|
On January 14 2013 06:33 Mjolnir wrote:
I have disliked Infestors since SC2 came out. I would say that I've hated them since the big fungal patch ages ago.
I play Terran and Zerg equally. I used to play a lot of Terran in BW and it was always my favourite race but I switched to add Zerg to my repertoire in SC2 because I thought Blizzard completely dropped the ball on Terran's design and play style.
That being said, I don't feel as though I'm really biased either way, certainly not as biased as this article.
I think the problem with Infestors stems from the facts that:
1) Bio is really strong.
2) Banelings suck.
3) Lurkers were removed in beta.
4) Zerg has weak early/mid anti-air options.
That means that people will use Infestors as often as possible. Not because they want to abuse an "OP" unit, but because it's the best option available. Same goes for Terran, in most games, Terran players go some form of MMM - mech and air are (unfortunately) rare. Bio is strong as hell and it gets the job done, so why deviate? Infestor play is no different.
I would have absolutely loved it if Lurkers were still in the game. Think of how much Lurkers added to BW: positional defence or offence, forced detection, lethal killers of clumped units - but could be killed by a single marine with good micro, weak to tanks, weak to air; they were a niche unit that served a very specific role and did that job exceedingly well.
Banelings were supposed to be the answer to losing Lurkers; a potentially burrowed threat that had the power to move around and kill clumps of units (specifically marines/lings). Unfortunately Banelings suck against a competent opponent. Nobody used Infestors early on in SC2 because they had a weak (slow) FG damage - so it took a while (and a big buff) for people to realize that they actually had a use (which I suspect was originally meant to lock down units for your Banelings).
As it turns out, the way to deal with all threats has become Infestors. Which sucks for all players (and viewers). I feel the team working on SC2 has lost sight of what made BW such a fantastic game and they're too stubborn to admit it.
I don't want to start a BW vs Sc2 discussion, there is like a million threads on it. I am just wondering if sc2 was just BW, with the same pathing , interface and units, but they just made it easier to put things in control groups and macro easier, would that be a better game than sc2?
|
On January 14 2013 06:54 patronage wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 06:33 Mjolnir wrote:
I have disliked Infestors since SC2 came out. I would say that I've hated them since the big fungal patch ages ago.
I play Terran and Zerg equally. I used to play a lot of Terran in BW and it was always my favourite race but I switched to add Zerg to my repertoire in SC2 because I thought Blizzard completely dropped the ball on Terran's design and play style.
That being said, I don't feel as though I'm really biased either way, certainly not as biased as this article.
I think the problem with Infestors stems from the facts that:
1) Bio is really strong.
2) Banelings suck.
3) Lurkers were removed in beta.
4) Zerg has weak early/mid anti-air options.
That means that people will use Infestors as often as possible. Not because they want to abuse an "OP" unit, but because it's the best option available. Same goes for Terran, in most games, Terran players go some form of MMM - mech and air are (unfortunately) rare. Bio is strong as hell and it gets the job done, so why deviate? Infestor play is no different.
I would have absolutely loved it if Lurkers were still in the game. Think of how much Lurkers added to BW: positional defence or offence, forced detection, lethal killers of clumped units - but could be killed by a single marine with good micro, weak to tanks, weak to air; they were a niche unit that served a very specific role and did that job exceedingly well.
Banelings were supposed to be the answer to losing Lurkers; a potentially burrowed threat that had the power to move around and kill clumps of units (specifically marines/lings). Unfortunately Banelings suck against a competent opponent. Nobody used Infestors early on in SC2 because they had a weak (slow) FG damage - so it took a while (and a big buff) for people to realize that they actually had a use (which I suspect was originally meant to lock down units for your Banelings).
As it turns out, the way to deal with all threats has become Infestors. Which sucks for all players (and viewers). I feel the team working on SC2 has lost sight of what made BW such a fantastic game and they're too stubborn to admit it.
I don't want to start a BW vs Sc2 discussion, there is like a million threads on it. I am just wondering if sc2 was just BW, with the same pathing , interface and units, but they just made it easier to put things in control groups and macro easier, would that be a better game than sc2?
I'd like it better.
Hell, I'd like it better if it was straight up BW with the enhanced graphics.
|
After watching five up/down groups and a wild card group in the GSL, I must say that I think Terran and Zerg look pretty balanced. There are many games that are really back-and-forth and a lot of interesting engagements. Both Terran and Zerg have some really interesting, not completely coin-flippy agression that gives us interesting starts to games. I like how they trade Hellions for drones or Banelings for SCVs.
I can't say I am enjoying my Protoss games much lately. They seem to be stuck in this rut where what happens early in the game often completely defines the whole game. Where both Zerg and Terran have interesting ways of trading army for workers and do early agression, Protoss seems to only have all-or-nothing, coin-flippy affairs that I am not really enjoing either succeed or fail.
Some Protoss players have managed to create some fairly unique builds and play styles, but they seem to go in and out of fashion really fast as they get figured out. Which again means they look gimmicky. I am not good enough to know, but it really looks like the good Protoss players have problems molding Protoss into something can surprise their opponents, even for a short period. The two most successful players in my eyes are Parting and especially MC.
I have kind of lost hope with WoL and hope they get it fixed with HotS without making Protoss this 1-a giant death ball of long-ranged-mayhem.
|
On January 14 2013 08:10 blackbrrd wrote:
After watching five up/down groups and a wild card group in the GSL, I must say that I think Terran and Zerg look pretty balanced. There are many games that are really back-and-forth and a lot of interesting engagements. Both Terran and Zerg have some really interesting, not completely coin-flippy agression that gives us interesting starts to games. I like how they trade Hellions for drones or Banelings for SCVs.
I can't say I am enjoying my Protoss games much lately. They seem to be stuck in this rut where what happens early in the game often completely defines the whole game. Where both Zerg and Terran have interesting ways of trading army for workers and do early agression, Protoss seems to only have all-or-nothing, coin-flippy affairs that I am not really enjoing either succeed or fail.
Some Protoss players have managed to create some fairly unique builds and play styles, but they seem to go in and out of fashion really fast as they get figured out. Which again means they look gimmicky. I am not good enough to know, but it really looks like the good Protoss players have problems molding Protoss into something can surprise their opponents, even for a short period. The two most successful players in my eyes are Parting and especially MC.
I have kind of lost hope with WoL and hope they get it fixed with HotS without making Protoss this 1-a giant death ball of long-ranged-mayhem.
Don't agree with your first statement. TvZ was 6-11 in U&D. The only interesting/even games were when zergs kept trying to throw themselves at sieged up defense using ling bling muta.
|
great article 10/10
ver is the man
|
This article is simply amazingly well written but it made me really sad  lately i find myself less and less often watching a tournament. Last week I tuned in to Iron squid quarter finals and I was disgusted. ZvZ, one after the other. What happened to the game I loved to watch (and in 2011 I was even showing it to a non-nerdy friend of mine and we would watch MLG together).
I know I am a bit late to the party, I was wondering where all the "Patchzerg" hate came from. Heh... I can not even imagine how someone might disagree that BL-infestor is plain ugly to watch. This doesn't make for a good game, neither for spectators nor for the players. And it doesn't matter if your main race is Zerg, Terran or Protoss.
Oh and Toss is in really bad shape too, sentries are far too important for early game toss (much like infestors are supposed to fill gaps in the zerg units). Too gimicky and far from the BW idea
o7
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On January 18 2013 06:08 FHC Nex wrote:This article is simply amazingly well written but it made me really sad lately i find myself less and less often watching a tournament. Last week I tuned in to Iron squid quarter finals and I was disgusted. ZvZ, one after the other. What happened to the game I loved to watch (and in 2011 I was even showing it to a non-nerdy friend of mine and we would watch MLG together). I know I am a bit late to the party, I was wondering where all the "Patchzerg" hate came from. Heh... I can not even imagine how someone might disagree that BL-infestor is plain ugly to watch. This doesn't make for a good game, neither for spectators nor for the players. And it doesn't matter if your main race is Zerg, Terran or Protoss. Oh and Toss is in really bad shape too, sentries are far too important for early game toss (much like infestors are supposed to fill gaps in the zerg units). Too gimicky and far from the BW idea o7
You realise the OP is an elaborate joke right?
|
@above
Its an elaborate joke based off of facts and a true disgust for how the game has been shaping up. People use entertaining stories to teach lessons all the time; its an effective method of getting a point across.
|
On January 18 2013 06:51 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 06:08 FHC Nex wrote:This article is simply amazingly well written but it made me really sad lately i find myself less and less often watching a tournament. Last week I tuned in to Iron squid quarter finals and I was disgusted. ZvZ, one after the other. What happened to the game I loved to watch (and in 2011 I was even showing it to a non-nerdy friend of mine and we would watch MLG together). I know I am a bit late to the party, I was wondering where all the "Patchzerg" hate came from. Heh... I can not even imagine how someone might disagree that BL-infestor is plain ugly to watch. This doesn't make for a good game, neither for spectators nor for the players. And it doesn't matter if your main race is Zerg, Terran or Protoss. Oh and Toss is in really bad shape too, sentries are far too important for early game toss (much like infestors are supposed to fill gaps in the zerg units). Too gimicky and far from the BW idea o7 You realise the OP is an elaborate joke right?
It's satirical, there's a huge difference. Satire portrays legitimate concerns.
|
On January 18 2013 06:51 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 06:08 FHC Nex wrote:This article is simply amazingly well written but it made me really sad lately i find myself less and less often watching a tournament. Last week I tuned in to Iron squid quarter finals and I was disgusted. ZvZ, one after the other. What happened to the game I loved to watch (and in 2011 I was even showing it to a non-nerdy friend of mine and we would watch MLG together). I know I am a bit late to the party, I was wondering where all the "Patchzerg" hate came from. Heh... I can not even imagine how someone might disagree that BL-infestor is plain ugly to watch. This doesn't make for a good game, neither for spectators nor for the players. And it doesn't matter if your main race is Zerg, Terran or Protoss. Oh and Toss is in really bad shape too, sentries are far too important for early game toss (much like infestors are supposed to fill gaps in the zerg units). Too gimicky and far from the BW idea o7 You realise the OP is an elaborate joke right?
It's too intelligent and not funny enough to be a joke. His joke is answering the question "why have blizzard waited so long to fix it." The purpose of the joke was to say that there is no good reason and that it should be fixed, by proposing something ridiculous.
|
On January 18 2013 06:51 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 06:08 FHC Nex wrote:This article is simply amazingly well written but it made me really sad lately i find myself less and less often watching a tournament. Last week I tuned in to Iron squid quarter finals and I was disgusted. ZvZ, one after the other. What happened to the game I loved to watch (and in 2011 I was even showing it to a non-nerdy friend of mine and we would watch MLG together). I know I am a bit late to the party, I was wondering where all the "Patchzerg" hate came from. Heh... I can not even imagine how someone might disagree that BL-infestor is plain ugly to watch. This doesn't make for a good game, neither for spectators nor for the players. And it doesn't matter if your main race is Zerg, Terran or Protoss. Oh and Toss is in really bad shape too, sentries are far too important for early game toss (much like infestors are supposed to fill gaps in the zerg units). Too gimicky and far from the BW idea o7 You realise the OP is an elaborate joke right?
The joke is the summary of his post (where he suggests that Fungal should be buffed)? And well, probably the :tinfoil: story about blizzard doing it on purpose. Everything else is pretty much spot on. I really dont want to watch SC2 if it looks like that. Playing it is another story, although im tired of seeing BL/infestor every game on ladder.
|
If blizzard did it on purpose they made a big mistake.
Its true foreigners like to see foreigners win but the infestor bl army is just boring to watch for manny fans.
Against protoss its so imba its painfull to watch and i feel sad everytime i see someone loose without beeing able to do annything realy.
To safe vieuwer numbers and tournaments blizzard will verry soon nerve the infestor+bl, they dont realy have other choise,and i do think its one of the reasons why vieuwership is declining.
|
i posted a thread on blizzard official forums under general. giving you full credit for writing this informative thread with all the graph data youve compiled and current state of the game. the result was my thread got deleted in 2 hours after 3 pages. with the recent nerf blizzard made by making fg 10range in hots, and my last 40 ladder games had 31 zergs, and last 8 ladder matches had 6 zergs, i don't know what to say anymore.
|
If blizzard could recruit you to work on the balance of the game, that would avoid this kind of problems.
I was top master about to pass Gm on EU ladder but I stopped 1v1 after this patch. Just before we got the snipe nerf, but the queen up was way too strong imo and I saw more 6 months the situation has become like I forsaw..
The problem is that s not important I forsaw that, the problem is than blizzard doesnt see that... I cannot understand bowder and kim... especially when bowder says : terran is so strong and so versatil... WTF !!!
Terran has no options against p and z, he has to adapt hi tec but he never has the lead in the game.
I think blizzard has to recruit better guys to work on the balance, like real players and not guys who dont absolutely understand anything at the game.
|
Just... wow. This is indeed a very scientific approach to a conspiracy plot.
I have just one thing to say about this without digging out tons of statistics and discrimination:
Right now I am watching the ESET Wintermasters 2012, no zerg player is seen in the quarterfinals. (Probably whooping korean asses at this very moment?)
|
On January 20 2013 05:44 Frankynat0r wrote:
Just... wow. This is indeed a very scientific approach to a conspiracy plot.
I have just one thing to say about this without digging out tons of statistics and discrimination:
Right now I am watching the ESET Wintermasters 2012, no zerg player is seen in the quarterfinals. (Probably whooping korean asses at this very moment?)
Infestors just got nerfed yo, the age of the patchzerg is over! The Jedi have returned!
|
On January 20 2013 05:50 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2013 05:44 Frankynat0r wrote:
Just... wow. This is indeed a very scientific approach to a conspiracy plot.
I have just one thing to say about this without digging out tons of statistics and discrimination:
Right now I am watching the ESET Wintermasters 2012, no zerg player is seen in the quarterfinals. (Probably whooping korean asses at this very moment?)
Infestors just got nerfed yo, the age of the patchzerg is over! The Jedi have returned!
That would be sith, not jedi
|
I am not denying the game issues. I loved when the (my) zerg race was hard to play, in fact I switched to zerg when terrans were wihtout question the dominant race because I like to bet on the underdog. Blizzard makes mistakes indeed (doubling damage on FG to not say the least) but the overall picture you draw from this is just a bunch of idiocies. This article is the definition of sophism by excellence.
All that behing said, the whole evolution and history of the game is still well vivid as you just demonstrated with this post. That gives me hope for better Sc2 futur and plenty of enjoyment for its actual state. (sry 4 my bad english)
|
On January 14 2013 08:10 blackbrrd wrote:
After watching five up/down groups and a wild card group in the GSL, I must say that I think Terran and Zerg look pretty balanced. There are many games that are really back-and-forth and a lot of interesting engagements. Both Terran and Zerg have some really interesting, not completely coin-flippy agression that gives us interesting starts to games. I like how they trade Hellions for drones or Banelings for SCVs.
I can't say I am enjoying my Protoss games much lately. They seem to be stuck in this rut where what happens early in the game often completely defines the whole game. Where both Zerg and Terran have interesting ways of trading army for workers and do early agression, Protoss seems to only have all-or-nothing, coin-flippy affairs that I am not really enjoing either succeed or fail.
Some Protoss players have managed to create some fairly unique builds and play styles, but they seem to go in and out of fashion really fast as they get figured out. Which again means they look gimmicky. I am not good enough to know, but it really looks like the good Protoss players have problems molding Protoss into something can surprise their opponents, even for a short period. The two most successful players in my eyes are Parting and especially MC.
I have kind of lost hope with WoL and hope they get it fixed with HotS without making Protoss this 1-a giant death ball of long-ranged-mayhem.
There's also the flipside though, now in every TvZ, the first 15 minute really don't matter. It's like in basketball where only the last 2 minutes matter. It's almost like there's no consequence to losing entire armies because they're just streamlining more, and defense is too strong to overcome unless you gain like a 60-70 supply lead.
|
On January 14 2013 06:54 patronage wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 06:33 Mjolnir wrote:
I have disliked Infestors since SC2 came out. I would say that I've hated them since the big fungal patch ages ago.
I play Terran and Zerg equally. I used to play a lot of Terran in BW and it was always my favourite race but I switched to add Zerg to my repertoire in SC2 because I thought Blizzard completely dropped the ball on Terran's design and play style.
That being said, I don't feel as though I'm really biased either way, certainly not as biased as this article.
I think the problem with Infestors stems from the facts that:
1) Bio is really strong.
2) Banelings suck.
3) Lurkers were removed in beta.
4) Zerg has weak early/mid anti-air options.
That means that people will use Infestors as often as possible. Not because they want to abuse an "OP" unit, but because it's the best option available. Same goes for Terran, in most games, Terran players go some form of MMM - mech and air are (unfortunately) rare. Bio is strong as hell and it gets the job done, so why deviate? Infestor play is no different.
I would have absolutely loved it if Lurkers were still in the game. Think of how much Lurkers added to BW: positional defence or offence, forced detection, lethal killers of clumped units - but could be killed by a single marine with good micro, weak to tanks, weak to air; they were a niche unit that served a very specific role and did that job exceedingly well.
Banelings were supposed to be the answer to losing Lurkers; a potentially burrowed threat that had the power to move around and kill clumps of units (specifically marines/lings). Unfortunately Banelings suck against a competent opponent. Nobody used Infestors early on in SC2 because they had a weak (slow) FG damage - so it took a while (and a big buff) for people to realize that they actually had a use (which I suspect was originally meant to lock down units for your Banelings).
As it turns out, the way to deal with all threats has become Infestors. Which sucks for all players (and viewers). I feel the team working on SC2 has lost sight of what made BW such a fantastic game and they're too stubborn to admit it.
I don't want to start a BW vs Sc2 discussion, there is like a million threads on it. I am just wondering if sc2 was just BW, with the same pathing , interface and units, but they just made it easier to put things in control groups and macro easier, would that be a better game than sc2?
I completely agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
