive" Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army. Oh, wait, you're seriously taking Idra's post. Let me laugh even harder. You do understand that of three races Zerg has the most mobility during early and mid-game, right? And the fact that Zerg can win with mid-game alone, without BroodLords and 20+ infestors? HAH HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh lord your post made me laugh. How many times do you see zerg win in mid-game alone without infestors? Oh that's right almost none. It's so rare in todays game because it's so easy to defend zerg attacks. There is a reason zergs are going for infestor/bl/corr (hint it's not because it's fun, it's the only viable thing to consistantly win games with). Do you think it's coincidence that DRG for example is trying not to play the turtle style of infestor/bl/corruptor and is now losing more? Protoss/Terrans rarely lose to zerg in the mid game anymore. So no you really have no idea what you are talking about. Please define Midgame and "win a game". I have seen tons of games recently in which zerg can defend everything and put a lot of pressure up with ling infestor and the advantage they get is so high, that they can mass infestors and go for broodlords safely. Maybe you can not finish your opponent with ling infestor as easily, but this combination is too strong and too easy to get. I don't understand this post. It sounds like you want to disagree with him but what youre saying is agreeing with him. You said it yourself, Zerg uses its early and mid-game tech simply to delay the opponent enough to get infestor/broods. The guy you responded to said that Zergs tend to go for infest/brood because its the only reliable strategy. You say you see lots of games where Zerg uses mid-game tech to give himself an opening to mass infest/brood. You seem to be suggesting Zergs could consistently win at mid-game.If the advantage they get "is so high" why not finish them at mid-game then? Why let the game progress longer and give the opponent a chance to come back if you can just finish him then and there at mid-game?
Anyone trying to keep up with Z in a macro game (as in getting to 3 bases) has to cut so many corners that it is absolutely ridiculous. That opens up the player to lots of various all-in, and with the new OL speed and creep, it's not hard to scout and then cripple him badly. If the Z player sees you playing too safe, he just drones like a whore and continues putting down his 5 expansions and laughing at you.
|
On November 14 2012 21:06 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 18:40 Discarder wrote:On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote:
you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get.
but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. There, idra has said it, and this is self evident, overcommitment to marine-tank, stalker colossus on 3 bases.. I have been holding back posting about terran and protoss going for a higher tech army because people will spew all kinds of excuses.I just want to say that p and t players should go for their own respective deathballs. (carriers, ravens, battlecruisers etc etc). T and P should have a defensive phase in the game if you want a face to face battle. Give it a moment of thought. Many of you protoss/terran players out there, admit it, you are always going for 3 base timings and zerg just learn how to defend those better. Idra has spoken and he is not biased here. Hahahahaha. You seriously believe that?
I think it's sarcasm, I mean it has to be... right?
|
On November 14 2012 21:10 mostevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 21:06 tomatriedes wrote:On November 14 2012 18:40 Discarder wrote:On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote:
you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get.
but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. There, idra has said it, and this is self evident, overcommitment to marine-tank, stalker colossus on 3 bases.. I have been holding back posting about terran and protoss going for a higher tech army because people will spew all kinds of excuses.I just want to say that p and t players should go for their own respective deathballs. (carriers, ravens, battlecruisers etc etc). T and P should have a defensive phase in the game if you want a face to face battle. Give it a moment of thought. Many of you protoss/terran players out there, admit it, you are always going for 3 base timings and zerg just learn how to defend those better. Idra has spoken and he is not biased here. Hahahahaha. You seriously believe that? I think it's sarcasm, I mean it has to be... right?
You never know, people with latch on to anything that validates their opinion. Even if its a load of horseshit
|
The one point which IdrA has mentioned, but which goes unnoticed in all the sarcasm or "taking his post serious word-for-word" is that the Infestor only gets stupidly overpowered when there are a ton of them (20+) with decent energy on them in the army. "A few" of them arent really that terrible, because they would lose a big chunk of their energy (potential) from chainfungaling some Medivacs/Hellions/... and only when there are a lot of them with lots of regeneration for their energy does it turn into "chainfungal is always available".
This should be an obvious point, because they are spellcasters and can therefore have the potential to "let loose all of their firepower" in a few seconds. This doesnt work the same for all spellcasters and is determined by their spells. Do they stack well or are they redundant? The somewhat obvious answer is that both of the combat spells stack very well and thus any gathering of a large number of Infestors is going to have a serious impact on the game. Other spellcasters in SC2 dont stack their powers as well as the Infestor, mostly because none of their abilities are this offensive OR because they are dangerous to use (like running a Raven into 6 range of an enemy to launch a Seeker Missile or Autoturret) OR because they are defensive in nature. Forecefields alone for example dont kill anything and often enough they prevent the Zealots from getting to potential targets in a battle. Fungal has no such potential backfires (does it have friendly fire?).
Again we are at the point where the concentration is the bad part and this supports my belief that the game could be better off with less economic and production boosts ... which would result in smaller armies and less ridiculous numbers. In addition to this the units should be forced to spread out to be able to adjust AoE powers (like Fungal) easier from a balancing standpoint.
|
On November 14 2012 22:02 Rabiator wrote:
The one point which IdrA has mentioned, but which goes unnoticed in all the sarcasm or "taking his post serious word-for-word" is that the Infestor only gets stupidly overpowered when there are a ton of them (20+) with decent energy on them in the army. "A few" of them arent really that terrible, because they would lose a big chunk of their energy (potential) from chainfungaling some Medivacs/Hellions/... and only when there are a lot of them with lots of regeneration for their energy does it turn into "chainfungal is always available".
This should be an obvious point, because they are spellcasters and can therefore have the potential to "let loose all of their firepower" in a few seconds. This doesnt work the same for all spellcasters and is determined by their spells. Do they stack well or are they redundant? The somewhat obvious answer is that both of the combat spells stack very well and thus any gathering of a large number of Infestors is going to have a serious impact on the game. Other spellcasters in SC2 dont stack their powers as well as the Infestor, mostly because none of their abilities are this offensive OR because they are dangerous to use (like running a Raven into 6 range of an enemy to launch a Seeker Missile or Autoturret) OR because they are defensive in nature. Forecefields alone for example dont kill anything and often enough they prevent the Zealots from getting to potential targets in a battle. Fungal has no such potential backfires (does it have friendly fire?).
Again we are at the point where the concentration is the bad part and this supports my belief that the game could be better off with less economic and production boosts ... which would result in smaller armies and less ridiculous numbers. In addition to this the units should be forced to spread out to be able to adjust AoE powers (like Fungal) easier from a balancing standpoint.
It's more about how easier infestors can survive compared to other casters due to long range skills, decent movement speed and burrow. That way you can stall your opponent and get to a good amount of infestors.
|
On November 14 2012 02:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 23:24 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 22:01 Rabiator wrote:On November 13 2012 19:54 Big J wrote:On November 13 2012 19:34 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 13 2012 19:01 Big J wrote:On November 13 2012 18:12 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 13 2012 18:06 Kharnage wrote:On November 13 2012 15:47 Rabiator wrote:On November 13 2012 15:37 TERRANLOL wrote:On November 13 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now. Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right. Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower. That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use]. Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off. You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong. Who the FUCK do you think you are??? You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +or woman, just an expression... who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion. This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them. Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part. That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up. As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified. Yeah, I see what you are saying, but just look at his example of unit movement, here is a quote from DB: We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it... There is quite some more on that topic in this thread on B.net. And it clearly shows, that the discussion is there, that blizzard cares, and the developers do have a clue about the game. So in conclusion (in my eyes), this guy is nothing but an (uninformed?) hater of the development team. Yes, Kharnage's reaction was quite fierce, but I fully understand him, because we all want SC2 to be the best it can be, yet it gets really frustrating to read everybodies amateur opinion over and over again on topics that people have already tested and argued through with a lot more effort than "the developers are not the right people to judge their game". And yes, things are not clear in the beginning. That's why I said there is nothing interesting about claiming that stuff, the interesting stuff is trying to prove it, be it by a good detailed (and therefore probably long) arguement/discussion, or probably even better, through straight up testing. So if Blizzard half-heartedly tests something that isnt going to work in its implementation and which was regarded as a joke in the thread anyways (after that kind of "we dont take your ideas serious enough to even try them out in the beta" answer) it is enough for you? Well not for me and if you think I am wrong then ARGUE WITH THE REASONING. Explain to me why ... Half-heartedly... so everything that hasn't been exposed to a huge portion of the community for an extended periode of time is half-heartedly? If you read the article, you will read that DB stated that they tested various instances of such movement. Imo this is not half-heartedly testing. Furthermore, the HotS beta is not a playground for any community idea someone has ever had. Make a map, test it yourself. If it is a popular idea, you will find a few (yeah not a lot, but still some) people to test such stuff, at least if you can eloquently explain the idea and it's goals in a thread (--> FRB, --> Starbow). Or just test it in Starbow. It's in there, I played that mod, I like that mod, but I actually don't think that the movement makes a significant difference in the playability of certain styles (while I think that the unit/income changes do actually matter a lot to the gameplay of the mod). To the other stuff: Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 22:01 Rabiator wrote:
1. asymmetric production speed boosts for the three races which kick in at different timings and dont work for every unit of each race are a good idea.
2. tightly clumped up groups of infantry are a good idea, because to make the game "fair" they had to nerf AoE abilities ... which usually are the exciting points in the game.
3. the deathball is a good thing.
4. tightly clumped units of Marines (and Hydras and Blink Stalkers) are NOT responsible for capital ships and defensive structures being more or less useless.
1.) asymetric production was in BW as well. A hatchery can start to produce 3 Ultralisks in 42seconds, but a factory (similar cost to a hatchery) just 1siege tank. The production boost that were introduced in SC2 (on top of changed production times) - I believe you talk about those - chronoboost, larva inject, mules, reactores, switchable addons - don't do anything differently than the (broodwar-) difference between a gateway (150mineral building that can produce 1zealot = 100resources/2supply worth of units in 40seconds) vs a barracks (150mineral building that can produce 100resources/2supply worth of units in 48seconds), which leads to a production advantage for Protoss. And this is a really, really soft example. And (still talking BW), different units profit differently from this production differences. F.e: 1 larva, would you build an ultralisk or 2zerglings from it? Do you wait for 9larva and 450minerals, to start 18zerglings, or do you wait for 9larva and stockpile 900/900 to start 9mutalisks? Asymetric production is one of the core principles that made Starcraft different from games with similar design (like CnC1 and RedAlert). 2.) Tightly clumped units can be good, or can be bad. In a game with a good variety of melee units that are simply designed to be stronger than ranged units on their own, clumping is a vital part of ranged play. If I had the choice, I would want less clumping in SC2, but I actually think - talking from my experience with other RTS games - the only way to reduce unit clumping, is to force more actionbased play, so that you have to move out with smaller amounts of units earlier. (just play any RTS game as noob, do some Big Game Hunters style of turtle play and see how it turns out. It's always going to be ball vs ball. Only when you start to get better, start to get how rushes work etc, the amount of units per location will decrease. Therefore, the best - maybe only - way to decrease clumping is to increase action). And in conclusion, actionbased play is very tightly connected to unitdesign and - balancing against each other. SC2 PvZ is stale, because Protoss can't move out due to zerg-speed and the roach being too strong vs sametime-available Protoss units. Zerg on the other hand cannot attack either, because of Protoss-range and Protoss-walls. It's unhealthy unit relationship that is hurting the matchup, not clumping, yet all we see is deathballs vs deathballs. 3.) The deathball is not a good thing, but it's not a bad thing either. Deathballs are necessary. At some point in the game, you want to grab your army and kill the opponent. Same for watching a game. At some point, you want to see something big happening. Harassment all over the map is nice and exciting. However, seeing someone die from multipronged aggression while no real encounter has ever happened feels wrong. Outside of biostyles (the irony... the super dps-dense balls allow for these styles more than anything else) and multipronged zergstyles against macro Terrans (a pity that we don't see this enough. Probably the best reason to nerf endgame zerg to force more aggressive play), I agree that the game might be lacking these things. (lategame warp-prism usage is actually quite cool as well). But if you actually watched this game from the very beginning, it has become a lot better just by figuering out all the various timings and ways to spread an opponent out and though the deathball is a goal in the game, it's not a consistent playstyle anymore, most of the time. (and that was being done just by figuring and balance changes, without the change of coremechanics) 4.) Of course they are responsible for captial ships not being very good. But you know, there would be an easy solution. Buff the said units until they are viable. If rushing them becomes too strong, lengthen the time to tech there. For example, BCs and Broodlords do beat marines in the higher numbers, that's why we see those units in the late/endgame against marines. Carriers don't beat them ever, that's why we don't see them at all against marines. BCs have seen a little bit of usage against Zerg, but they could use a small buff still. Carriers need quite a buff. Defensive structures not good enough? Sorry, but I simply disagree with this. 1canon + wall holds a ton of (Zerg) stuff, spines are nearly as often being whined about as Broodlords are. Bunkers... don't even start about those things, they should get nerfed  PFs, Turrets... all of that stuff is really good. Maybe Protoss vs air defense is slightly lacking. Maybe all the ground defenses could use +1range (7range spine/canon vs 5-6range mobile troops makes runbies quite strong and the need for siege weapons smaller), but they are generally quite good and cheap and outside of highlevel games, I can only encourage everybody to just build one extra, because it won't matter on that level of play for the macrogame, but win you a lot of games in the shortrun. Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 22:01 Rabiator wrote:
Just remember ... "because the devs say so" or something similar isnt a good enough reason. If you dont answer then I have to assume that I am right in that these things are terrible AND a problem of the game.
EDIT:
Slight addition to the above: How "high quality" and "thorough" Blizzard internal testing is can be clearly seen by the HotS units and their really wild changes. I for one dont put much stock in those skills ... with such uninspired and almost random ability changes. Most of the community has "asked" blizzard to be more open about their unit designs and allow themselves more changes. Blizzard listened, it's a good thing. Not a bad thing. Though I also agree with Artosis on that matter. Stuff like the warhound might not have been very interesting by design, but could have been really good for the strategy part in the RTS Starcraft:HotS. Still happy that it is gone, yet really courious about how it would have worked out with it. Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote:
1. The question was not about asymmetric production, but rather about asymmetric BOOSTS. The general asymmetric production between Zerg and the other two races works as proven in BW, but is the same true if you also apply boosts which only affect a limited part of their army for two races and the full repertoire for the third? I am convinced that Siege Tanks not being boosted through reactors is one of the reasons why mech is so hard to pull off; casters are telling us about the limited reproducability of the tank every mech game after all ... Since "more units on the battlefield" is not a good thing, the only remaining option is to get rid of these boosts ... which would also get rid of the MULE which people have whined about forever ... As I have already said (or at least implied), production boosts are nothing but additional ways for production. Their asymetry by design is in no ways different to the general asymetry of production design. If tanks are not being produced because it takes too long to produce them, then just change the value, no need to question reactors.
Well these production boosts increase the number of units on the battlefield and that is NOT a good thing IMO as explained below ... so the boosts are a bad design due to several reasons. If you reduce the production time for the Siege Tank and the Thor and the BC in half you are basically negating/undermining the intention of the Reactor and also are contradicting your own point of getting out these units which "arent cost efficient" (your words and I think everyone agrees) out later [see #4 argument below].
On November 14 2012 02:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote:
2. If you make melee units much stronger than ranged units you are basically screwing up the balance when there are few units around. This doesnt work and increasing the attacks of the Siege Tank - to counteract the deathball for example - would be just as bad. If you had 2-3 Zealots while the opponent has 5-6 Marines you will win simply because there isnt that mass of units around. So your train of thought is not going in the right direction. Tougher units or units which deal more damage dont work if they are changed to accomodate the "mass army fight", because that always screws up the individual balance between any units ... so the only solution is to get rid of the deathball by NOT adjusting these combat values. I'm not saying that melee units should be stronger. I said that the strategies of the game should allow the player that has to build melee/low range units, to engage with them for as long as they scale well. SC2 doesn't manage that for all of those units, therefore the melee player must (go allin or) turtle and wait for the opponent to go into the open.
So the question is: How do you want to make melee units more viable when they are faced by ranged units? How do you balance them between "just a few of each" and "tons of each"? The more units there are involved the higher the "rate of death" will be and this is the thing which ruins the game IMO, because it simply is too hard to balance units between those two. At some point the dps of a clump of Marines will be so high that any Zealots will have no chance to even get to them before dying ... They only manage it now because of the crutch called "charge upgrade". The same is true for all the other melee units.
So the logical conclusion is to somehow limit the number of units - especially ranged ones - involved in a battle or which are "in range". This is a pretty simple solution, but if you have a better one I would like to hear it. "Declarations of intent" like yours are all fine and well, but they have to be implemented as well.
On November 14 2012 02:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote:
3. Deathballs are not necessary to win. If the other side isnt capable of bringing a deathball to the battlefield then you dont need yours to win either. The big clumps of armies do prevent real micro from happening, because you can not focus on a small part of your army and let your bigger part run into their doom. Just watch some BW games and you see plenty of action ... "something big" is NOT necessary for entertainment purposes, its just what people are told what they should think is good. As usual: bigger is not necessarily better. Broodwar tank pushes, broodwar hydralisk busts, MM pushes. Sorry, but that's all just big army play, the only difference being movement and visually, but it's the same idea. Get your whole army into the face of your opponent. I'm not a broodwar specialist, but in the few games I have seen (usually the ones that float around with comments like "amazing game") I actually haven't seen a single game, in which someone didn't try to overrun a locations with most of his army moving there.
I didnt say that there were no big engagements in BW, just that you didnt need them as much as in SC2. Even then you almost never had the whole armies from both sides on one screen (or even two due to the increased size in SC2). The whole point is to make more options available for players, because defensive play - which more or less relies on less mobile forces - is not viable right now.
The bigger part of the problem is - which many people will agree with me - that the Lurker and the Reaver are pretty fun units in BW, but [my interpretation from here on] those two are not going to be fun in SC2 due to the fact that their attacks are AoE and pretty deadly. So you would have to nerf them to make them "fair and balanced" [like the Siege Tank] and would end up with less satisfying [=fun] attacks and units which are not cost effective. In short it is my theory that "less army density = abilities can be more overpowered = more fun". As an example you can look at the excitement of a Baneling mine being used to kill a bunch of Marines ... Instadeath with no warning, but a lot of luck and "lets hope he doesnt have detection" involved. That is OP but fun AND the right concentration of Banelings. Having 30 Banelings (because the Zerg got to the point of getting an insane economy going) roll into a bunch of Marines or even a Planetary Fortress is not fun, because it doesnt take any luck and the Terran can only defend against it with the micro skills of a young Korean kid. Even a casual player can build a Raven to have with his army to detect burrowed Banelings, but he cant micro like MKP against a bunch of them rolling into his infantry.
On November 14 2012 02:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote:
Smaller fights between smaller armies just offer more control to the player since they are slower AND they leave room for the devs to implement seemingly overpowered abilities. If Fungal would only hit 3 Marines each time because they are spread out that much it wouldnt be such a pain in the rear ability for example. Slower battles are also easier to understand and follow for a spectator. Yes, and they are achieved by allowing for more aggressive macro play in all matchups or changing the production-action relation (upping the amount of things that can be done with a unit, until a new unit is produced and you gotta get out of there; map sizes, unit speed, production speed).
Ummm ... I dont think your logic is right. "Aggressive play" will result in more random [= "you have to scout it or lose"] victories, which are terrible for both pros and casuals. More aggression will make the game faster and that means less easy to control. Just take your car and drive through a narrow city street at 50 km/h and then do the same at 200 km/h ... there is a reason why our cities have low speed limits in cities. There is a limit to what humans are capable of doing and Starcraft 2 is already too fast (for casuals at least). The reason for this is production capability and the army size and density involved in fights.
On November 14 2012 02:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote:
4. The same argument from #2 applies to capital ships ... if you buff the BC to not die easily to 20 Marines you would make BC rushes pretty powerful. Did you even read what I wrote? If they become to powerful, make them enter the battlefield later. For example, BC now additionally needs an armory, and the fusion core takes another 20seconds. (this concept works very well for zerg units. Ever tried to rush Ultras of one or two bases, or broodlords? It's a bad strategy, because of the huge amounts of bound investments of time/resources) Even more, it's not about buffing them to be superunits. It's about smoothing out their transition. 1BC should get murdered by 20marines. The strength of Carriers and BCs lies within their supply efficientness, versality and the flying aspect. Right now, their costefficiency is just (in the case of the BC slightly) too low.
Skyterran shouldnt be a "late game transition", but a truly possible alternative to bio and mech. Same for Protoss and Zerg. There is no really possible way to transition into this, because of the Terran upgrade style of three separate sets. You have to make the decision early and this is a good thing. Sadly there is no possibility for BCs to survive in a decent number because of the tightly clumped packs of Infantry (and Fungal and Neural and Feedback). Their chance to be useful against an enemy with a decent number of infantry is close to zero, but it could be less bad with a reduced density of infantry. Again I have given you my implementation on how to solve a problem. How do you want to make BCs viable for example? What needs to be changed?
On November 14 2012 02:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote:
Static defenses are pretty terrible in SC2 due to the simple fact that a tight clump of infantry can tear a small number of them down too easily. Its the same as for the capital ships and buffing them is a terrible idea, because of cannon rushes and so on. Even a Planetary Fortress on its own only lasts longish against a serious attack if it is repaired instantly and nothing can prevent it from being destroyed by a column of Banelings rolling in on a rightclick. I simply disagree. I think it's easy enough to turtle in this game. If you want more defenders army advantages for small groups, then I agree with you. At least when we talk about Protoss.
Oh there should be a defenders advantage for both armies and static defenses, but how do you want to achieve it? High ground advantage only goes so far and relies totally on the maps, so there should be something better. I have given you my implementation (forced spread of moving units and micro to allow for tighter positioning).
|
Why bother teching up if the zerg is turtling? As soon as you both engage, and your armies are wiped (or even if you come out way ahead of zerg), zerg can just flood with roaches and lings. What's the point of teching up at all? Larva mechanic is stronger than any terran or protoss late game.
|
On November 15 2012 01:21 BeholdOblivion wrote:
Why bother teching up if the zerg is turtling? As soon as you both engage, and your armies are wiped (or even if you come out way ahead of zerg), zerg can just flood with roaches and lings. What's the point of teching up at all? Larva mechanic is stronger than any terran or protoss late game.
so true.
Terran and toss cant realy tech up against zerg,they can never match reproduction of t2 and t3 units after the battle.
Building all thoose factorys and starports for only 1 big army and 1 battle you have to win, also is not a verry efficient use of resources.
Only way is to tech up and then kill the zerg with the 1 change you get, guess this is reason for the deathball play style.
|
Finally the Rock as come back to Blizzard's Forums !
|
Sorry for cutting the former quotes, but it is getting too much to handle for me ^^
Well these production boosts increase the number of units on the battlefield and that is NOT a good thing IMO as explained below ... so the boosts are a bad design due to several reasons. If you reduce the production time for the Siege Tank and the Thor and the BC in half you are basically negating/undermining the intention of the Reactor and also are contradicting your own point of getting out these units which "arent cost efficient" (your words and I think everyone agrees) out later [see #4 argument below].
Prodution is different from unit to unit. As an example:
you get 100minerals/2supply worth of units from 1 single warpgate in 28seconds, but to achieve the same with barracks, you basically need two of them. The same is true raceintern.
Some of the units biggest advantages is their production speed, with or without macroboosts.
That doesn't mean that "unboostable" units need to be balanced to be produced in the same speed as boosted ones. All that needs to be done is, to make sure that those unboosted units have enough other advantages. In TvZ and TvT this is the case for the siege tank and a great form of balance between bio(mech) and mech got achieved, even if mech core units don't profit as much from the macroboosts, as bio.
So the question is: How do you want to make melee units more viable when they are faced by ranged units? How do you balance them between "just a few of each" and "tons of each"? The more units there are involved the higher the "rate of death" will be and this is the thing which ruins the game IMO, because it simply is too hard to balance units between those two. At some point the dps of a clump of Marines will be so high that any Zealots will have no chance to even get to them before dying ... They only manage it now because of the crutch called "charge upgrade". The same is true for all the other melee units.
So the logical conclusion is to somehow limit the number of units - especially ranged ones - involved in a battle or which are "in range". This is a pretty simple solution, but if you have a better one I would like to hear it. "Declarations of intent" like yours are all fine and well, but they have to be implemented as well.
The idea I was implying was that melee strategies should have better strategical tools to force engagements.
Simple example: Let's say it was possible for zerglings (for example through an upgrade) to climb over buildings very slowly and eventually get into a base. Mass ling could now inflict (more) damage to an opponent that has only a wall with 2marines or a canon behind.
This is actually quite a stupid example, as I think speedlings - due to their speed and the baneling morph on low tier - do have quite some capabilities to attack an opponent, or at least backstab him whenever he wants to leave. The problematic units in these scenarios are mostly zealots and low-mid amounts of roaches.
It's not about rebalancing the units, it's about giving "melee races" tools, so that melee units can shine.
I didnt say that there were no big engagements in BW, just that you didnt need them as much as in SC2. Even then you almost never had the whole armies from both sides on one screen (or even two due to the increased size in SC2). The whole point is to make more options available for players, because defensive play - which more or less relies on less mobile forces - is not viable right now.
The bigger part of the problem is - which many people will agree with me - that the Lurker and the Reaver are pretty fun units in BW, but [my interpretation from here on] those two are not going to be fun in SC2 due to the fact that their attacks are AoE and pretty deadly. So you would have to nerf them to make them "fair and balanced" [like the Siege Tank] and would end up with less satisfying [=fun] attacks and units which are not cost effective. In short it is my theory that "less army density = abilities can be more overpowered = more fun". As an example you can look at the excitement of a Baneling mine being used to kill a bunch of Marines ... Instadeath with no warning, but a lot of luck and "lets hope he doesnt have detection" involved. That is OP but fun AND the right concentration of Banelings. Having 30 Banelings (because the Zerg got to the point of getting an insane economy going) roll into a bunch of Marines or even a Planetary Fortress is not fun, because it doesnt take any luck and the Terran can only defend against it with the micro skills of a young Korean kid. Even a casual player can build a Raven to have with his army to detect burrowed Banelings, but he cant micro like MKP against a bunch of them rolling into his infantry.
Well, yes AoE does need to have different values in BW an SC2, due to the changed gameplay. That doesn't mean that AoE is weak. Look at the example of Terran:
Protoss AoE is in the right place to deal with Terran Bio without being to powerful
Terran AoE is in the right place to deal with Terran Bio without forcing you to go Bio
Zerg AoE is in the right place (or slightly to high in the lategame) to deal with Bio without being too powerful
I don't think any AoE in this game is weak, it's just not balanced properly against all the possible opposing units. (siege tanks/banelings to weak against bigger units, Colossi too strong against nonkiting units, storms not strong enough against roaches and broodlords). Generally I don't think bigass AoE is a very exciting solution. It limits basic units too much, yet some of the most dynamic (= fun) strategies are such that focus on using many of those on multiple fronts, while slowly teching towards the higher tech units.
Mech is basically the one and only exception, in which I like bigass splash units as basic strategy. And this is due to the unique design of the siege tank and the fact that mech forces the opponent to be dynamic with low tier units. (at least it should; that it can't like in TvP or sometimes in TvZ is more a problem of underpowered siege tanks against certain units, than of AoE)
Ummm ... I dont think your logic is right. "Aggressive play" will result in more random [= "you have to scout it or lose"] victories, which are terrible for both pros and casuals. More aggression will make the game faster and that means less easy to control. Just take your car and drive through a narrow city street at 50 km/h and then do the same at 200 km/h ... there is a reason why our cities have low speed limits in cities. There is a limit to what humans are capable of doing and Starcraft 2 is already too fast (for casuals at least). The reason for this is production capability and the army size and density involved in fights.
I disagree that it turns out random.
Look at PvZ, it is the most stale matchup of all, because no aggression is possible. Now think about it this way:
What if Zerg could pressure an FFE of two base, yet not get away with quite as much if going for a 3base play.
It would force Protoss, to blindly invest more into units early on, but if the zerg didn't go for the two base, use those units to try and make at least a little something happen.
Or the queen buff in TvZ. Standard Terran play at that time was, to do a medium commitment by building a factory and 4hellions, sit in the front of the zerg base and kite everything to death that is not a huge commitment, while building 3bases faster than the zerg or attacking the zerg heavily 2base vs 2base.
Under the assumption that hellion contains were really too strong, let's say that blizzard had buffed roaches (please no discussion why this is wrong for PvZ or ZvZ or something, it's just a TvZ specific possibility and something else migth achieve something similar) instead of queens. Roaches are attack capable. Queens not.
Now this would have been a buff, in which reacting to aggression with aggression would have been rewarded and might have changed the metagame differently. Zergs might have been contained on 2base, but they would have gotten the option to punish a Terran that undercommits to units more severly. But more Terran units early (less 3CC play), would have resulted in the need to do something with those units, if Zerg would go for a 2base spire or infestor build instead or just took the later (yet still fast in comparison to the Terran) third.
Dynamic is everything. Back and forth is the key to a good matchup. (I believe) TvT, TvZ, TvP and ZvZ are the best matchups, because they offer dynamic. If I pressure with ling/bling in ZvZ, my opponent needs to build units, but if he gets faked out, he needs to make something happen with said units. It's not always like that in those matchups, but usually we do see stuff like Protoss sending a (few) stalker(s) out to pressure a Terran, a Terran doing some medivac pushing or a zerg trying some ling stuff. Even PvP is like that from time to time.
ZvP however is stale, because noone can play aggressive. A sentry+a canon+a wall holds nearly all Zerg aggression without even altering Protoss timings. Roach/ling compositions just rape Protoss open field outside of timings.
Imo swarm hosts and Oracles can't be low enough in tech for that matchup. Anything that forces Zerg to stay on two base eco (even if it is with 3bases), anything that forces Protoss to invest into units instead of gateways (why is 1robo + X gates considered a tech setup; make it a starport, a robo and 3-4gates!) as standard play can only be good. Make swarm hosts so strong, that 2base Host will laugh the shit out of 3base drone zerg. Make it so that Oracles collect freewins against any hatchery that is not guarded by queens and spores.
Again, dynamic is everything. I wanna see this game, with players playing against each other. Not against techs, not against bases and not against some unit AI or mechanical obstacles. Against some other person with a bananagrin, because he knows he is going to be in your face over and over again.
Skyterran shouldnt be a "late game transition", but a truly possible alternative to bio and mech. Same for Protoss and Zerg. There is no really possible way to transition into this, because of the Terran upgrade style of three separate sets. You have to make the decision early and this is a good thing. Sadly there is no possibility for BCs to survive in a decent number because of the tightly clumped packs of Infantry (and Fungal and Neural and Feedback). Their chance to be useful against an enemy with a decent number of infantry is close to zero, but it could be less bad with a reduced density of infantry. Again I have given you my implementation on how to solve a problem. How do you want to make BCs viable for example? What needs to be changed?
The Air attribute is too strong in this game imo, to allow air strategies to be mainstream strategies. If (nearly) every unit could attack air, it would be fine. But this is not the case, therefore pure air strategies are either boring (they force very certain compositions and strategies from the opponent), overpowered (they force air reactions, because GtA can't deal with them) or underpowered (you can't get them going, because GtA destroys them).
There are very few instances of good Air strategies in this game (and as far as I know in Broodwar). Mutalisks, due to larva (which allows huge switches into this strategy and out of this strategy) and the fact that they are fast raiders, yet bad in combat. (With a grain of salt, because I don't know Broodwar too much) Carriers in Broodwar PvT, which are slightly similar to mutalisks, due to their huge range and the fact that Mech is basically not good at dealing with them, yet they are somewhat risky to pull off as well. And that's about it. BL/Corruptor (vs P and T) and endgame BC/Raven/Viking armies (vs T) are basically overpowered and force air reactions, while BC/Raven/Viking is nearly impossible to transition into vs an opponent that has antiair by default (bioplayers), so in that scenario underpowered.
That's why I think Air Units should only be supporters, raiders or endgame units in Starcraft games.
Oh there should be a defenders advantage for both armies and static defenses, but how do you want to achieve it? High ground advantage only goes so far and relies totally on the maps, so there should be something better. I have given you my implementation (forced spread of moving units and micro to allow for tighter positioning).
There is a variety of good things in the game, starting with vision/speed by creep, over siege mechanics, supply depots, queens and statics. Just add a little more to that arsenal, especially for Protoss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
