|
On April 28 2013 17:38 Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 16:41 FakeDeath wrote:On April 28 2013 16:34 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 16:33 FakeDeath wrote:On April 28 2013 16:29 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 12:19 houseurmusic wrote:
put bonus vs air on fungal growth. Solves zvz, zvp (mass air), and zvt (punish medivacs) lol, so how about mass mutas against Protoss??? Toss can't deal with mass mutas w/o phoenixes and phoenixes are paper plane Just open stargate. Phoenix got a passive +1 range buff. doesn't matter how you open, Zerg in late game can switch tech easily, watch LeeNock vs Nani...... Leenock had like 5 bases economy whereas Nani was on 3 bases. To be fair, once a Protoss takes a 3rd, it's pretty much a given Zerg gets their 4th and then 5th isn't all too far away. Having a 5 base economy isn't that difficult to achieve for Z if it's a macro game, so if that's the determinant of giving Zerg the free win, then we're going to see a lot more lopsided games. It's hard to tell right now, because that particular match was Foreigner vs Korean, and it was really entertaining, so can't really complain.
That game where nani was ahead a bit but he lost all of his phoenixes, leenock took that chance
|
Italy12246 Posts
The problem with phoenixes as a counter to muta is that you cant have 15 of them with range always up simply because the Zerg might just decide that he'll spend his bank on 40 mutas. No matter what stage the game is in, as is you NEED to already have phoenixes on the map, which is a very unrealistic expectation, especially when you also need to go double robo immortal vs ultras, double robo colossus vs swarm hosts, single robo colossus+templar vs hydra/viper. The reactions to Zerg tech are just too different.
This is different from WoL where a 4base Protoss would already have storm, blink and enough economy to invest in cannons and hold the mutas easily. As is, the fact that phoenixes are the ONLY way to beat mutas is way too drastic. Excluding infestor/broodlord stuff, when Protoss has one composition that can deal with every army the Zerg is going to make (picture immortal/templar/stalker, stalker/colossus, or colossus/void ray vs anything lair based) the matchup tends to be horribly imbalanced for P (2011 PvZ deathballs). The stalker/templar armies were particularly effective because they were the "middle of the road" kind of composition that could deal reasonably well with everything the Zerg could throw at you short of Hive. With the new mutas and swarm hosts, that is no longer the case.
That said, it was just a couple of games (i believe DRG vs Creator had a similar thing happen), so we will see.
|
On April 28 2013 16:41 FakeDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 16:34 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 16:33 FakeDeath wrote:On April 28 2013 16:29 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 12:19 houseurmusic wrote:
put bonus vs air on fungal growth. Solves zvz, zvp (mass air), and zvt (punish medivacs) lol, so how about mass mutas against Protoss??? Toss can't deal with mass mutas w/o phoenixes and phoenixes are paper plane Just open stargate. Phoenix got a passive +1 range buff. doesn't matter how you open, Zerg in late game can switch tech easily, watch LeeNock vs Nani...... Leenock had like 5 bases economy whereas Nani was on 3 bases. It was just a numbers game. Nani never did serious harassment to punish Leenock barring one warp prism harass. Whereas Leenock was putting heavy pressure on Nani WHILE expanding his economy and taking more bases. The muta switch only came way later after Leenock traded with Nani and reducing his archons count and after his phoenix was taken out by hydra. Leenock just keep on trading with Nani until he was starved out. That tech switch was smart. Switching back and forth between hydra/ultra/muta. That is the power of zerg. Using that game to whine about mass muta being OP is silly.
Kinda "proves" what I have said for some time now ... there is too much production capacity (and economy) in SC2 and being able to tech switch this fast is bad design. Most of the times it doesnt have this big of an impact, but it "forces" the "don't let him get there" strategy on you and if someone seriously defends against harrassment (because he is ahead in economy) you simply can't do anything against it anymore.
Well played by both players (under the circumstances), but there was nothing Naniwa himself could do to "correct" the mistake of not keeping the Zerg economy down from the get go. He would have needed a mistake of Leenock to win, but that should never be part of the game design.
On April 28 2013 17:56 Teoita wrote:
This is different from WoL where a 4base Protoss would already have storm, blink and enough economy to invest in cannons and hold the mutas easily.
1-2 cannons won't scare 40 Mutalisks away and only a few pros ever build cannons anyways ... until they know they are facing something drop / harrass heavy.
The problem is the "throw away an entire army and remake it in one round" issue of SC2 ... stockpiling larvae is bad (as is a crapton of ready Warp Gates to warp in at the front).
|
Italy12246 Posts
I'm aware of that fact. I'm just saying, Protoss required less diversified responses in WoL compared to HotS. Even then 40 mutas were scary, but if you had a gateway army and a strong economy you could deal with them (mutas prevented you from getting that econ in the first place). The scary thought is (which again, might or might not be true), that economy might not enough if you are stuck with the shitty AA of stalkers and storms that mutas can eat in the face and regen without a problem.
|
On April 28 2013 17:56 Teoita wrote:
The problem with phoenixes as a counter to muta is that you cant have 15 of them with range always up simply because the Zerg might just decide that he'll spend his bank on 40 mutas.
If the zerg managed to save 4000 gas against you at any time you already lost. Tell me the game would have gone any different if he turned all that into ultralisk.
|
On April 28 2013 12:27 Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 02:25 Shakattak wrote:On April 26 2013 06:18 Cloak wrote:On April 26 2013 03:28 Topdoller wrote:
Biggest problem with oracles is their cost, reduce cost to 100/100, increase build time a little and take it from there.
They are currently too expensive and no one is gonna build them when Protoss is desperate for Gas for Colossus and Templar which is required mid to late game.
Hellbats and mines are fine, no nerfs required for these except to stop Medivac healing
HOTS is pretty well balanced, although i do think Protoss got he short end of the stick as to the new units, they simply add nothing at all to gameplay and are stuck with WOL tactics except if rare conditions Yea pretty much. DK even said that they were too gas intensive to tech switch fast enough or get upgrade timings out. I don't see how a speed increase is going to make it less "gas engaging" as he put it. 25-50gas reduction would be the most targeted choice, and since you rarely make more than 2-3 Oracles, that's basically a small 100 gas the entire game that won't balloon out of control. I don't think them being expensive is a problem , if they are faster and you get more use out of them they pay for themselves. reducing their gas cost could cause a host of problems such as getting too many oracles out for terran to deal with early , also causing problems for zerg in the same regard. While making them faster disrupts the enemy a lot better , without adding to balance issues. The theoretical incentive in your scenario to mass Oracles is their spike in burst. So long as it's limited to 1 Stargate, you can still only get 1 Oracle out every X seconds. If one could make 6 Oracles and win the game, costing 150 or 125 or 100 gas, it wouldn't matter at that particular moment. And in reality, pros don't mass it because the spike is limited to begin with. A corresponding build time nerf would alleviate any such concerns if one were to arise. The reality is that Oracles aren't cost effective against things that shoot up outside their burst threshold, so they only win when the defense is grossly cheaper than their investment (like Terrans expecting 5 Marines to handle 2-3 of them). A more dangerous scenario is Stalker vs. Muta, where the amount of investment required to stave off the same resource investment in Muta (+1 base inflation of gas income) to prevent the overwhelm is far more than required to stave off Oracles. I disagree with speed really making them pay for themselves more, because their range and attack cooldown limit their microability, meaning they can't Banshee their way around defense; there's very little leeway with micro'ing out of unfavorable battles AND squeezing in damage. They can only run away or stick around. It's like Hydra stutter step, limited in application. The only scenario I can think of that speed would make a difference is that they can jump from base to base in hopes that it doesn't have a turret, but most pros put at least 1 per base.
speed will make a difference for sure if they are faster just like turbovacs the problem people have is with the speed . oracles are slow so i find they are not a good investment because they are easily countered .
|
On April 28 2013 19:02 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 16:41 FakeDeath wrote:On April 28 2013 16:34 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 16:33 FakeDeath wrote:On April 28 2013 16:29 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 12:19 houseurmusic wrote:
put bonus vs air on fungal growth. Solves zvz, zvp (mass air), and zvt (punish medivacs) lol, so how about mass mutas against Protoss??? Toss can't deal with mass mutas w/o phoenixes and phoenixes are paper plane Just open stargate. Phoenix got a passive +1 range buff. doesn't matter how you open, Zerg in late game can switch tech easily, watch LeeNock vs Nani...... Leenock had like 5 bases economy whereas Nani was on 3 bases. It was just a numbers game. Nani never did serious harassment to punish Leenock barring one warp prism harass. Whereas Leenock was putting heavy pressure on Nani WHILE expanding his economy and taking more bases. The muta switch only came way later after Leenock traded with Nani and reducing his archons count and after his phoenix was taken out by hydra. Leenock just keep on trading with Nani until he was starved out. That tech switch was smart. Switching back and forth between hydra/ultra/muta. That is the power of zerg. Using that game to whine about mass muta being OP is silly. Kinda "proves" what I have said for some time now ... there is too much production capacity (and economy) in SC2 and being able to tech switch this fast is bad design. Most of the times it doesnt have this big of an impact, but it "forces" the "don't let him get there" strategy on you and if someone seriously defends against harrassment (because he is ahead in economy) you simply can't do anything against it anymore. Well played by both players (under the circumstances), but there was nothing Naniwa himself could do to "correct" the mistake of not keeping the Zerg economy down from the get go. He would have needed a mistake of Leenock to win, but that should never be part of the game design. Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 17:56 Teoita wrote:
This is different from WoL where a 4base Protoss would already have storm, blink and enough economy to invest in cannons and hold the mutas easily. 1-2 cannons won't scare 40 Mutalisks away and only a few pros ever build cannons anyways ... until they know they are facing something drop / harrass heavy. The problem is the "throw away an entire army and remake it in one round" issue of SC2 ... stockpiling larvae is bad (as is a crapton of ready Warp Gates to warp in at the front).
so the issue is the macro mechanics not the units according to you?
|
Just throwing it out there..but blizzard should consider going back to putting x # of units on a hotkey..
like 12 units like bw or even 15.
|
Muta into ultra followed by resuming muta production seems fairly brutal vs P atm. Not necessarily the units themselves but really does showcase the power of the larva mechanic for the race.
To be honest it feels somewhat of a gamble to try and play a macro game vs zerg. Also in HoTS with nearly every zerg tech path being viable in PvZ it does not bode well for Toss who have arguably the most rigid tech tree, infrastructure requirements and the units themselves being expensive plus slow to build.
Don't want to come across as whining but it certainly is frustrating to try and play reactionary in the MU.
|
On April 29 2013 13:04 Rorschach wrote:
Muta into ultra followed by resuming muta production seems fairly brutal vs P atm. Not necessarily the units themselves but really does showcase the power of the larva mechanic for the race.
To be honest it feels somewhat of a gamble to try and play a macro game vs zerg. Also in HoTS with nearly every zerg tech path being viable in PvZ it does not bode well for Toss who have arguably the most rigid tech tree, infrastructure requirements and the units themselves being expensive plus slow to build.
Don't want to come across as whining but it certainly is frustrating to try and play reactionary in the MU.
from the perspective of a zerg, the protoss army is still efficiently deadly . the tendency of toss to go air into colossi is the reason this build is so effective lings are key to this build so make more zealots deny bases zerg is supposed to be brutal to deal with especially if the zerg has the money to go muta and then into ultra to just switch back to muta .
|
On April 29 2013 13:11 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 13:04 Rorschach wrote:
Muta into ultra followed by resuming muta production seems fairly brutal vs P atm. Not necessarily the units themselves but really does showcase the power of the larva mechanic for the race.
To be honest it feels somewhat of a gamble to try and play a macro game vs zerg. Also in HoTS with nearly every zerg tech path being viable in PvZ it does not bode well for Toss who have arguably the most rigid tech tree, infrastructure requirements and the units themselves being expensive plus slow to build.
Don't want to come across as whining but it certainly is frustrating to try and play reactionary in the MU. from the perspective of a zerg, the protoss army is still efficiently deadly . the tendency of toss to go air into colossi is the reason this build is so effective lings are key to this build so make more zealots deny bases zerg is supposed to be brutal to deal with especially if the zerg has the money to go muta and then into ultra to just switch back to muta .
From the toss perspective while dealing with a flock of 20-30 mutas is certainly doable (phoenix w/range, cannons, blink, storm) its hard to WP harass, take a 4th and also have the infrastructure to deal w/hive tech.
IF I defend on 3 bases with minimal losses by the time I am ready for the 3 base push/allin my army probably looks something like this; a bunch of blink stalkers, archons and HT w/storm which is a fairly terrible composition vs ultra.
Options seem to be to just put 8-10 cannons on one of your bases and try and base trade prior to the 15min mark/hive.
|
Mass queens with swarm hosts. You can have every expo on the map, yet a zerg with swarm hosts and mass queens is the one playing a war of attrition and waiting for you to starve. Give me a break. A tier 1 unit that destroys tier 3 air. Can't even go on creep or you lose everything without killing any queens. I fail to see how it's balanced to be able to mass up a unit that creates invincibility, meanwhile a freaking mother core is limited to 1. Jesus christ, I doubt I'd even want to make more than 1.
I think it's a joke that a tier 1 unit can completely shut down air. You notice something when facing swarm hosts... it's hard to be cost efficient, if even possible. That's kinda obvious when you design a unit that keeps spawning free units. Ofc, balanced... Just like being able to have full unit retention due to infinite transfuses is balanced.
If they're not going to provide proper counters or have units that make sense from a design/balance standpoint, then the game is going to turn into a base trade fest, game after game. Can nothing be done about queens/transfuse? It just blows my mind that I can't make air because they might make some queens. They really earned the right to be able to shut everything down so hard. Was real hard to not tech.
|
On April 29 2013 12:53 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 19:02 Rabiator wrote:On April 28 2013 16:41 FakeDeath wrote:On April 28 2013 16:34 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 16:33 FakeDeath wrote:On April 28 2013 16:29 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 12:19 houseurmusic wrote:
put bonus vs air on fungal growth. Solves zvz, zvp (mass air), and zvt (punish medivacs) lol, so how about mass mutas against Protoss??? Toss can't deal with mass mutas w/o phoenixes and phoenixes are paper plane Just open stargate. Phoenix got a passive +1 range buff. doesn't matter how you open, Zerg in late game can switch tech easily, watch LeeNock vs Nani...... Leenock had like 5 bases economy whereas Nani was on 3 bases. It was just a numbers game. Nani never did serious harassment to punish Leenock barring one warp prism harass. Whereas Leenock was putting heavy pressure on Nani WHILE expanding his economy and taking more bases. The muta switch only came way later after Leenock traded with Nani and reducing his archons count and after his phoenix was taken out by hydra. Leenock just keep on trading with Nani until he was starved out. That tech switch was smart. Switching back and forth between hydra/ultra/muta. That is the power of zerg. Using that game to whine about mass muta being OP is silly. Kinda "proves" what I have said for some time now ... there is too much production capacity (and economy) in SC2 and being able to tech switch this fast is bad design. Most of the times it doesnt have this big of an impact, but it "forces" the "don't let him get there" strategy on you and if someone seriously defends against harrassment (because he is ahead in economy) you simply can't do anything against it anymore. Well played by both players (under the circumstances), but there was nothing Naniwa himself could do to "correct" the mistake of not keeping the Zerg economy down from the get go. He would have needed a mistake of Leenock to win, but that should never be part of the game design. On April 28 2013 17:56 Teoita wrote:
This is different from WoL where a 4base Protoss would already have storm, blink and enough economy to invest in cannons and hold the mutas easily. 1-2 cannons won't scare 40 Mutalisks away and only a few pros ever build cannons anyways ... until they know they are facing something drop / harrass heavy. The problem is the "throw away an entire army and remake it in one round" issue of SC2 ... stockpiling larvae is bad (as is a crapton of ready Warp Gates to warp in at the front). so the issue is the macro mechanics not the units according to you?
Exactly ... just look at the Infestor ... if you only had the ability to macro up 2-3 of them they would not be as problematic as 25-30 of them. Same as for the Mutalisks ... getting 40 in one minute or so is simply too much.
Basing the game around a strong economy and production capability is the wrong choice, because then "keeping your units alive" is not important. Skills like microing your units defensively (blinking Stalkers, burrowing Zerg units, dropship pickups of big units like Colossi or Immortals or Thors) are used far too rarely and mostly when the numbers are SMALL. This is a loss for the viewers and the players, because the games are dull and the players with higher skill capability are overpowered by those with the better economy planning.
At the core of it all is the movement and unit selection mechanic too, because 20+ Roaches/Stalkers/MM can easily one-shot any building in a base. That is not exciting because it is over far too fast and the excitement only comes when you have only 3-4 Zealots hitting a Hatchery while being nibbled at by some Zerglings / Drones and the hit points of the building get low; thats when it is exciting and not when you have 3 Medivacs full of bio dropping into a base and then going on a rampage there without regard of their own lives (because they know they will be replaced anyways).
LESS is MORE.
Example:
2-3 Infestors can run out of "Fungal energy", but 25 of them will only do so after they dumped all of their energy into 100+ Infested Terrans (if they had an average of 100 energy) ... and that is a bit too much.
|
I feel the poll is a bit too simple so I made this one which should shred light more onto people's opinion on the ZvZ change:
Poll: ZvZ needs some changes?Yes (11) 73% No (4) 27% neutral (0) 0% 15 total votes Your vote: ZvZ needs some changes? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): neutral
Poll: Is spore buff the way to go?No (6) 46% Unsure/no opinion (4) 31% Yes (3) 23% 13 total votes Your vote: Is spore buff the way to go? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Unsure/no opinion
Poll: Other possible changesMuta Nerf (10) 56% Corruptor Buff (5) 28% Hydra Anti Air Damage Buff (3) 17% Infestor Fungal Change (0) 0% 18 total votes Your vote: Other possible changes (Vote): Muta Nerf
(Vote): Infestor Fungal Change
(Vote): Hydra Anti Air Damage Buff
(Vote): Corruptor Buff
|
On April 29 2013 13:46 ETisME wrote:
I feel the poll is a bit too simple so I made this one which should shred light more onto people's opinion on the ZvZ change:
Buffs are the way in which Blizzard seems to try and fix things, but they are not. They need to look at what they changed and then adjust the power level of that accordingly.
It does not make sense to have a game achieve balance (which I dont think it did in WoL) and then add new stuff that is more powerful than the old stuff. If you do that you have to rebalance everything else too instead of just the new things, so every boost to an old unit has to be balanced out by a negative thing or it will require countless adjustments of the other units in the game in a never ending cycle.
Buffs make the game faster and more "explosive" and this is a bad thing, because in the end we will have a game that is only playable by professionals but not by "Joe Average". Personally I think it has gone too far already ...
|
On April 29 2013 13:18 Rorschach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 13:11 Shakattak wrote:On April 29 2013 13:04 Rorschach wrote:
Muta into ultra followed by resuming muta production seems fairly brutal vs P atm. Not necessarily the units themselves but really does showcase the power of the larva mechanic for the race.
To be honest it feels somewhat of a gamble to try and play a macro game vs zerg. Also in HoTS with nearly every zerg tech path being viable in PvZ it does not bode well for Toss who have arguably the most rigid tech tree, infrastructure requirements and the units themselves being expensive plus slow to build.
Don't want to come across as whining but it certainly is frustrating to try and play reactionary in the MU. from the perspective of a zerg, the protoss army is still efficiently deadly . the tendency of toss to go air into colossi is the reason this build is so effective lings are key to this build so make more zealots deny bases zerg is supposed to be brutal to deal with especially if the zerg has the money to go muta and then into ultra to just switch back to muta . From the toss perspective while dealing with a flock of 20-30 mutas is certainly doable (phoenix w/range, cannons, blink, storm) its hard to WP harass, take a 4th and also have the infrastructure to deal w/hive tech. IF I defend on 3 bases with minimal losses by the time I am ready for the 3 base push/allin my army probably looks something like this; a bunch of blink stalkers, archons and HT w/storm which is a fairly terrible composition vs ultra. Options seem to be to just put 8-10 cannons on one of your bases and try and base trade prior to the 15min mark/hive.
Yes its hard but so is spreading creep and injects etc while trying to scout and react appropriately to what the toss is going , i feel a lot of us zergs blindly counter because most protoss just do one kind of build . yes WP harass requires effort but it is not out of your grasp or skill level some terrans drop two - three places at once, i feel like some protoss players should try out a lot of drop orientated play and come back with more data! I feel that i lose more games to when warp prisms are used then when they don't anything that increases pressure on the zerg is ideal.
|
On April 29 2013 13:45 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 12:53 Shakattak wrote:On April 28 2013 19:02 Rabiator wrote:On April 28 2013 16:41 FakeDeath wrote:On April 28 2013 16:34 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 16:33 FakeDeath wrote:On April 28 2013 16:29 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 12:19 houseurmusic wrote:
put bonus vs air on fungal growth. Solves zvz, zvp (mass air), and zvt (punish medivacs) lol, so how about mass mutas against Protoss??? Toss can't deal with mass mutas w/o phoenixes and phoenixes are paper plane Just open stargate. Phoenix got a passive +1 range buff. doesn't matter how you open, Zerg in late game can switch tech easily, watch LeeNock vs Nani...... Leenock had like 5 bases economy whereas Nani was on 3 bases. It was just a numbers game. Nani never did serious harassment to punish Leenock barring one warp prism harass. Whereas Leenock was putting heavy pressure on Nani WHILE expanding his economy and taking more bases. The muta switch only came way later after Leenock traded with Nani and reducing his archons count and after his phoenix was taken out by hydra. Leenock just keep on trading with Nani until he was starved out. That tech switch was smart. Switching back and forth between hydra/ultra/muta. That is the power of zerg. Using that game to whine about mass muta being OP is silly. Kinda "proves" what I have said for some time now ... there is too much production capacity (and economy) in SC2 and being able to tech switch this fast is bad design. Most of the times it doesnt have this big of an impact, but it "forces" the "don't let him get there" strategy on you and if someone seriously defends against harrassment (because he is ahead in economy) you simply can't do anything against it anymore. Well played by both players (under the circumstances), but there was nothing Naniwa himself could do to "correct" the mistake of not keeping the Zerg economy down from the get go. He would have needed a mistake of Leenock to win, but that should never be part of the game design. On April 28 2013 17:56 Teoita wrote:
This is different from WoL where a 4base Protoss would already have storm, blink and enough economy to invest in cannons and hold the mutas easily. 1-2 cannons won't scare 40 Mutalisks away and only a few pros ever build cannons anyways ... until they know they are facing something drop / harrass heavy. The problem is the "throw away an entire army and remake it in one round" issue of SC2 ... stockpiling larvae is bad (as is a crapton of ready Warp Gates to warp in at the front). so the issue is the macro mechanics not the units according to you? Exactly ... just look at the Infestor ... if you only had the ability to macro up 2-3 of them they would not be as problematic as 25-30 of them. Same as for the Mutalisks ... getting 40 in one minute or so is simply too much. Basing the game around a strong economy and production capability is the wrong choice, because then "keeping your units alive" is not important. Skills like microing your units defensively (blinking Stalkers, burrowing Zerg units, dropship pickups of big units like Colossi or Immortals or Thors) are used far too rarely and mostly when the numbers are SMALL. This is a loss for the viewers and the players, because the games are dull and the players with higher skill capability are overpowered by those with the better economy planning. At the core of it all is the movement and unit selection mechanic too, because 20+ Roaches/Stalkers/MM can easily one-shot any building in a base. That is not exciting because it is over far too fast and the excitement only comes when you have only 3-4 Zealots hitting a Hatchery while being nibbled at by some Zerglings / Drones and the hit points of the building get low; thats when it is exciting and not when you have 3 Medivacs full of bio dropping into a base and then going on a rampage there without regard of their own lives (because they know they will be replaced anyways). LESS is MORE.
hmm well there is the counter argument that if i can make 40 mutas there was a mistake that was made by the other player at some point in the game . though that said i understand the issue with larva i am an upper mid master zerg sometimes in the late game i feel almost invincible .
|
On April 29 2013 13:55 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 13:46 ETisME wrote:
I feel the poll is a bit too simple so I made this one which should shred light more onto people's opinion on the ZvZ change: Buffs are the way in which Blizzard seems to try and fix things, but they are not. They need to look at what they changed and then adjust the power level of that accordingly. It does not make sense to have a game achieve balance (which I dont think it did in WoL) and then add new stuff that is more powerful than the old stuff. If you do that you have to rebalance everything else too instead of just the new things, so every boost to an old unit has to be balanced out by a negative thing or it will require countless adjustments of the other units in the game in a never ending cycle. Buffs make the game faster and more "explosive" and this is a bad thing, because in the end we will have a game that is only playable by professionals but not by "Joe Average". Personally I think it has gone too far already ...
I don't think there will be any unit rework at a level like what we had for infestors fungal change in WoL anytime soon.
So their tools are only unit changes with stats.
I should also have been a bit more clear in the poll:
buff/nerf will also affect other matchups
|
On April 29 2013 13:55 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 13:46 ETisME wrote:
I feel the poll is a bit too simple so I made this one which should shred light more onto people's opinion on the ZvZ change: Buffs are the way in which Blizzard seems to try and fix things, but they are not. They need to look at what they changed and then adjust the power level of that accordingly. It does not make sense to have a game achieve balance (which I dont think it did in WoL) and then add new stuff that is more powerful than the old stuff. If you do that you have to rebalance everything else too instead of just the new things, so every boost to an old unit has to be balanced out by a negative thing or it will require countless adjustments of the other units in the game in a never ending cycle. Buffs make the game faster and more "explosive" and this is a bad thing, because in the end we will have a game that is only playable by professionals but not by "Joe Average". Personally I think it has gone too far already ...
so should they slow the game down ? the faster player will probably still win not saying speed is is skill though. i think a fast game really allows the players who play competitively a game that challenges them , the game looks fast because the pros ,make it that fast . there is no reason joe average cannot play casually especially with the implementation of unranked play . if you watch lower level games they are slow , half the reason i find the game so fun in masters is because of how fast and intense it is .joe average will continue to play the game however he wants and he is by no means expected to play that fast .
|
On April 29 2013 14:16 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 13:45 Rabiator wrote:On April 29 2013 12:53 Shakattak wrote:On April 28 2013 19:02 Rabiator wrote:On April 28 2013 16:41 FakeDeath wrote:On April 28 2013 16:34 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 16:33 FakeDeath wrote:On April 28 2013 16:29 tuho12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 12:19 houseurmusic wrote:
put bonus vs air on fungal growth. Solves zvz, zvp (mass air), and zvt (punish medivacs) lol, so how about mass mutas against Protoss??? Toss can't deal with mass mutas w/o phoenixes and phoenixes are paper plane Just open stargate. Phoenix got a passive +1 range buff. doesn't matter how you open, Zerg in late game can switch tech easily, watch LeeNock vs Nani...... Leenock had like 5 bases economy whereas Nani was on 3 bases. It was just a numbers game. Nani never did serious harassment to punish Leenock barring one warp prism harass. Whereas Leenock was putting heavy pressure on Nani WHILE expanding his economy and taking more bases. The muta switch only came way later after Leenock traded with Nani and reducing his archons count and after his phoenix was taken out by hydra. Leenock just keep on trading with Nani until he was starved out. That tech switch was smart. Switching back and forth between hydra/ultra/muta. That is the power of zerg. Using that game to whine about mass muta being OP is silly. Kinda "proves" what I have said for some time now ... there is too much production capacity (and economy) in SC2 and being able to tech switch this fast is bad design. Most of the times it doesnt have this big of an impact, but it "forces" the "don't let him get there" strategy on you and if someone seriously defends against harrassment (because he is ahead in economy) you simply can't do anything against it anymore. Well played by both players (under the circumstances), but there was nothing Naniwa himself could do to "correct" the mistake of not keeping the Zerg economy down from the get go. He would have needed a mistake of Leenock to win, but that should never be part of the game design. On April 28 2013 17:56 Teoita wrote:
This is different from WoL where a 4base Protoss would already have storm, blink and enough economy to invest in cannons and hold the mutas easily. 1-2 cannons won't scare 40 Mutalisks away and only a few pros ever build cannons anyways ... until they know they are facing something drop / harrass heavy. The problem is the "throw away an entire army and remake it in one round" issue of SC2 ... stockpiling larvae is bad (as is a crapton of ready Warp Gates to warp in at the front). so the issue is the macro mechanics not the units according to you? Exactly ... just look at the Infestor ... if you only had the ability to macro up 2-3 of them they would not be as problematic as 25-30 of them. Same as for the Mutalisks ... getting 40 in one minute or so is simply too much. Basing the game around a strong economy and production capability is the wrong choice, because then "keeping your units alive" is not important. Skills like microing your units defensively (blinking Stalkers, burrowing Zerg units, dropship pickups of big units like Colossi or Immortals or Thors) are used far too rarely and mostly when the numbers are SMALL. This is a loss for the viewers and the players, because the games are dull and the players with higher skill capability are overpowered by those with the better economy planning. At the core of it all is the movement and unit selection mechanic too, because 20+ Roaches/Stalkers/MM can easily one-shot any building in a base. That is not exciting because it is over far too fast and the excitement only comes when you have only 3-4 Zealots hitting a Hatchery while being nibbled at by some Zerglings / Drones and the hit points of the building get low; thats when it is exciting and not when you have 3 Medivacs full of bio dropping into a base and then going on a rampage there without regard of their own lives (because they know they will be replaced anyways). LESS is MORE. hmm well there is the counter argument that if i can make 40 mutas there was a mistake that was made by the other player at some point in the game . though that said i understand the issue with larva i am an upper mid master zerg sometimes in the late game i feel almost invincible .
Not a valid "counter argument" IMO, because you have to be psychic and know exactly how your opponent will play. For professionals who have the time to study and prepare for their oppoent for a week that might be possible, but what about the average player on the ladder? How does he predict and more importantly prevent anything?
The problem is twofold:
1. The economy and production capabilities are too big and as a consequence we have a game where throwing away units is acceptable because production capabilities are able to keep up. The most obvious "not able to keep up" is Terran mech, where casters always say that "he has this one army which he can't lose" or something like that.
2. The damage output of an army is far too high because of the density and amount of units. If 30 Marines are in a tight clump they can all shoot at one Stalker / Roach / ... and kill it in an instant. In an environment like this it doesnt really make sense to micro anything and the only possible way to play is to reproduce your lost stuff. The only way to deal with such masses would be AoE damage, but they are not as good as they were in BW for a reason ... because they would be too good. The "professional term" is CRITICAL NUMBER and that is a bad thing to have, because it is the point when your units become too efficient ... like being able to kill all Zerglings streaming in before they even get a chance to hit your stuff or being able to kill buildings far too fast.
BW didnt have critical numbers for ground units, because the limited unit selection and the spread out movement meant that they could never clump up and all shoot at the same thing. Thus it was easier to balance as a game, because you only had to compare "simple battles" like 1 Dragoon vs X Marines and such.
Taking out the production and economic boosts for all races AND adjusting the movement and unit selection mechanics to a BW-ish state would improve the game because it would become far easier to balance AND it would remove the "necessity" to have such a thing as regeneration for Mutalisks for example. Battles would be fought with fewer units and thus last longer and be closer and more exciting. Watching fewer units on the screen is easier to focus on ... just as one fish is easy to focus on for a shark compared to 500 fish in a swarm ... and having one player win a "2 Zerglings vs 2 Zerglings" battle with both his Zerglings alive is greater skill than being able to macro up a full size army repeatedly.
On April 29 2013 14:35 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 13:55 Rabiator wrote:On April 29 2013 13:46 ETisME wrote:
I feel the poll is a bit too simple so I made this one which should shred light more onto people's opinion on the ZvZ change: Buffs are the way in which Blizzard seems to try and fix things, but they are not. They need to look at what they changed and then adjust the power level of that accordingly. It does not make sense to have a game achieve balance (which I dont think it did in WoL) and then add new stuff that is more powerful than the old stuff. If you do that you have to rebalance everything else too instead of just the new things, so every boost to an old unit has to be balanced out by a negative thing or it will require countless adjustments of the other units in the game in a never ending cycle. Buffs make the game faster and more "explosive" and this is a bad thing, because in the end we will have a game that is only playable by professionals but not by "Joe Average". Personally I think it has gone too far already ... so should they slow the game down ? the faster player will probably still win not saying speed is is skill though. i think a fast game really allows the players who play competitively a game that challenges them , the game looks fast because the pros ,make it that fast . there is no reason joe average cannot play casually especially with the implementation of unranked play . if you watch lower level games they are slow , half the reason i find the game so fun in masters is because of how fast and intense it is .joe average will continue to play the game however he wants and he is by no means expected to play that fast .
Its not "slowing down" the game to be not exciting ... BW was exciting to watch too and had far fewer units involved in the battles. Battles with fewer units are just as exciting as large and big ones ... just like a gunfight between a handful of cowboys can be just as exciting as the biggest special effects space battle ...
The core point is that a game with fewer units is
- easier to focus on as a viewer,
- easier to balance because of a lack of "critical numbers" and
- is able to have a defenders advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
