EPT...but it's forcing even the opponents to play aggressive and the constant action throughout the game is looking to be really fun to watch.
Yes! Finally they see it!
March 18th 2013: David Kim's HotS Thoughts - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
Yes! Finally they see it! | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
You can't blame them for the way WoL turned out. It was the community whine about aggression and wanting "macro" games that it turned out that way. Although hopefully they understand that macro =/= turtling to 200 deathballs. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 19 2013 08:34 sitromit wrote: Typical MC bravado. He should have said "I'm all-ining every game, they're not". By the time the next Code S begins, I bet most TvP openers will be safe against his Oracle shenanigans, I wonder what he'll do then. I think the words you were looking for was "won games' by using builds that required his opponent to scout and punished greedy play. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 19 2013 09:55 Itsmedudeman wrote: You can't blame them for the way WoL turned out. It was the community whine about aggression and wanting "macro" games that it turned out that way. Although hopefully they understand that macro =/= turtling to 200 deathballs. We wanted it so badly. Remember when we used to say "we want macro games, because the better player win" and wanted all in removed. Now we want early aggression and more scouting. | ||
|
Megapenthes
United Kingdom202 Posts
On March 19 2013 01:32 hellokittySC2 wrote: i don't know *fun to watch* for medivac speed is the correct correlation to balance. what does this sentence mean? | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On March 19 2013 08:34 sitromit wrote: Typical MC bravado. He should have said "I'm all-ining every game, they're not". By the time the next Code S begins, I bet most TvP openers will be safe against his Oracle shenanigans, I wonder what he'll do then. "He's a one trick pony who will fall off very quickly." | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11075 Posts
On March 19 2013 09:55 Itsmedudeman wrote: You can't blame them for the way WoL turned out. It was the community whine about aggression and wanting "macro" games that it turned out that way. Although hopefully they understand that macro =/= turtling to 200 deathballs. Revisionist history when Babybit scv pulls and absurdly strong bunker rushes destroyed everyone. There's a happy medium and it's myopic and stupid to pretend otherwise. Aggression is good if both players have a micro-edge or some decisions than can use to deflect the attack. If one side is just throwing economy at the other in all circumstances or they can't do any cute defenses then aggression is as boring as anything else because nothing interesting is happening. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32746 Posts
Some units are boring *cough cough Corruptors* and don't promote much action, but maybe they could modify these "boring" units to make them fit with the HotS style of swift action. If Blizzard can take a different approach to balancing, I can see them changing things for the better in the future. | ||
|
Fake)Plants
United States373 Posts
On March 19 2013 10:30 PhoenixVoid wrote: I appreciate how Blizzard has finally stopped taking the Anaheim response to anything perceived as OP, especially when the game is nowhere near close to being understood, even at the highest levels. Just let the players work around supposed balance issues rather than taking the nerf hammer straight to the problem without giving the opportunity for strategical development. Maybe if Medivacs are so good, it's because the players utilizing them excel in controlling them, rather than the unit itself being OP. Some units are boring *cough cough Corruptors* and don't promote much action, but maybe they could modify these "boring" units to make them fit with the HotS style of swift action. If Blizzard can take a different approach to balancing, I can see them changing things for the better in the future. I really like the idea that you purpose here. I mean, the Medivac boost is quite strong as it is currently implemented, but we aren't sure if it is too powerful quite yet. If Blizzard remains patient we could very well see a lot of variance in the next few weeks/months. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On March 19 2013 10:30 PhoenixVoid wrote: I appreciate how Blizzard has finally stopped taking the Anaheim response to anything perceived as OP, especially when the game is nowhere near close to being understood, even at the highest levels. Just let the players work around supposed balance issues rather than taking the nerf hammer straight to the problem without giving the opportunity for strategical development. Maybe if Medivacs are so good, it's because the players utilizing them excel in controlling them, rather than the unit itself being OP. Some units are boring *cough cough Corruptors* and don't promote much action, but maybe they could modify these "boring" units to make them fit with the HotS style of swift action. If Blizzard can take a different approach to balancing, I can see them changing things for the better in the future. I think I actually like corrupters the way they are. Balance issues aside, the game needs a couple boring units, because it creates a contrast. If every unit is cool and has abilities and stuff to do, people quickly get bored of it. Besides, even most pros don't have the apm to use corruption while fighting with corrupters. Taking balance issues into consideration again, given how often zergs make like 20 corrupters at once, it seems difficult to balance them having a strong ability. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On March 19 2013 10:29 Sabu113 wrote: Revisionist history when Babybit scv pulls and absurdly strong bunker rushes destroyed everyone. There's a happy medium and it's myopic and stupid to pretend otherwise. Aggression is good if both players have a micro-edge or some decisions than can use to deflect the attack. If one side is just throwing economy at the other in all circumstances or they can't do any cute defenses then aggression is as boring as anything else because nothing interesting is happening. Well, actually, nobody won championships (read, GSLs) on the back of silly rushes. Back then the actual skill was to deflect them one way or another and know when to power up or when to defend, which was truly impressive to see, and quite unlike what we had at the end of WoL. | ||
|
Spacekyod
United States818 Posts
On March 19 2013 09:57 Plansix wrote: We wanted it so badly. Remember when we used to say "we want macro games, because the better player win" and wanted all in removed. Now we want early aggression and more scouting. Hah, oh jeez, it doesn't get more true than that. I was apart of that mentality as well. | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
On March 19 2013 10:42 Spacekyod wrote: Hah, oh jeez, it doesn't get more true than that. I was apart of that mentality as well. To be fair, one thing is having an all-in/specific aggressive play being winnable and impossible to beat(for example, 6rax on Steppes of War LOL). Other thing is having aggressive and defensive capabilities both with similar outcomes on good maps. But yeah, I was just thinking about how we now want aggression and before all we wanted was macro  But now to be aggressive with success you have to macro as well. It's different, but what you say really isnt wrong. | ||
|
dreamseller
Australia914 Posts
On March 19 2013 09:55 Itsmedudeman wrote: You can't blame them for the way WoL turned out. It was the community whine about aggression and wanting "macro" games that it turned out that way. Although hopefully they understand that macro =/= turtling to 200 deathballs. yes, good design is rarely about what people think they want unfortunately | ||
|
Sumahi
Guam5609 Posts
| ||
|
Turgid
United States1623 Posts
On March 19 2013 09:55 Itsmedudeman wrote: You can't blame them for the way WoL turned out. It was the community whine about aggression and wanting "macro" games that it turned out that way. Although hopefully they understand that macro =/= turtling to 200 deathballs. Uh, the community was whining because every single game was a 1 base all-in. The turtling games were hugely refreshing when all we had before were games that lasted under 10 minutes. There were players who rarely did anything but 2 base all-ins(by later standards) who were called macro players by the community. that was where things were at, and that's why people were complaining and requesting bigger maps where thirds could actually be taken and naturals actually defended. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 19 2013 14:28 Turgid wrote: Uh, the community was whining because every single game was a 1 base all-in. The turtling games were hugely refreshing when all we had before were games that lasted under 10 minutes. There were players who rarely did anything but 2 base all-ins(by later standards) who were called macro players by the community. that was where things were at, and that's why people were complaining and requesting bigger maps where thirds could actually be taken and naturals actually defended. Exactly. Many people are still gloryfying 2011 ladder TvZ... Yet at Masters it was 2base marauder/hellion 3tank/marine most of the time. Even in GSL, players who did such stuff every single game were considered macro players . Faking such a push was considered the play of a champion... | ||
|
Schelim
Austria11528 Posts
| ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On March 19 2013 01:32 hellokittySC2 wrote: i don't know *fun to watch* for medivac speed is the correct correlation to balance. It's not only balance which is required for esports. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12024 Posts
On March 19 2013 14:28 Turgid wrote: Uh, the community was whining because every single game was a 1 base all-in. The turtling games were hugely refreshing when all we had before were games that lasted under 10 minutes. There were players who rarely did anything but 2 base all-ins(by later standards) who were called macro players by the community. that was where things were at, and that's why people were complaining and requesting bigger maps where thirds could actually be taken and naturals actually defended. Bigger maps are fine, it's just you can't have bigger maps where every base is directly on top of each other like Metropolis and Atlantis Spaceship. They were awful maps as the "hugeness" of the maps were only the distances between the two players if you spawned cross or north south, the bases were still relatively all clustered together down at the bottom end of the map and the "middle bases" were basically winners bases, not that they ever really got taken. I'm a meching Terran and I've basically given up on ever playing Daybreak as sure I may be able to turtle up on some bases, but due to the ridiculous narrowness and closeness of the bases, I can never send small forces to go and try and punish expansions. Whirlwind however is a map that shouldn't be good for mech, but I've found it the total opposite. If I get a good position in the middle and defend drops well, I force him to either try to ignore me (which he can't due to positioning) or attack into me which is where my tank/hellbat army exceeds itself. So you say he can go skytoss? Well as he's going skytoss and the bases are so far apart I can actually just expand over the entire map as he can't punish me and I can starve him out. That shows good map design as I'm always tustling/moving forward to secure more bases. In comparison you can look at Ohana (not in the pool anymore), Daybreak and Entomed Valley. You move your army out 5 steps and you've secured your half of the map, yet where the map is so small you can't punish big slow armies like skyzerg and skytoss since there's nowhere to really attack without them getting to it quickly. Map design is heading to a much better place IMO, for example I'd say Bifrost (although a remake) and Neo Planet S are the best maps we have in SC2 currently, Bel'shir Vestige, some of the new Kespa maps, Whirlwind and some of the community maps GOM are picking up are not instant four base maps and they actually support army movement to allow people to punish slow armies and what have you. Early on large maps mainly meant there were a lot of bases, but it didn't mean they were good as the bases were still too close together. Another thing that irks me is the way they design 4 player maps. 4 player maps in BW were great, because it was all about securing another main/nat/third cluster to expand after your third base. Until recently it's been the complete opposite with SC2 where you have fourth bases inbetween the other bases for the sake of having them. It really (for me) ruins the map if the map isn't big enough to support that sort of thing. Whirlwind is currently the best example and Entomed was the worst. | ||
| ||
