With the awesome conclusion of the global finals of the first season of this year’s World Championship Series, we thought this was as good a time as any to offer a detailed update on our current thought processes and how we’re approaching balance going forward.
More Action throughout the Game
We strongly believe that this is the main direction the game should go. More action means more diversity, which makes the game more challenging to play and more fun to watch.
Back when Medivac drops were easy to stop, PvT was often a long macro buildup with little action, and a few large battles determined the winner. Nowadays, there are more drops happening, and every game plays out very differently. Different games range from the Protoss player perfectly stopping everything to the Terran player pulling off awesome drops to both players taking it to the late game, and everything in-between.
We feel that this diversity of outcomes makes for a better late game. Sure, sometimes a Protoss player amasses a large army of High Templar, Colossi, and Tempests, and against a well-defended opponent there are few options for harassment. But action-filled games are less predictable and reach the max-army endgame less often. When there is a huge maxed-out push, it’s the culmination of all the harassment and skirmishes that came before it.
We can look to INnoVation as a case where what we’re talking about is currently working quite well. His strategies are not very different from those of most other Terran players, but his Widow Mine usage is incomparably better. When we watch his TvZ games, we see a crystal clear difference between the usefulness of the unit and the skill of the player.
Units Currently Being Discussed
Some units will always be more central to specific strategies and/or matchups than others, so we’d rather those units be fun to watch and challenging to use.
We’re currently seeing a lot of discussion about:
Void Ray
We’re seeing a lot of Void Ray play in PvZ, but Protoss is still not statistically overpowered.
Zerg all-ins aren’t the only counter, as we see many PvZ matches last into the mid- and late-game, ending in a Zerg victory, despite the usage of Void Rays.
Void Rays are much better than they used to be, but we don’t think this is a bad thing.
Stargate used to be almost unusable, and now it’s quite important. We also see a lot of Robo and Templar play.
All tech options are viable now throughout the course of the game.
We don’t currently have any plans to nerf Void Rays.
Widow Mine
Widow Mines are currently overshadowing units such as Siege Tanks and Thors, but their use doesn’t correlate distinctly with wins over Protoss or Zerg opponents.
So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?”
We believe the answer is yes.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
The current design of Widow Mines rewards both players who are skilled at using them and opposing players who are skilled at defeating them.
It doesn’t look like Siege Tanks have disappeared. They’re critical in TvT, and in TvZ they’re key to playing a safe early/mid game. Additionally, Terran Mech also has potential.
As long as Widow Mines reward skilled players and Terran can’t legitimately be said to be better than the other races, we don’t plan to adjust this unit.
Casual observers often take a new or unexpected tactic or strategy that gains widespread use and just label it “OP”. In addition to Void Rays and Widow Mines, PartinG’s Immortal Sentry all-in got this treatment. Because it was a new strategy and it was working for PartinG, it was dismissed as OP. At the time, even other Protoss players at the highest level weren’t having as much success with the Immortal Sentry all-in after Zerg players had seen it for a week or two. We prefer to analyze a new strategy and ask:
Is this actually making the game more fun?
What would happen if we nerfed this powerful unit?
Would a proposed change make the game more or less stale?
Balance Testing Plan
We have two main goals for testing. First is making sure that we are dealing with units/strategies that are making gameplay stale. For example, we’re looking carefully at Swarm Host + mass defenses play. Our second goal is locating a race that is playing weaker than the other two, and improving it in ways that are fun for the game.
It’s important to note that we like trying out changes in balance test maps that are more aggressive than we might intend to implement in the live game. This is better than theorycrafting and gathering theorycrafted feedback. The more we experiment in real gameplay, the more we learn. We’re constantly reaching out to as many pro players and casters as we can, and we’re willing to try out changes that sound cool in testing.
As always, we believe everything can be improved. We’re very thankful that you share your thoughts with us.
Poll: First impressions of not changing the Void Ray?
Approve (1092)
64%
Disapprove (443)
26%
Neutral-prove (168)
10%
1703 total votes
Your vote: First impressions of not changing the Void Ray?
I'm amused by how Blizzard says that widow mines reward skillful usage from Terran players. I also "like" how they say that when an army of tanks and marines goes against an opposing Zerg force, that observers can tell who will win the battle and who will lose...
That indicates a problem to me. If it is so obvious that a Zerg will win or lose against a force of marine/tank, then it should also be equally obvious whether or not a Zerg will win against a force of marine/mine. It's not skill on the Terran's part to use mines - in fact, the usage of tanks promotes even more skill. Instead of setting and forgetting tanks, they can also be focus fired, spread out strategically across terrain, and can shell a target from a safe distance. Mine usage promotes a CHANCE aspect. The only skill involved in a Z v. burrowed mine engagement occurs on the side of the zerg, attempting to mitigate as much damage from the mine as possible.
Blizzard is so desperate to remove the siege tank from TvZ that they call getting a few tanks to defend against a roach/bane allin "getting tanks." If the siege tank and the mine clash so much that Terran players predominantly choose one over the other and tank usage has largely disappeared, then one of the units is poorly designed and should be fixed so that their roles do not conflict, or it should be removed.
I also think that Blizzard is focusing too much on removing defensive strategies such as swarmhost + static in order to avoid the infestor/broodlord effect, without actually considering why such strategies exist in the first place. The reason that strategy exists is that it is the only way that Zerg can consistently beat an endgame Protoss deathball. Instead of attempting to stamp that out Blizzard should consider why the comp exists in the first place and what is causing it...It's ironic because outside of two-base allins the sole goal of a Protoss is to turtle to death on 3 bases.
In attempting to remove anything that is not aggressive from the game Blizzard is removing a lot of options and complexity. Just because something is defensive does not mean it is bad. Do not focus so much on the spectator that you limit potential gameplay. The death of the siege tank is a prime example of this.
I think WM's need to exist though, Terrans were just getting raped with Marine Tank near the end of WoL. Especially now that Vipers exist. I like their thought process, and it's nice seeing Zergs putting on some aggression now days.
Playing zerg vs terran became much more intense for me in HotS due to the widow mines. I really like that you just can't a-move at all anymore. I agree that they shouldn't be adjusted.
I love being informed like this so I know what is going on. Bit sad though that the option of making medivac thrusters cost energy is not being discussed
Nerf hellbat widow mine, buff seige tank :b In all seriousness, I don't know if anything is OP. I just know that somethings are way too unforgiving and way too easy to execute.
On June 12 2013 08:53 jeeneeus wrote: How about void rays in pvp? Or is that not really an issue?
Hasn't been an issue for a while now. PvP is actually seeing a very wide diversity of openings and unit compositions, possibly more diversity than any other matchup ever actually. Of course in the late game Void Rays play a big role because they are an incredibly powerful unit but they are hardly all you make.
It isn't overpowered statistically, but the effect it has on the game is dramatic. It controls APM better than any other unit, to the extent that in TvZ it allows Terran to dominate multitasking. Idra said this is the reason so many people have been doing Roach-Bane busts, simply because a Terran player who is good at multitasking can dominate an equally skilled Zerg player using Widow Mines. As a Protoss bystander, I'm inclined to agree when I watch high level Terran or Zerg streams. It ruined my favorite match up to watch for me.
Also as another poster said above, it promotes a chance aspect, rather than skill. The skill in using Tanks isn't just focus firing, it is in the positioning! Blizzard seems to have lost sight of this.
I don't mind the widow mine replacing the tank with bio armies. I still think they could buff tanks a bit, just to give people more reason to experiment with mech.
He seems to take pride in protoss having 3 viable tech options, so how about stop talking about "potential" with mech and do something about it?
On June 12 2013 08:27 Qwyn wrote: In attempting to remove anything that is not aggressive from the game Blizzard is removing a lot of options and complexity. Just because something is defensive does not mean it is bad. Do not focus so much on the spectator that you limit potential gameplay. The death of the siege tank is a prime example of this.
I think you're grossly overrepresenting Blizzard's position here. They have explicitly said the following things: they believe aggression should be easier than defense (promoting action-based gameplay), and that they are 'looking at' Swarmhost + mass defense strategies. Neither of those statements mean they are attempting to remove anything that isn't aggressive from the game. It only means that they are trying to not let the 'default' way of playing to be a 30 min no-rush snoozefest where the first person to engage into the massed defenses loses. That is neither fun to play nor to watch.
In addition, saying that the Siege Tank is 'dead' is a bit melodramatic. The point that it is still critical to TvT is valid, and you know what literally everybody was saying after Innovation dropped the GSL finals to Soulkey to a million Baneling/Roach attacks? "Why didn't Innovation build Tanks in the early to midgame to stay safe?" Certainly doesn't sound like the Tank is a dead unit if it's the only way to stay viably safe against aggressive Zerg play. As for TvP mech, well, that probably isn't fixed before either LotV or MVP revolutionizes another matchup.
So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” We believe the answer is yes.
This is the only thing i disagree. Marine tank vs muta ling bane is super exciting. Sadly tanks dont have a place in that matchup (at least against muta ling bane) anymore, as 2 mines are clearly superior than a tank.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
I think he means the skill of splitting units off so Widow Mines don't kill everything?
In otherwords, ForGG had no skill when he lost all his full Medivacs to his own Widow Mines when he played Stephano. Apparently, to David Kim, that had nothing to do with chance.
So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” We believe the answer is yes.
This is the only thing i disagree. Marine tank vs muta ling bane is super exciting. Sadly tanks dont have a place in that matchup (at least against muta ling bane) anymore, as 2 mines are clearly superior than a tank.
I miss Muta/Ling/Bane versus Marine/Tank/Medivac so much. So dynamic and interesting.
So disappointed on the stance regarding Siege Tanks v Widow Mine. Balance aside (which I wouldn't comment on something I don't know that much about), I do admit that seeing the marine + widow mine control of players like INnoVation is quite a sight, but nothing in my heart will replace the sheer rugged manliness of a siege tank, whether in Marine + Siege Tank or Mech.
Now that I think about it, it may be the sound of the Siege Tank that makes it so damned satisfying.
On June 12 2013 08:53 jeeneeus wrote: How about void rays in pvp? Or is that not really an issue?
I don't see it being an issue in pvp at pro level. VRs can be countered, either by HT/Archon or by hitting a timing before they get in big numbers (it is easier to punish a double stargate switch than say double robo colossus). You actually see a lot a of diverse compositions in pvp and many funky timings - it's a combination of trying to get to the tech advantage and trying not to die while doing the switch. Overall, colossus armies are still the most common.
I agree that the game is in a great state right now. The numbers reflect good balance and there are plenty of options in all MU's. At the same time, the pace of the game has definitely been picked up since WoL and requires more skill to play. Even more action all over the place. I strongly approve! Though it sounds like they are really consdering the warp prism buff and I already hate that unit enough =)
You could argue that window mines don't require more skill to use, but they definitely require much more skill to play again, which is a good thing
Also this caught my eye:
and we’re willing to try out changes that sound cool in testing.
Really?! Now where is my test map for the baneling shooting spores?! ^_^
On June 12 2013 08:27 Qwyn wrote: I'm amused by how Blizzard says that widow mines reward skillful usage from Terran players. I also "like" how they say that when an army of tanks and marines goes against an opposing Zerg force, that observers can tell who will win the battle and who will lose...
That indicates a problem to me. If it is so obvious that a Zerg will win or lose against a force of marine/tank, then it should also be equally obvious whether or not a Zerg will win against a force of marine/mine. It's not skill on the Terran's part to use mines - in fact, the usage of tanks promotes even more skill. Instead of setting and forgetting tanks, they can also be focus fired, spread out strategically across terrain, and can shell a target from a safe distance. Mine usage promotes a CHANCE aspect. The only skill involved in a Z v. burrowed mine engagement occurs on the side of the zerg, attempting to mitigate as much damage from the mine as possible.
Blizzard is so desperate to remove the siege tank from TvZ that they call getting a few tanks to defend against a roach/bane allin "getting tanks." If the siege tank and the mine clash so much that Terran players predominantly choose one over the other and tank usage has largely disappeared, then one of the units is poorly designed and should be fixed so that their roles do not conflict, or it should be removed.
I also think that Blizzard is focusing too much on removing defensive strategies such as swarmhost + static in order to avoid the infestor/broodlord effect, without actually considering why such strategies exist in the first place. The reason that strategy exists is that it is the only way that Zerg can consistently beat an endgame Protoss deathball. Instead of attempting to stamp that out Blizzard should consider why the comp exists in the first place and what is causing it...It's ironic because outside of two-base allins the sole goal of a Protoss is to turtle to death on 3 bases.
In attempting to remove anything that is not aggressive from the game Blizzard is removing a lot of options and complexity. Just because something is defensive does not mean it is bad. Do not focus so much on the spectator that you limit potential gameplay. The death of the siege tank is a prime example of this.
I actually agree with everything said. Especially the point you make about mines being a chance factor, and that being the reason we don't know who's going to come ahead in an upcoming engagement. Tanks do require more skill.
On June 12 2013 09:09 sparklyresidue wrote: I think Marines/Tanks are MORE indicative of skill than Marine/Widowmine more often than not, but that's just my opinion.
More indicative from the terran side maybe, but engaging into mines is much harder as zerg.
I agree with the report and think voids and mines are fine. If I could pick 2 units to address it would be hellbats and swarmhosts though. Hellbats are most seeing use in early game + all ins which is mostly having a negative impact imo.
Also swarmhosts seem a too strong vs protoss in a few situations.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
Targeting with Widow Mines is a skill. For us at Diamond and below, if we try to target with a Widow Mine, we neglect other things such as macro, micro our Marines, etc.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
I don't think it requires one, really. Siege Tanks are not very strong and don't provide map control the way that Widow Mines do. Zergs are able to approach Sieged positions on creep far more easily than they can against Widow Mines especially in the mid-game.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
Targeting with Widow Mines is a skill. For us at Diamond and below, if we try to target with a Widow Mine, we neglect other things such as macro, micro our Marines, etc.
I don't care if you're top tier GM, no Terran tells every mine where to fire. Splitting to mitigate splash is far more difficult and time-consuming to execute properly than aiming an AoE. Also if you really only have 1 mine, this is the only viable scenario. When its a mid-map battle with larger armies fighting it out, mines simply win. Its ridiculous to anyone possessing a high enough skill level to understand its mechanics. The point is the difficulties are not the same and they are claiming they are.
Uhh not entirely sure what David Kim meant when he said mines are a more skillful unit than siege tanks, I swear most of the time I press E on those things and just pray for good connections -.-
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
Mech is beyond dead at this point.
And don't fool yourselves in to thinking hellbats are mech, being built in the factory does not a mech unit make.
So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” We believe the answer is yes.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
Mech is beyond dead at this point.
And don't fool yourselves in to thinking hellbats are mech, being built in the factory does not a mech unit make.
Dead in TvP and TvZ mostly. But man, TvT is becoming a mech fest.
Seriously people need to understand how Widow Mines work.... Targeting Mechanism 1) A widow mine takes 1.5 sec to activate. Whenever there is a unit in the mine radius, the mine will lock on it and 1.5 sec later, a Sentinel Missile will be launched at it. If in the meantime the unit achieves to get out of the mine radius, the rocket won't be launched (the mine won't lose its cooldown) and only then the mine will be able to lock on a new target.
This can effectively lead to unnatural or seemingly random behavior where several units pass through a mine field without activating any of them. A fast unit can pass through a mine radius in less than 1.5 sec, being targeted and not fired at. Since the mine locks on a new target only when the first gets out, the second target would be halfway through the mine radius when it is locked on, and yet again get out in less than 1.5 sec[1].
2) Two mines cannot automatically target the same unit. It means in particular that a field of mine will never do any overkill and has for side effect that a high-HP unit will be able to pass through multiple mines and taking very few hits[2]
3) The target of mines can be set manually (by right clicking), in which case they will all drop their current target and lock on the new one (overuling the previous point). After 1.5 sec, all the rockets will launch simultaneously, causing potential overkill. It also has for side effect that constant right-clicking on units will cause the mines not to fire since each right-click resets the 1.5 sec firing cooldown for all mines in range.
4) A mine will never automatically target disguised changelings or revealed hallucinations. Source
WTF. A terran player winning a game with widow mines that they forgot about is considered skill? Blizzard, the statistics may be even, but there's a problem when zerg has to all in every game vs terran to win or at least get a huge advantage, or else they lose.
On June 12 2013 09:22 Huragius wrote: Not changing voidray- approve. Not changing widow mines - disapprove.
Man these polls. You can easily see what races are the most represented lol.
Must be having a lot of trouble with voidrays as... terran? Wait, what?
I'm fine with Blizz letting this play out longer. I'm also glad that Hellbats are getting looked at, even though they didn't discuss that here. I feel like the game is very well balanced at this point, and neither the void rays or the widow mines should be a top priority for a change.
The biggest difference I see b/w tanks and mines is the flexibility. Good players can come up with new and creative ways to use/defend mines because they're not one-dimensional like the siege tank. There are still many options all three races haven't even dreamt of yet that will continue to evolve and develop.
The best players in the world are developing the strategies and skills to handle every one of the situations discussed here; it's thus far too soon to make any changes.
I liked widow mines more when they attached themselves to units, like in the HotS beta. Im just plat, so i know i really have no idea whats going on, but currently in ZvT i feel like there arent enough options for the zerg player.
On June 12 2013 09:22 Huragius wrote: Not changing voidray- approve. Not changing widow mines - disapprove.
Man these polls. You can easily see what races are the most represented lol.
Must be having a lot of trouble with voidrays as... terran? Wait, what?
I'm fine with Blizz letting this play out longer. I'm also glad that Hellbats are getting looked at, even though they didn't discuss that here. I feel like the game is very well balanced at this point, and neither the void rays or the widow mines should be a top priority for a change.
Who's talking about me having problems with voidrays as a Terran? Don't pull stuff out of your ass. It's a XvZ question. I found it hard to believe that people find mines so OP in TvZ while voidrays in PvZ seems just... fine ?
[*]So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” [LIST][*]We believe the answer is yes.
On June 12 2013 09:22 Huragius wrote: Not changing voidray- approve. Not changing widow mines - disapprove.
Man these polls. You can easily see what races are the most represented lol.
Must be having a lot of trouble with voidrays as... terran? Wait, what?
I'm fine with Blizz letting this play out longer. I'm also glad that Hellbats are getting looked at, even though they didn't discuss that here. I feel like the game is very well balanced at this point, and neither the void rays or the widow mines should be a top priority for a change.
balanced, yes. but dont you think the game would get boring as fuck when zerg has to all in every terran they're playing against? Eventually terrans will realize this and start playing safer, then zvt would be impossible
[*]So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” [LIST][*]We believe the answer is yes.
On June 12 2013 09:27 lapengu wrote: I liked widow mines more when they attached themselves to units, like in the HotS beta. Im just plat, so i know i really have no idea whats going on, but currently in ZvT i feel like there arent enough options for the zerg player.
Right... Zergs are all-inning so much because it's impossible to win a normal ZvT and not because all-inning with roach/banes gives a pretty fucking good chance to instantly win the game with the current metagame. Right.
Blizzard's done a great job with balance, the game looks very balanced right now, and they have a strong track record. Given all this, I do think that Blizzard has earned the players' trust to make the right decisions when it comes to balance, and it is only a minority, who rarely understand the big picture and all the details, who complain or whine about balance.
I agree with their current approach of wait and see, with any change coming slow and steady.
On June 12 2013 09:22 Huragius wrote: Not changing voidray- approve. Not changing widow mines - disapprove.
Man these polls. You can easily see what races are the most represented lol.
Must be having a lot of trouble with voidrays as... terran? Wait, what?
I'm fine with Blizz letting this play out longer. I'm also glad that Hellbats are getting looked at, even though they didn't discuss that here. I feel like the game is very well balanced at this point, and neither the void rays or the widow mines should be a top priority for a change.
balanced, yes. but dont you think the game would get boring as fuck when zerg has to all in every terran they're playing against? Eventually terrans will realize this and start playing safer, then zvt would be impossible
God fucking dammit are we ever going to reach a point in SC2 where Zerg are not the whiniest race? I've heard about ZvX becoming impossible so many times that I just don't buy it anymore. The WoL beta was a long, long time ago. Dropping the victim complex is long past due.
On June 12 2013 09:27 lapengu wrote: I liked widow mines more when they attached themselves to units, like in the HotS beta. Im just plat, so i know i really have no idea whats going on, but currently in ZvT i feel like there arent enough options for the zerg player.
Right... Zergs are all-inning so much because it's impossible to win a normal ZvT and not because all-inning with roach/banes gives a pretty fucking good chance to instantly win the game with the current metagame. Right.
On June 12 2013 09:22 Huragius wrote: Not changing voidray- approve. Not changing widow mines - disapprove.
Man these polls. You can easily see what races are the most represented lol.
Must be having a lot of trouble with voidrays as... terran? Wait, what?
I'm fine with Blizz letting this play out longer. I'm also glad that Hellbats are getting looked at, even though they didn't discuss that here. I feel like the game is very well balanced at this point, and neither the void rays or the widow mines should be a top priority for a change.
balanced, yes. but dont you think the game would get boring as fuck when zerg has to all in every terran they're playing against? Eventually terrans will realize this and start playing safer, then zvt would be impossible
God fucking dammit are we ever going to reach a point in SC2 where Zerg are not the whiniest race? I've heard about ZvX becoming impossible so many times that I just don't buy it anymore. The WoL beta was a long, long time ago. Dropping the victim complex is long past due.
wanna tell me what i said is incorrect? otherwise your opinion doesnt matter
On June 12 2013 09:22 Huragius wrote: Not changing voidray- approve. Not changing widow mines - disapprove.
Man these polls. You can easily see what races are the most represented lol.
Must be having a lot of trouble with voidrays as... terran? Wait, what?
I'm fine with Blizz letting this play out longer. I'm also glad that Hellbats are getting looked at, even though they didn't discuss that here. I feel like the game is very well balanced at this point, and neither the void rays or the widow mines should be a top priority for a change.
balanced, yes. but dont you think the game would get boring as fuck when zerg has to all in every terran they're playing against? Eventually terrans will realize this and start playing safer, then zvt would be impossible
God fucking dammit are we ever going to reach a point in SC2 where Zerg are not the whiniest race? I've heard about ZvX becoming impossible so many times that I just don't buy it anymore. The WoL beta was a long, long time ago. Dropping the victim complex is long past due.
Lol, seems like I'm not the only one who thinks like this.
Seems like Blizzard is just patting themselves on the back and giving weak reasoning without acknowledging the deeper complexities of the game and favoring the spectator/action component. That's fine, but it doesn't equate to better games imo.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
Tanks are simple to use.Siege,target fire that's it.
Widow mines are complicated.You don't know what's gonna happen before the battle.Their range is much smaller.It depends on the individual skill of the players(how they split,how they attack)
A good terran can control his mines better,he has the micro to split the bio and target with mines(which is not that easy).
A bad terran might blow up his whole army(with the help of a good zerg).
On June 12 2013 08:27 Qwyn wrote: I'm amused by how Blizzard says that widow mines reward skillful usage from Terran players. I also "like" how they say that when an army of tanks and marines goes against an opposing Zerg force, that observers can tell who will win the battle and who will lose...
That indicates a problem to me. If it is so obvious that a Zerg will win or lose against a force of marine/tank, then it should also be equally obvious whether or not a Zerg will win against a force of marine/mine. It's not skill on the Terran's part to use mines - in fact, the usage of tanks promotes even more skill. Instead of setting and forgetting tanks, they can also be focus fired, spread out strategically across terrain, and can shell a target from a safe distance. Mine usage promotes a CHANCE aspect. The only skill involved in a Z v. burrowed mine engagement occurs on the side of the zerg, attempting to mitigate as much damage from the mine as possible.
Blizzard is so desperate to remove the siege tank from TvZ that they call getting a few tanks to defend against a roach/bane allin "getting tanks." If the siege tank and the mine clash so much that Terran players predominantly choose one over the other and tank usage has largely disappeared, then one of the units is poorly designed and should be fixed so that their roles do not conflict, or it should be removed.
I also think that Blizzard is focusing too much on removing defensive strategies such as swarmhost + static in order to avoid the infestor/broodlord effect, without actually considering why such strategies exist in the first place. The reason that strategy exists is that it is the only way that Zerg can consistently beat an endgame Protoss deathball. Instead of attempting to stamp that out Blizzard should consider why the comp exists in the first place and what is causing it...It's ironic because outside of two-base allins the sole goal of a Protoss is to turtle to death on 3 bases.
In attempting to remove anything that is not aggressive from the game Blizzard is removing a lot of options and complexity. Just because something is defensive does not mean it is bad. Do not focus so much on the spectator that you limit potential gameplay. The death of the siege tank is a prime example of this.
I actually agree with everything said. Especially the point you make about mines being a chance factor, and that being the reason we don't know who's going to come ahead in an upcoming engagement. Tanks do require more skill.
I don't find it nice when a Terran loses it's whole army cause caught out of position with the marine tank composition. Widow mines imply more skill on the zerg side in order not to lose too many units. I personally believe that there are too many zergs at pro level which are not as skilled as certain Terrans or Protosses which should be in a higher position, but still they are there for some reason. In fact we are finally starting too see the other 2 races taking a deep breath after this long zerg dominance but zergs are still very competitive. I would do something to try and change PvZ instead, swarm host turtling is really boring (even Stephano says that) and zergs are way too cost efficient with that unit.
On June 12 2013 09:22 Huragius wrote: Not changing voidray- approve. Not changing widow mines - disapprove.
Man these polls. You can easily see what races are the most represented lol.
Must be having a lot of trouble with voidrays as... terran? Wait, what?
I'm fine with Blizz letting this play out longer. I'm also glad that Hellbats are getting looked at, even though they didn't discuss that here. I feel like the game is very well balanced at this point, and neither the void rays or the widow mines should be a top priority for a change.
balanced, yes. but dont you think the game would get boring as fuck when zerg has to all in every terran they're playing against? Eventually terrans will realize this and start playing safer, then zvt would be impossible
God fucking dammit are we ever going to reach a point in SC2 where Zerg are not the whiniest race? I've heard about ZvX becoming impossible so many times that I just don't buy it anymore. The WoL beta was a long, long time ago. Dropping the victim complex is long past due.
On June 12 2013 09:22 Huragius wrote: Not changing voidray- approve. Not changing widow mines - disapprove.
Man these polls. You can easily see what races are the most represented lol.
Must be having a lot of trouble with voidrays as... terran? Wait, what?
I'm fine with Blizz letting this play out longer. I'm also glad that Hellbats are getting looked at, even though they didn't discuss that here. I feel like the game is very well balanced at this point, and neither the void rays or the widow mines should be a top priority for a change.
balanced, yes. but dont you think the game would get boring as fuck when zerg has to all in every terran they're playing against? Eventually terrans will realize this and start playing safer, then zvt would be impossible
God fucking dammit are we ever going to reach a point in SC2 where Zerg are not the whiniest race? I've heard about ZvX becoming impossible so many times that I just don't buy it anymore. The WoL beta was a long, long time ago. Dropping the victim complex is long past due.
If you listen to zerg players, they'll have you believe that even during the bl winfestor era zerg was still underpowered. Utter nonsense.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
Tanks are simple to use.Siege,target fire that's it.
Widow mines are complicated.You don't know what's gonna happen before the battle.Their range is much smaller.It depends on the individual skill of the players(how they split,how they attack)
A good terran can control his mines better,he has the micro to split the bio and target with mines(which is not that easy).
A bad terran might blow up his whole army(with the help of a good zerg).
I was going to quote the section wax did so I don't need to bother now...but how in the fuck do you justify a random factor in a large engagement to promote skill and be skill-based in any sense of the word. It's either you're watching a Zerg who is good with handling widow mines or a Zerg who is not. Very little Terran micro is needed for mines in maxed engagements, which I'm pretty sure is what Blizzard is referencing here.
Bogus places them well on a consistant basis. Places. That's like...sieging tanks that takes way less time. Is that the skill we're supposed to be viewing as a spectator.
The matchup was far more interesting when it was reliant on the siege tank, as bastardized a version of the BW tank as it is.
From reading the reactions I suppose non of you understood what DK meant by saying that it comes down to the skill of the players. Marine/tank vs. ling/bling/muta battles were always based on the fact if the terran was sieged up or not (hence the predictability). If he wasn't sieged zerg could just a move and crush the army. If he was, zerg could just retreat back and let terran progress on creep more while sniping tanks that were left behind sieged with mutas. And when the battle occured zerg had much less micro to do....dont waste blings on tanks and its game over. Terran still had to split marines pretty well and more importantly target tanks (after sieging them) on banelings to actually get rid of them. Not even mentioning end of 2012 when every Z went ling/bling/infestor and prevented any micro at all. ))
Now they both have to split and target very well and mines can still do more harm than good to the terran. I think its just much more stressfull for both players...zerg can loose all blings to a well placed widow mine if not careful and terran can still loose all his marines to few blings or fungal if not paying attention to his army for a second. (oh and bling landmines on hatchery tech could be pretty deadly)
EDIT: Im simplifying my statements on purpose, just to explain what i think he meant - i know its always not that easy to defeat marine tank. And also how i felt about WoL from playing all the races for some time.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
Tanks are simple to use.Siege,target fire that's it.
Widow mines are complicated.You don't know what's gonna happen before the battle.Their range is much smaller.It depends on the individual skill of the players(how they split,how they attack)
A good terran can control his mines better,he has the micro to split the bio and target with mines(which is not that easy).
A bad terran might blow up his whole army(with the help of a good zerg).
I was going to quote the section wax did so I don't need to bother now...but how in the fuck do you justify a random factor in a large engagement to promote skill and be skill-based in any sense of the word. It's either you're watching a Zerg who is good with handling widow mines or a Zerg who is not. Very little Terran micro is needed for mines in maxed engagements, which I'm pretty sure is what Blizzard is referencing here.
Bogus places them well on a consistant basis. Places. That's like...sieging tanks that takes way less time. Is that the skill we're supposed to be viewing as a spectator.
The matchup was far more interesting when it was reliant on the siege tank, as bastardized a version of the BW tank as it is.
On June 12 2013 08:53 jeeneeus wrote: How about void rays in pvp? Or is that not really an issue?
Hasn't been an issue for a while now. PvP is actually seeing a very wide diversity of openings and unit compositions, possibly more diversity than any other matchup ever actually. Of course in the late game Void Rays play a big role because they are an incredibly powerful unit but they are hardly all you make.
And then of course you can deal with them pretty effectively with Psi Storm.
I think I would very much agree that PvP is probably the most diverse matchup...which is so weird to say out loud haha
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
Tanks are simple to use.Siege,target fire that's it.
Widow mines are complicated.You don't know what's gonna happen before the battle.Their range is much smaller.It depends on the individual skill of the players(how they split,how they attack)
A good terran can control his mines better,he has the micro to split the bio and target with mines(which is not that easy).
A bad terran might blow up his whole army(with the help of a good zerg).
I was going to quote the section wax did so I don't need to bother now...but how in the fuck do you justify a random factor in a large engagement to promote skill and be skill-based in any sense of the word. It's either you're watching a Zerg who is good with handling widow mines or a Zerg who is not. Very little Terran micro is needed for mines in maxed engagements, which I'm pretty sure is what Blizzard is referencing here.
Bogus places them well on a consistant basis. Places. That's like...sieging tanks that takes way less time. Is that the skill we're supposed to be viewing as a spectator.
The matchup was far more interesting when it was reliant on the siege tank, as bastardized a version of the BW tank as it is.
It is a bit random in lower levels of play but as i said good players can use them to their advantage(both terran and zerg),i'm talking mostly about targeting not positioning,that's the hard part!
How is marine tank exciting? Zerg just a-moves and someone wins.Mines are better for the viewer.
Also finally the zerg has to micro now,wow how crazy is that,right?
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
I think he means the skill of splitting units off so Widow Mines don't kill everything?
In otherwords, ForGG had no skill when he lost all his full Medivacs to his own Widow Mines when he played Stephano. Apparently, to David Kim, that had nothing to do with chance.
So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” We believe the answer is yes.
This is the only thing i disagree. Marine tank vs muta ling bane is super exciting. Sadly tanks dont have a place in that matchup (at least against muta ling bane) anymore, as 2 mines are clearly superior than a tank.
I miss Muta/Ling/Bane versus Marine/Tank/Medivac so much. So dynamic and interesting.
There is definitely skill involved with minimizing mine damage but people also underestimate the skill behind spreading mines all over the map in good strategic spots. By itself you could say it's not that hard, but when you factor in everything else the player is doing, especially vs high skilled players where you're most likely constantly trading blows with his army/drops, it takes a lot of multi tasking to pull that off.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
Tanks are simple to use.Siege,target fire that's it.
Widow mines are complicated.You don't know what's gonna happen before the battle.Their range is much smaller.It depends on the individual skill of the players(how they split,how they attack)
A good terran can control his mines better,he has the micro to split the bio and target with mines(which is not that easy).
A bad terran might blow up his whole army(with the help of a good zerg).
I was going to quote the section wax did so I don't need to bother now...but how in the fuck do you justify a random factor in a large engagement to promote skill and be skill-based in any sense of the word. It's either you're watching a Zerg who is good with handling widow mines or a Zerg who is not. Very little Terran micro is needed for mines in maxed engagements, which I'm pretty sure is what Blizzard is referencing here.
Bogus places them well on a consistant basis. Places. That's like...sieging tanks that takes way less time. Is that the skill we're supposed to be viewing as a spectator.
The matchup was far more interesting when it was reliant on the siege tank, as bastardized a version of the BW tank as it is.
+1 50x
its funny that pretty much everyone agrees that we rather have good siege tanks than widow mines, which would also increase skill ceiling AND viewer experience.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
Tanks are simple to use.Siege,target fire that's it.
Widow mines are complicated.You don't know what's gonna happen before the battle.Their range is much smaller.It depends on the individual skill of the players(how they split,how they attack)
A good terran can control his mines better,he has the micro to split the bio and target with mines(which is not that easy).
A bad terran might blow up his whole army(with the help of a good zerg).
I was going to quote the section wax did so I don't need to bother now...but how in the fuck do you justify a random factor in a large engagement to promote skill and be skill-based in any sense of the word. It's either you're watching a Zerg who is good with handling widow mines or a Zerg who is not. Very little Terran micro is needed for mines in maxed engagements, which I'm pretty sure is what Blizzard is referencing here.
Bogus places them well on a consistant basis. Places. That's like...sieging tanks that takes way less time. Is that the skill we're supposed to be viewing as a spectator.
The matchup was far more interesting when it was reliant on the siege tank, as bastardized a version of the BW tank as it is.
It is a bit random in lower levels of play but as i said good players can use them to their advantage(both terran and zerg),i'm talking mostly about targeting not positioning,that's the hard part!
How is marine tank exciting? Zerg just a-moves and someone wins.Mines are better for the viewer.
Also finally the zerg has to micro now,wow how crazy is that right?
This whole A-move zerg concept is a fallacy. Maybe it's true for diamond scrubs but at high levels, zerg will manually move and split their banelings to get max efficiency by killing marines, while zerglings are on attack command. Otherwise, the banelings will just crash into tanks, which is good trade for terran. It's easy to look at it and say oh that's just amove but as a zerg player i know the real deal
On June 12 2013 09:01 BronzeKnee wrote: Shocked that they won't change the Widow Mine.
It isn't overpowered statistically, but the effect it has on the game is dramatic. It controls APM better than any other unit, to the extent that in TvZ it allows Terran to dominate multitasking. Idra said this is the reason so many people have been doing Roach-Bane busts, simply because a Terran player who is good at multitasking can dominate an equally skilled Zerg player using Widow Mines. As a Protoss bystander, I'm inclined to agree when I watch high level Terran or Zerg streams. It ruined my favorite match up to watch for me.
Also as another poster said above, it promotes a chance aspect, rather than skill. The skill in using Tanks isn't just focus firing, it is in the positioning! Blizzard seems to have lost sight of this.
Yeah because Idra is the source I go to on ZvT balance
From a viewer standpoint, widow mines are way less interesting than siege tanks. Siege tanks are constant damage, a constant threat. Widow mines are one big boom and the engagement is already pretty much over one way or another. Not only that, but the constant threat of being caught unsieged created tension. There is no tension with widow mines in that regard with 1 sec burrow time.
Marine/tank was more fun to watch than Marine/mine. I wish they'd rebalance the tank to make it more viable again.
On June 12 2013 08:53 jeeneeus wrote: How about void rays in pvp? Or is that not really an issue?
Hasn't been an issue for a while now. PvP is actually seeing a very wide diversity of openings and unit compositions, possibly more diversity than any other matchup ever actually. Of course in the late game Void Rays play a big role because they are an incredibly powerful unit but they are hardly all you make.
And then of course you can deal with them pretty effectively with Psi Storm.
I think I would very much agree that PvP is probably the most diverse matchup...which is so weird to say out loud haha
Yeah, this is true. There are some lovely things happening in PvP.
One reason why if the WP buff is to go ahead, it needs to be done carefully. If it is overbuffed, we may lose out on a lot of the flowering diversity in PvP for unending Robo based Immortal+Zealot drops (similar to the HB wars in TvT).
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
When innovation uses mines and sees like 1 ling running in he unburrows the mine so it doesn't fire off on the 1 ling. He did the same thing when he did the marine widow mine drops where the mien would unburrow when small amounts of units got near. If a terran player doesn't do that it is quite clear that he will lose a lot of fights.
That's the only way I see innovation use mines differently than a lot of terrans do. so Im guessing this is what he is getting at
With the addition of vipers and blinding cloud I think there is no reasons that siege tanks shouldnt see a little buff. We basically never see them in TvP and with the widow mine they are pretty much absent in TvZ as well now. The comment about the outcome of marine/tank in TvZ makes no sense to me really; I hardly think marine/tank vs muta/ling/bane would be one sided. If tanks got a buff we would see them more, which in turn would result in more vipers in TvZ which is a good thing because good micro and positioning would be rewarded. Widow mines are much more random in the damage they do whereas a good terran player will focus fire his tanks on banelings. Also mech play centered around siege tanks (what most people consider to be true mech) is still not very viable in any MU but TvT.
tl;dr: buff tanks they will promote more satisfying games than widow mines which are much more luck based.
I think it's a little boring watching widow mine play every freaking game, but I guess there's no reasonable excuse for me to say, as it's only my opinion.
The Warp Prism change we tested last week is a good example of a tweak that benefits players who are amazing at multitasking, while having little effect on the game below the pro level. For an eSport game like SC2, we want more things in the game that separate out the very best from the average, not less.
Breaking news, Blizzard has just discovered something that everyone wanted since Beta.
All tech options are viable now throughout the course of the game.
I hope David Kim has this mentality for Terran as well. Terran's tech options are very limited in one matchup. Most higher tier units are useless. Why doesn't he address this as well?
All tech options are viable now throughout the course of the game.
I hope David Kim has this mentality for Terran as well. Terran's tech options are very limited in one matchup. Most higher tier units are useless. Why doesn't he address this as well?
Because mech in TvP wouldn't produce a dynamic game. It would be a boring, stagnant turtle-fest which culminates in a maxed army slowpushing unstoppably across the map. I do not want to see hour-long games where photon cannons, turrets, and nexus cannons basically force the game into a stalemate of viking/ghost/hellbat/tank/thor/whatever versus airtoss+storm. Aside from Templar, Ghosts and Vikings, the other units involved are slow, a-movish, and boring. Yes, that includes the Siege Tank in the context of TvP.
You would have to completely revamp the way mech actually works to make it interesting against Protoss. It kinda works against Terran and Zerg because Terran has the same dynamic to work with while Zerg has speed and creep and rabid tech switches. Protoss just plays very turtley in TvP to start with. Meching Terran would drain all the life from the matchup.
The Warp Prism change we tested last week is a good example of a tweak that benefits players who are amazing at multitasking, while having little effect on the game below the pro level. For an eSport game like SC2, we want more things in the game that separate out the very best from the average, not less.
Breaking news, Blizzard has just discovered something that everyone wanted since Beta.
No. Everyone says they want it but will kick up a shitstorm if any changes are made that make the game more difficult for them. The only thing that people actually want is easy wins.
The only bit I have a real quarrel with is the bit about siege tanks. They're becoming obsolete and he doesn't really see an issue with it because they are used in TVT? Come on, they are a core unit of the race. They should be used frequently (not just 1-2 in TvZ) in all matchups!
WoL at the end Terran was insanely UP almost to the point where you were wasting your time playing the game as Terran.
Nerfing the mine into the ground so people will make tanks will just make tons of terran's quit or switch races.
Nerf the mine and hellbat into the ground (like every toss and zerg players wants.....big suprise! lol) and you have WoL terran (which was already terrible at the end) and a toss and zerg that are much stronger due to new ultras, new mutas, mothership core, SH, new void ray, tempest, oracle, vipers.
I think toss and zerg players especially are so used to just steam rolling terran that now terran is winning again it makes them angry.
So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?”
We believe the answer is yes. When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
I think he's pushing this point far too far. The difference in tank usage from low master to pro level is night and day, in terms of their usefulness on the map and in engagements
On June 12 2013 10:40 JIJI_ wrote: Terran needs the widow mine.
WoL at the end Terran was insanely UP almost to the point where you were wasting your time playing the game as Terran.
Nerfing the mine into the ground so people will make tanks will just make tons of terran's quit or switch races.
Nerf the mine and hellbat into the ground (like every toss and zerg players wants.....big suprise! lol) and you have WoL terran (which was already terrible at the end) and a toss and zerg that are much stronger due to new ultras, new mutas, mothership core, SH, new void ray, tempest, oracle, vipers.
I think toss and zerg players especially are so used to just steam rolling terran that now terran is winning again it makes them angry.
zerg was hard to play against bc of the infestor, so now wouldn't be as bad now that infestors are as worthless as shit.
And you're kidding right? terran dominated the sc2 scene for a good 2 years until the patchzerg era
zerg was hard to play against bc of the infestor, so now wouldn't be as bad now that infestors are as worthless as shit.
Infestor is hardly "worthless as shit." I see it in almost every TvZ I play that goes into late game.
You just need to anticipate where your opponents units will be and aim it similar to the ghost.
My point is all terran got was mines and hellbats......nerfing them both to the ground like most zerg and toss players want so they can get easy wins will make it WoL Terran against a buffed toss and zerg that got tons of things.
All tech options are viable now throughout the course of the game.
I hope David Kim has this mentality for Terran as well. Terran's tech options are very limited in one matchup. Most higher tier units are useless. Why doesn't he address this as well?
Marines and Marauders address most of the issues Terran has. It isn't dynamic or exciting, but it has made Terran by far the most successful race in SC2.
For this reason, David Kim has no reason to mess around with Mech. Clearly HOTS was a (near, HOTS lifecycle isn't complete) complete failure when it came to making Mech viable. All it ended up doing was killing the Siege Tank in TvZ and adding in Hellbats and Widow Mines to compliment Bio.
So rather than dealing with the actual problems, they're having a look at fucking SWARM HOSTS?!
Without swarm host/mass static defence, there is literally no way for Zerg to take on Protoss in the late game once they have their death army of colossus/ht/voidray. God damn it.
I'm actually really interested in the idea that they overbuff or overnerf on PTR maps on purpose to get more data. It certainly makes the last few PTRs make more sense.
zerg was hard to play against bc of the infestor, so now wouldn't be as bad now that infestors are as worthless as shit.
Infestor is hardly "worthless as shit." I see it in almost every TvZ I play that goes into late game.
You just need to anticipate where your opponents units will be and aim it similar to the ghost.
My point is all terran got was mines and hellbats......nerfing them both to the ground like most zerg and toss players want so they can get easy wins will make it WoL Terran against a buffed toss and zerg that got tons of things.
Yes, now that fungal's a skill shot,no complaints can be made about a good fungal. And no one suggests that hellbats and mines to be rendered useless. It's just that it's a problem when zerg has to all in every game vs terran. Dont you think?
On June 12 2013 08:47 Koshi wrote: Playing zerg vs terran became much more intense for me in HotS due to the widow mines. I really like that you just can't a-move at all anymore. I agree that they shouldn't be adjusted.
On June 12 2013 08:47 Koshi wrote: Playing zerg vs terran became much more intense for me in HotS due to the widow mines. I really like that you just can't a-move at all anymore. I agree that they shouldn't be adjusted.
finally. someone who understands
Looks like someone's troll detection mechanism is failing
On June 12 2013 11:13 ultrik wrote: I find it funny that zerg say widow mine require no skill when mine requires much much more skill than baneling or ultra.
planting a mine and having the offchance of it doing tons of damage sounds really skillful.
I actually like the randomness of the Window mine. It gives spectating the game an exciting aspect where you don't know what's going to happen. It reminds me of Spider Mines and Scarabs in BW, it was always exciting to see what they would hit.
Contrary to my opinion at the start of HotS, I actually really like them not nerfing void rays. It really has made skytoss more viable.
I think they could try introducing more buffs as opposed to nerfs. Like something that will majorly shake up the game, such as Tanks getting +damage against shields, or stalkers having better upgrade scaling but longer blink cooldown. It would be really cool, especially the former which will make mech viable. If mech were viable, TvP as both a viewer and a player would be diversified so much, it would seem like an all new sc2.
On June 12 2013 08:47 Koshi wrote: Playing zerg vs terran became much more intense for me in HotS due to the widow mines. I really like that you just can't a-move at all anymore. I agree that they shouldn't be adjusted.
finally. someone who understands
Looks like someone's troll detection mechanism is failing
On June 12 2013 08:47 Koshi wrote: Playing zerg vs terran became much more intense for me in HotS due to the widow mines. I really like that you just can't a-move at all anymore. I agree that they shouldn't be adjusted.
finally. someone who understands
Looks like someone's troll detection mechanism is failing
Mine is going off the charts reading your posts.
Except that he isn't trolling lol. He is just actually that zerg biased.
On June 12 2013 08:47 Koshi wrote: Playing zerg vs terran became much more intense for me in HotS due to the widow mines. I really like that you just can't a-move at all anymore. I agree that they shouldn't be adjusted.
finally. someone who understands
Looks like someone's troll detection mechanism is failing
On June 12 2013 10:40 JIJI_ wrote: Terran needs the widow mine.
WoL at the end Terran was insanely UP almost to the point where you were wasting your time playing the game as Terran.
Nerfing the mine into the ground so people will make tanks will just make tons of terran's quit or switch races.
Nerf the mine and hellbat into the ground (like every toss and zerg players wants.....big suprise! lol) and you have WoL terran (which was already terrible at the end) and a toss and zerg that are much stronger due to new ultras, new mutas, mothership core, SH, new void ray, tempest, oracle, vipers.
I think toss and zerg players especially are so used to just steam rolling terran that now terran is winning again it makes them angry.
zerg was hard to play against bc of the infestor, so now wouldn't be as bad now that infestors are as worthless as shit.
And you're kidding right? terran dominated the sc2 scene for a good 2 years until the patchzerg era
I think you should just stop. You are making yourself look stupid.
Blizzard are always talking about nerfing units and only rarely thinking about buffing them.
Well that said the muta problem was attempted to be solved through buffing the spores so I want more of that approach. I'd prefer to see them modify corruption on corruptors or something over nerfing the voids.
zerg was hard to play against bc of the infestor, so now wouldn't be as bad now that infestors are as worthless as shit.
Infestor is hardly "worthless as shit." I see it in almost every TvZ I play that goes into late game.
You just need to anticipate where your opponents units will be and aim it similar to the ghost.
My point is all terran got was mines and hellbats......nerfing them both to the ground like most zerg and toss players want so they can get easy wins will make it WoL Terran against a buffed toss and zerg that got tons of things.
Yes, now that fungal's a skill shot,no complaints can be made about a good fungal. And no one suggests that hellbats and mines to be rendered useless. It's just that it's a problem when zerg has to all in every game vs terran. Dont you think?
In which world does zerg, a race with a much, much stronger late game than terran, have to allin versus terran every game? Don't base your whines off Innovation's TvZ, no one else in the world, except maybe Flash, can pull off that kind of micro.
This lacks consistency. Don't nerf Widow Mine because it provides constant action and undecisive battles. Don't nerf VR either because it causes insta win for the toss or 50 minutes long games with very few / repetitive action...
I feel like both units need to be change because they "lock" the gameplay in their own way.
WM prevent tactical moves such as siege tank positionning but also mech upgrade timings or simply waiting the right army number for moving out. They also require very few micro from the terran. There is also no point in questioning oneself : "Should I build a widowmine or save the money for something else" because they are very cheap and its always a good idea to build them.
VR prevent any kind of timing play from the zerg and forces the game to be muta corruptor harass based with no other true game plan / a split map situation with swarmhost corruptors and vipers. Worst is that after sOs s game everybody on the ladder starts to plays this kind of style, split map games can be fun but I hate being forced in a specific play without the possibility of doing anything else. Even with a big skill difference. Very frustrating.
On June 12 2013 11:19 xAdra wrote: I think they could try introducing more buffs as opposed to nerfs. Like something that will majorly shake up the game, such as Tanks getting +damage against shields, or stalkers having better upgrade scaling but longer blink cooldown. It would be really cool, especially the former which will make mech viable. If mech were viable, TvP as both a viewer and a player would be diversified so much, it would seem like an all new sc2.
Tanks getting +damage against shields? What? Er, no. Thanks, but no, thanks.
On June 12 2013 11:19 xAdra wrote: I think they could try introducing more buffs as opposed to nerfs. Like something that will majorly shake up the game, such as Tanks getting +damage against shields, or stalkers having better upgrade scaling but longer blink cooldown. It would be really cool, especially the former which will make mech viable. If mech were viable, TvP as both a viewer and a player would be diversified so much, it would seem like an all new sc2.
Tanks getting +damage against shields? What? Er, no. Thanks, but no, thanks.
On June 12 2013 11:19 xAdra wrote: I think they could try introducing more buffs as opposed to nerfs. Like something that will majorly shake up the game, such as Tanks getting +damage against shields, or stalkers having better upgrade scaling but longer blink cooldown. It would be really cool, especially the former which will make mech viable. If mech were viable, TvP as both a viewer and a player would be diversified so much, it would seem like an all new sc2.
Tanks getting +damage against shields? What? Er, no. Thanks, but no, thanks.
Can't argue with this kinda reasoning.
Yeah, I think it's good to try out. I mean, mech is not viable against toss as it is.
On June 12 2013 11:19 xAdra wrote: I think they could try introducing more buffs as opposed to nerfs. Like something that will majorly shake up the game, such as Tanks getting +damage against shields, or stalkers having better upgrade scaling but longer blink cooldown. It would be really cool, especially the former which will make mech viable. If mech were viable, TvP as both a viewer and a player would be diversified so much, it would seem like an all new sc2.
Tanks getting +damage against shields? What? Er, no. Thanks, but no, thanks.
On June 12 2013 11:19 xAdra wrote: I think they could try introducing more buffs as opposed to nerfs. Like something that will majorly shake up the game, such as Tanks getting +damage against shields, or stalkers having better upgrade scaling but longer blink cooldown. It would be really cool, especially the former which will make mech viable. If mech were viable, TvP as both a viewer and a player would be diversified so much, it would seem like an all new sc2.
Tanks getting +damage against shields? What? Er, no. Thanks, but no, thanks.
Can't argue with this kinda reasoning.
Yeah, I think it's good to try out. I mean, mech is not viable against toss as it is.
Why should it be viable? Apart from the panting longing for BW Mech?
Terran also has a unit that can be produced in multiple numbers that is able to destroy Protoss shields. And now you want another? Which already also does considerable damage, especially to armoured on top of that? Think about it for a while, and you'll see why it's another one of those ideas that sound nice, but are really, just more than a little silly.
On June 12 2013 11:19 xAdra wrote: I think they could try introducing more buffs as opposed to nerfs. Like something that will majorly shake up the game, such as Tanks getting +damage against shields, or stalkers having better upgrade scaling but longer blink cooldown. It would be really cool, especially the former which will make mech viable. If mech were viable, TvP as both a viewer and a player would be diversified so much, it would seem like an all new sc2.
Tanks getting +damage against shields? What? Er, no. Thanks, but no, thanks.
On June 12 2013 11:19 xAdra wrote: I think they could try introducing more buffs as opposed to nerfs. Like something that will majorly shake up the game, such as Tanks getting +damage against shields, or stalkers having better upgrade scaling but longer blink cooldown. It would be really cool, especially the former which will make mech viable. If mech were viable, TvP as both a viewer and a player would be diversified so much, it would seem like an all new sc2.
Tanks getting +damage against shields? What? Er, no. Thanks, but no, thanks.
Can't argue with this kinda reasoning.
Yeah, I think it's good to try out. I mean, mech is not viable against toss as it is.
Why should it be viable? Apart from the panting longing for BW Mech?
Terran also has a unit that can be produced in multiple numbers that is able to destroy Protoss shields. And now you want another? Which already also does considerable damage, especially to armoured on top of that? Think about it for a while, and you'll see why it's another one of those ideas that sound nice, but are really, just more than a little silly.
Clearly colossi shouldn't deal splash damage, protoss has templar for that.
"When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle."
I spit out my drink when i read this.
They think the reason you don't know how a widow mine related battle will turn out (in relation to tank/thor) is because of the terrans ability to apply SKILL????
The widow mine hits (unless microd with a trick thats almost never used even by innovation) a random (from the terrans point of view) target that can either kill one zergling, or like infinity banelings. How in gods name is that a more skill intensive result than siege tank target fire??????
On June 12 2013 11:19 xAdra wrote: I think they could try introducing more buffs as opposed to nerfs. Like something that will majorly shake up the game, such as Tanks getting +damage against shields, or stalkers having better upgrade scaling but longer blink cooldown. It would be really cool, especially the former which will make mech viable. If mech were viable, TvP as both a viewer and a player would be diversified so much, it would seem like an all new sc2.
Tanks getting +damage against shields? What? Er, no. Thanks, but no, thanks.
Can't argue with this kinda reasoning.
Yeah, I think it's good to try out. I mean, mech is not viable against toss as it is.
Why should it be viable? Apart from the panting longing for BW Mech?
Terran also has a unit that can be produced in multiple numbers that is able to destroy Protoss shields. And now you want another? Which already also does considerable damage, especially to armoured on top of that? Think about it for a while, and you'll see why it's another one of those ideas that sound nice, but are really, just more than a little silly.
Because we want to diversify play? Is that wrong? Would you like to be back in the days when protoss had to go robo every game or die instantly? Saying that marauders take that role is stupid: would you go marauder/tank? Units that have different upgrades?
I'm no terran player, but it's obvious that bio and mech are completely different playstyles. While bio players want constant harass and aggression, relying on micro and mechanics to stay on even footing, mech players utilize decision making and positioning to a greater extent. By allowing mech against protoss, you make the game more interesting.
Let's ask a different question: why are you so violently adverse to the idea of making mech more viable? Apart from the panting longing for ladder points against terran?
Well, everything boils down to the three broken mechanics of sc2 either way (warp gate, larva inject and mule) ...
warp gate gives the protoss instant reiforcement, larva inject let the zerg create new armies instantly and mule let the terran have better economy then the other races(less workers needed for the same eco as the other races). These mechanics is all imbalanced given certain situations which makes for flimsical gameplay.
on topic though I can not see how widow mines require as much skill to use as to play against. Only real microing that can be going is reburrowing, retargetting is not something any good terran can do without neglecting something else. Maybe you can retarget 1-3 wm in battle but that is pushing it (if all terran did so every battle would be bad for the zerg). Reburrowing just make the terran tantrum from beta that zerg should bait widow mines shots with a few lings obsolete or not as great.
On a side note the most boring match-up is ZvP to play on ladder, the toss either does some weirdass all in with 1 or 2 bases Or they sit on there asses while getting void rays then 1-a at some point unless you hit a nice hydra timing. Just a ridicolous match-up right now. Widow is less random then the toss cheeses imo.
I miss 2 tank 16-20 marine push styles in all matchups....
I remember watching streams where pros would do it in TvP for early defensive options vs the variety of allins towards the end of WoL and to punish fast thirds
On June 12 2013 11:19 xAdra wrote: I think they could try introducing more buffs as opposed to nerfs. Like something that will majorly shake up the game, such as Tanks getting +damage against shields, or stalkers having better upgrade scaling but longer blink cooldown. It would be really cool, especially the former which will make mech viable. If mech were viable, TvP as both a viewer and a player would be diversified so much, it would seem like an all new sc2.
Tanks getting +damage against shields? What? Er, no. Thanks, but no, thanks.
Can't argue with this kinda reasoning.
Yeah, I think it's good to try out. I mean, mech is not viable against toss as it is.
Why should it be viable? Apart from the panting longing for BW Mech?
Terran also has a unit that can be produced in multiple numbers that is able to destroy Protoss shields. And now you want another? Which already also does considerable damage, especially to armoured on top of that? Think about it for a while, and you'll see why it's another one of those ideas that sound nice, but are really, just more than a little silly.
Because we want to diversify play? Is that wrong? Would you like to be back in the days when protoss had to go robo every game or die instantly? Saying that marauders take that role is stupid: would you go marauder/tank? Units that have different upgrades?
I'm no terran player, but it's obvious that bio and mech are completely different playstyles. While bio players want constant harass and aggression, relying on micro and mechanics to stay on even footing, mech players utilize decision making and positioning to a greater extent. By allowing mech against protoss, you make the game more interesting.
Let's ask a different question: why are you so violently adverse to the idea of making mech more viable? Apart from the panting longing for ladder points against terran?
Diversity for the sake of diversity is not a good reason (especially if it causes other problems). Mech, at least in some form, is already viable in TvT and TvZ. Although it may not be the real slow intellectual strange of BW mech (this is partly because SC2 is a different, faster and more mobile game). There is no reason for it to be also viable in TvP just because it is Mech and just because of diversity. Let's take your suggestion of shield damage. You put shield damage on a unit that does a lot of default damage, does a lot of damage versus armoured, does splash damage, and now comes out with default siege range. You don't see the problem with that? That would cause a lot more problems than it 'solves' or gains in 'diversity'.
If there is one thing we can say from a complex and deep game like SC2 is that the game is full of unintended consequences and players develop strategies in new and unexpected ways. This is why nerfs, especially large ones, should be resisted as it removes tools from players and diminishes the creativity of the playing population. However, this is also a reason why strong buffs need to be carefully implemented. Simply because no-one knows what direction these buffs will take the game. In opting for a strongger tank, people tend to look at Mech styles as played in BW without realising that SC2 is a different game, with different units, and different styles (such as Bio/Mech). For instance, from one point of view, such a buff intended to strengthen pure Mech could radically overpower Bio/Mech styles against P. Do you see what I mean?
This is why ideas like this, even if nice on the surface, are rather silly, IMO, when you look at them a little deeper.
It's good that that a primary focus is to make sure the game isn't stale, but I really didn't except void rays and widow mines to be the discussion of this situation report when David Kim recently mentioned possibly nerfing the hellbat.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
Is this implying that with tank/marine the numbers of the zerg matter and you can tell who will win based on numbers while mine/marine the numbers of the zerg are irrelevant because of "player skill" (that "skill" being how well the zerg can evade/detonate mines and minimizing losses while terran just stutter steps and macros)?
Without swarm host/mass static defence, there is literally no way for Zerg to take on Protoss in the late game once they have their death army of colossus/ht/voidray. God damn it.
Hmm that sounds familiar. Were you also complaining about this when BL/Infestor was dominating?
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
Is this implying that with tank/marine the numbers of the zerg matter and you can tell who will win based on numbers while mine/marine the numbers of the zerg are irrelevant because of "player skill" (that "skill" being how well the zerg can evade/detonate mines and minimizing losses while terran just stutter steps and macros)?
Yes, they pretty much want zergs to work harder.
Btw you don't "just stutter step" against ling/bane, you split.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
In WoL zerg 1-a their entire army into terran's marine tank. There is no dances and its what every zerg does when he decided its go time.
In Hots, you will lose your army if you 1-a your army into widow mines. You need good controls and decisions to slowly poke away the fire before going in for the kills.
As a Zerg player who hates the state of the Void Ray, I think they missed the point completely.
Much like the muta complaints of old, it's not that the VR itself is OP, it's the fact that Zerg lacks a solid counter-unit.
When Void Rays are on the field en masse, it is signifcantly harder for the Zerg to win than the Protoss, while you can argue "Zerg shouldn't let it get that way" there is nothing on the other side remotely close to that strength in the modern game.
Sure, it's winnable, but it sure does feel like showing up to a gun fight with a knife.
The reason that the Void ray isn't screwing with the win percentages is because it's only broken in PvP (spoiler: Protoss wins). There's no Protoss unit that can trade effectively vs Void rays using overcharge, so it's like Hellbat drops in TvT. I'm a random player, and my WoL PvP was pretty terrible. But in HotS, I have a great win rate going mass void ray. I'm glad to see my ability to box a-move and then hit e be rewarded with a huge win rate
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
Is this implying that with tank/marine the numbers of the zerg matter and you can tell who will win based on numbers while mine/marine the numbers of the zerg are irrelevant because of "player skill" (that "skill" being how well the zerg can evade/detonate mines and minimizing losses while terran just stutter steps and macros)?
Yes, they pretty much want zergs to work harder.
Btw you don't "just stutter step" against ling/bane, you split.
With mine/marine you stutter step until the mines are detonated THEN you split as you retreat (if the zerg does not retreat). At least, this is what innovation does as far as I can remember. You dont split (or much) before that because you waste damage. This is at the pro level though, below that it is probably beneficial to retreat and split rather than stutter then split.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
In WoL zerg 1-a their entire army into terran's marine tank. There is no dances and its what every zerg does when he decided its go time.
In Hots, you will lose your army if you 1-a your army into widow mines. You need good controls and decisions to slowly poke away the fire before going in for the kills.
In WoL if a zerg 1-a their entire army into marine/tank that is targeting, you lose. Banelings need to be controlled and if T is on creep it helps to use lings to surround marines so they cant run and you use mutas to target tanks or medivacs. 1-a is entirely too simplified.
Have to strongly disagree with idea that marine/mine play is more indicative of a skilled player. Marine tank is way more fun to watch and i'm sad to see that blizzard is satisfied with the siege tanks replacement as terran's primary AOE unit.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
Is this implying that with tank/marine the numbers of the zerg matter and you can tell who will win based on numbers while mine/marine the numbers of the zerg are irrelevant because of "player skill" (that "skill" being how well the zerg can evade/detonate mines and minimizing losses while terran just stutter steps and macros)?
Yes, they pretty much want zergs to work harder.
Btw you don't "just stutter step" against ling/bane, you split.
With mine/marine you stutter step until the mines are detonated THEN you split as you retreat (if the zerg does not retreat). At least, this is what innovation does as far as I can remember. You dont split (or much) before that because you waste damage. This is at the pro level though, below that it is probably beneficial to retreat and split rather than stutter then split.
Yeah there can be a bit of weaving back and forth, especially if you have a line of marauders as the safety buffer. I don't think most pros do that with all of their army though, just smaller squads.
Either way obviously there's a lot of microing both sides can do, saying that a terran player "just stutter steps and macros" is a bit misleading.
Well shows how clueless blizzard is about the game's balance. Leaving the mine is understandable in the skill it requires for both players, but not fixing the lack of priority the mine takes in fights is honestly a joke.
The voidray is not exciting to me atleast and requires 0 skill while destroying everything (pvz atleast). If they are content with the voidray then either the hydra or corrupter need massive reworking because they are not cost effective vs the voidray.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
In WoL zerg 1-a their entire army into terran's marine tank. There is no dances and its what every zerg does when he decided its go time.
In Hots, you will lose your army if you 1-a your army into widow mines. You need good controls and decisions to slowly poke away the fire before going in for the kills.
You haven't heard of Overseers have you? In the late game with the Ultralisk, Zerg can pretty much 1A into it... Of course, they'd need a sufficient bank to quickly replenish the units they lost.
Void ray needs a change or nerf. Balance issue aside, the void ray deathballs is extremely boring to watch from start till end. There is literally no micro required at all for the toss side and the worst of all is that it only consists of one unit. This looks extremely silly for a strategy game
Just look at sos games against Zerg. It is Damn boring.
For once I disagree about the tank. The tank is far cooler than the widow mine imo, and it would be only logical that WM is used to cover flank rather than being the primarly source of dps of the army.
And concerning the "pretty much know who's gonna win when confrontation tvz", my god I disagree so much.
lol looking at swarm hosts eh DK? Make WM cost more and take that stupid fucking charge shit off of void rays. It should be pretty clear that WM are far too cost effective, being the same cost as a fucking roach, and mass voidrays with some support can only be stopped when the toss is too retarded to split them and they get fungaled. And if they must nerf swarm hosts so no one will use them, at least give zerg scourge back. Scourge would have fixed the skytoss problem as well as the mass muta problem zvz.
Widow mines aren't really at the heart of the problem in zvt. Speed medivacs are. That makes things tricky because i agree that speed medivacs are good for the game. But still, expecting the zerg to hold more and more bases for additional gas income even as their units get slower and slower while the terran can mass pump bio mine medivac off of mules and 3 bases is right now a huge problem. Even this scenario would be tolerable if it wasnt for the fact that after all this, when zerg has their 5-3 ultra infestor army, they have the smallest timing window to use it before the marauder count just climbs to a level at which the zerg barely even has an army advantage. There are a lot of potential solutions here, but in my opinion the best ones are actually ultralisk buffs.
the void ray is a fine unit, the hydralisk is a fine unit, but without a strong air to air unit, the hydralisk just isn't enough to take down 20 void ray armies. void ray only looks op because zerg air to air is below mediocre.
corruptor needs to be reworked, if not just straight up buffed. as of right now, it's only strength is as a mid game colossus killer and a buffer for mutalisks vs phoenix. zerg needs an air to air unit that can actually be used to support your ground army.
Severely dislike Blizzard approach to game design.
It revolves around extremely easy to use offensive abilities and/or units, which includes, but is not limited to, fungal, mine, void ray, swarm host, medivac speed boost, colossus, photon overcharge, and constant speed buffs for everything since the expansion. Pretty much all of the "skill" stems from avoiding and/or dealing with said encounters.
So what ends up happening is when something dies en masse, it's far less likely that the winner of the engagement "earned" it, and more likely the loser just wasn't vigilant enough at that point. Makes for a lot of really anti-climatic events within the game.
Doesn't appear like Blizzard is even recognizing that, let alone having any intention whatsoever to amend that.
[quote]So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?”
We believe the answer is yes. When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle. The current design of Widow Mines rewards both players who are skilled at using them and opposing players who are skilled at defeating them.
So it is boring to see Zerg flanking a siege army in open space? Zerg trying to bust down a fortified siege-line was the most exciting thing to watch in 2011-2012. Tanks target firing banelings is also a skill set + highly rewarding to watch.
Moving tanks around requires so much attention (because of siege-up) which definitely differentiate between players. Bio-mine (different style) requires micro. I wish tank base strategy can come back as well instead of being replaced. They are 2 completely different skill sets. Really disappointed to hear from Blizzard to say “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” - Answer is yes.
I don't care if they nerf mines or not because widow mines are cool watch. But I hope Tank can come back. I miss watching tanks in TvZ. Too much bio-mine.
This guy seems to have no clue how to design a game. It's almost like he wants to make changes but can't justify fixing anything based on current win rates.
The win rates WILL change, just give it a month or two before the game devolves into timing attacks, just like WoL took a month or so to turn into marine/SCV all-ins every game.
Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!!
Recently Protosses finally figured out that Zergs aren't allowed to kill air units and we're seeing ridiculously unfair no-risk hatchery snipes with recalled Void Rays. Expect that to increase as the meta stagnates.
Blizzard NEEDS to get on top of their game. It is far from balanced, it is quickly getting stale.
On June 12 2013 14:07 Spec wrote: The widow mine burrowed. The widow mine are activated! The widow mine got off a great hit!!! GGggggg! The widow mine wins the game!
lol, feels so accurate. If the T was controlling the mines like they did the tanks I would probably care less about their power, but the whole burrow and forget is troublesome.
While I agree with the conslusion for balance, their reasoning is not founded (much like many other changes ...queen buff in WoL). Is there ever a time these guys don't pat themselves on the back and marginalize the situation? I guess if I were David Kim I would do the same if I wanted to keep my job.
so those tards still think widow mines are fine? Cool. Burrow at frequent passes, go light a cigarette and watch as the other guy carelessly forgets his detector and loses half his army. Basically the same thing as burrowed banelings except cheaper, more powerful and don't require replacement or map awareness.
It sure is fun watching fast units trying to catch up to stim bio and getting shredded by mines as the terran kites backwards and observers/overseers are derping a mile behind.
PvP turned from colossi vs colossi into void rays vs void rays. Tempests are slowly becoming Carriers v.2 except some people still use them in PvP. Late game PvZ vs ultras they're worthless due to the extra damage working only on air units, and zergs are smart enough to not make BLs.
Next thing you know is even an SCV drop could do huge economical damage.
On June 12 2013 14:38 JDI1 wrote: so those tards still think widow mines are fine? Cool. Burrow at frequent passes, go light a cigarette and watch as the other guy carelessly forgets his detector and loses half his army. Basically the same thing as burrowed banelings except cheaper, more powerful and don't require replacement or map awareness.
It sure is fun watching fast units trying to catch up to stim bio and getting shredded by mines as the terran kites backwards and observers/overseers are derping a mile behind.
PvP turned from colossi vs colossi into void rays vs void rays. Tempests are slowly becoming Carriers v.2 except some people still use them in PvP. Late game PvZ vs ultras they're worthless due to the extra damage working only on air units, and zergs are smart enough to not make BLs.
Next thing you know is even an SCV drop could do huge economical damage.
You have to remember, while I don't disagree with some of your statements about awareness, what has HOTS actually given Terran? What new units? Warhound was taken out; Hellbat transformation nerfed to oblivion before launch; upgrades for mid tier units taking forever. What more do you want? Are you to say the reaper autoheal is what separates HOTS from WoL. I think Widow Mine drops and usage was more designed for high level play (something you may or may not have) so there might be a bias here.
They stated earlier that they support skill based games...and then they say that they aren't considering nerfing Voids. Void Rays require no skill, and especially in lower leagues are they prominent as ever, wheras Warp Prisms are only used in higher leagues.
Edit: Also, marine tank does not autolose to muta-ling-bling. I don't know where they got that from.
Good post. I like that they stuck with the cautious approach they started back at the end of WoL (even though I hated it then). For the most part, all the matchups are varied right now and exciting. There are some good players that rely on specific styles a LOT, but the scene as a whole is looking pretty diverse.
On June 12 2013 13:56 megapants wrote: the void ray is a fine unit, the hydralisk is a fine unit, but without a strong air to air unit, the hydralisk just isn't enough to take down 20 void ray armies. void ray only looks op because zerg air to air is below mediocre.
corruptor needs to be reworked, if not just straight up buffed. as of right now, it's only strength is as a mid game colossus killer and a buffer for mutalisks vs phoenix. zerg needs an air to air unit that can actually be used to support your ground army.
Exactly what I think. What if they remove the corruption ability and add some kind of defense buff from air-to-air attacks? It wouldn't affect other match ups and it would make corruptors a viable choice against voidrays.
On June 12 2013 14:38 JDI1 wrote: so those tards still think widow mines are fine? Cool. Burrow at frequent passes, go light a cigarette and watch as the other guy carelessly forgets his detector and loses half his army. Basically the same thing as burrowed banelings except cheaper, more powerful and don't require replacement or map awareness.
It sure is fun watching fast units trying to catch up to stim bio and getting shredded by mines as the terran kites backwards and observers/overseers are derping a mile behind.
PvP turned from colossi vs colossi into void rays vs void rays. Tempests are slowly becoming Carriers v.2 except some people still use them in PvP. Late game PvZ vs ultras they're worthless due to the extra damage working only on air units, and zergs are smart enough to not make BLs.
Next thing you know is even an SCV drop could do huge economical damage.
You have to remember, while I don't disagree with some of your statements about awareness, what has HOTS actually given Terran? What new units? Warhound was taken out; Hellbat transformation nerfed to oblivion before launch; upgrades for mid tier units taking forever. What more do you want? Are you to say the reaper autoheal is what separates HOTS from WoL. I think Widow Mine drops and usage was more designed for high level play (something you may or may not have) so there might be a bias here.
Zerg is still playing ling baneling muta infestor ultra broodlords against Terran. It's not like Zerg is using any of the new units either. (worst of all, muta regen and speed increase is mostly for defending drops now, not for harassment) We also don't see a lot of swarm host games in ZvP as well, while toss is still going for the usual deathball game. Terran could have gotten a widow mine that goes well with marine tank instead of replacing the tank completely. At least Hellbats are used in TvP and less so in TvZ sometimes and a lot in TvT
i notice how all nonterrans love the siegetank xD because they are so easy to exploit and counter? (and guess what, with a possible hellbatnerf you will see even less tanks...)
widowmines can be controlled to great effect, and if they arent, they can be easily baited on single targets or cause heavy friendly fire. tanks on the other hand have only gotten more counterplay in hots, especially zerg, either you now play full mech and stand your ground, or if you play bio, meaning you will always engage on the edge of creep, and split backwards, you can
a) expose tank after tank and lose them b) retreat over widowmines, making it very dangerous for zerg to just roll you
On June 12 2013 13:58 _Search_ wrote: This guy seems to have no clue how to design a game. It's almost like he wants to make changes but can't justify fixing anything based on current win rates.
The win rates WILL change, just give it a month or two before the game devolves into timing attacks, just like WoL took a month or so to turn into marine/SCV all-ins every game.
Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!!
Recently Protosses finally figured out that Zergs aren't allowed to kill air units and we're seeing ridiculously unfair no-risk hatchery snipes with recalled Void Rays. Expect that to increase as the meta stagnates.
Blizzard NEEDS to get on top of their game. It is far from balanced, it is quickly getting stale.
I totally think the same way. We moved from "this game is a joke but it is the beta they make VR, WM and HB super strong to force people to use it and they will nerf it afterwards" to "we're super fine with the balance" with one HB cargo change... Sriously ? Beyond balance its just not getting on top of the game design at all, and let the metagame evolves randomly. And the meta PvZ just evolved in 3 nexus 3 stargate shield and air attack upgrade out of 1 gate into free lair snipe with 7 voidray. Scary as shit.
Honestly Id rather see TvZ imbalance because right now smart zergs are forcing the 50 percent Winrate with roach baneling timings.
It takes so much more apm for a Z to deal with widow mines than for a T to use them.. this 'analysis' of theirs seems pretty sloppy. Also, this mentality that drops = fun seems to only be considering audiences, and not players. Speedvac has made this game so much more about just staying at home and defending against that threat as a Z or a P. I was prepared to deal with a slow experience of waiting on blizz to be careful about addressing balance.. Z had it easy in the end of WoL. But.. this far into HotS, Blizzard's "patience" is starting to look more like ignorance, again. "We hear the voices of expert players, and fans at large. But we've done a poor job at looking into things ourselves, and have decided to do nothing."
On June 12 2013 14:53 Naphal wrote: i notice how all nonterrans love the siegetank xD because they are so easy to exploit and counter? (and guess what, with a possible hellbatnerf you will see even less tanks...)
widowmines can be controlled to great effect, and if they arent, they can be easily baited on single targets or cause heavy friendly fire. tanks on the other hand have only gotten more counterplay in hots, especially zerg, either you now play full mech and stand your ground, or if you play bio, meaning you will always engage on the edge of creep, and split backwards, you can
a) expose tank after tank and lose them b) retreat over widowmines, making it very dangerous for zerg to just roll you
The fact that widowmines are currently NOT controlled and are still as damaging as they are should lead you to being worried about the future when terrans START controlling them.
There may be a time when terran gets like 10 widow mines, burrows them in front of his marines and just stims the marines to kill lings/mutas (without microing the marines) and targets just banelings with the mines. Obviously this is just theory, but just putting the thought of untapped potential out there.
On June 12 2013 14:53 Naphal wrote: tanks on the other hand have only gotten more counterplay in hots
I dont feel like it. They have free siege mode. Infestor eggs are no longer likely to break siege tanks positions. Broodlords simply no more exist so you cannot really get caught on a full retreat with your tanks when ur suprised by broodlords.
The reason tanks are not used is because it is much easier to play with widow mines, and they are simply more cost efficient. (I think)
On June 12 2013 14:53 Naphal wrote: tanks on the other hand have only gotten more counterplay in hots
I dont feel like it. They have free siege mode. Infestor eggs are no longer likely to break siege tanks positions. Broodlords simply no more exist so you cannot really get caught on a full retreat with your tanks when ur suprised by broodlords.
The reason tanks are not used is because it is much easier to play with widow mines, and they are simply more cost efficient. (I think)
I think you forgot vipers. They're the best counter to tanks.
On June 12 2013 13:56 megapants wrote: corruptor needs to be reworked, if not just straight up buffed. as of right now, it's only strength is as a mid game colossus killer and a buffer for mutalisks vs phoenix. zerg needs an air to air unit that can actually be used to support your ground army.
So while admitting corruptors work against colossi and phoenix, you also want them to work against void ray, basically forcing the protoss to go stalker, a unit that per cost is countered by every zerg unit able to hit it - including drones?
Overall while pro balance would look okay-ish, if the protoss in Code S/WCS manage to not only show up in numbers but actually win something, the amount of hellbat drops in tvt and to a lesser extent tvp is a pain to watch.
I like the "wait and see" approach currently used by Blizzard/Kim. After the terrible last months of WoL HotS made several matchups including all involving zerg interesting to watch again.
On June 12 2013 14:53 Naphal wrote: tanks on the other hand have only gotten more counterplay in hots
I dont feel like it. They have free siege mode. Infestor eggs are no longer likely to break siege tanks positions. Broodlords simply no more exist so you cannot really get caught on a full retreat with your tanks when ur suprised by broodlords.
The reason tanks are not used is because it is much easier to play with widow mines, and they are simply more cost efficient. (I think)
I would agree with the sentiment that tanks aren't used as much not because they're bad, but because mines and Hellbats are more efficient. Not to mention that mines can hit air, an undeniable advantage compared to siege tanks.
Oh and indeed, blinding cloud from Vipers is an effective countermeasure against tanks (though it can be mitigated by spreading tanks... you would think that it actually requires careful positioning and play to actually use tanks!), whereas blinding cloud does NOT work against mines. That's arguably a design flaw. Blinding cloud should really blind anything under it.. perhaps you could play the devil's advocate by saying that mines are actually spell casters, but I would counter that by saying that you don't actively use an ability..
I'm just throwing that out there, if anyone reads my posts at all during balance discussions they'll know I tend to prefer having a professional opinion instead of hearing what 99% of the community may or may not think. I do like to give my 2 cents though).
Some of those statements are a bit iffy, tanks obviously take more skill to use, just by design of unit this is noticable.. Siege Tanks are more often micromanaged then mines, as far as focus firing goes and such. Do people even take the time to focus fire with mines? is it even possible or with the APM actually?
On June 12 2013 13:58 _Search_ wrote: This guy seems to have no clue how to design a game. It's almost like he wants to make changes but can't justify fixing anything based on current win rates.
The win rates WILL change, just give it a month or two before the game devolves into timing attacks, just like WoL took a month or so to turn into marine/SCV all-ins every game.
Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!!
Recently Protosses finally figured out that Zergs aren't allowed to kill air units and we're seeing ridiculously unfair no-risk hatchery snipes with recalled Void Rays. Expect that to increase as the meta stagnates.
Blizzard NEEDS to get on top of their game. It is far from balanced, it is quickly getting stale.
So what you are saying is that it took several months for certain timing attacks to get figured out, and now we can't wait a month to see if also counters get figured out?
If you worked at Blizzard we probably got yet another queen boost, but this time vs air, no thanks.
Some of those statements are a bit iffy, tanks obviously take more skill to use, just by design of unit this is noticable.. Siege Tanks are more often micromanaged then mines, as far as focus firing goes and such. Do people even take the time to focus fire with mines? is it even possible or with the APM actually?
I guess it is possible, but won't happen much. But I really wouldn't say tanks are more micro managed than mines, just different. Yeah they are probably target fired a bit more, but for example if you are susprised by enemy army, quickly sieging up all your tanks in random location works better than burrowing widow mines wherever they are.
On June 12 2013 14:53 Naphal wrote: tanks on the other hand have only gotten more counterplay in hots
I dont feel like it. They have free siege mode. Infestor eggs are no longer likely to break siege tanks positions. Broodlords simply no more exist so you cannot really get caught on a full retreat with your tanks when ur suprised by broodlords.
The reason tanks are not used is because it is much easier to play with widow mines, and they are simply more cost efficient. (I think)
Vipers are quite a hard counter to tanks, broodlords still exist and while infestors were nerfed, their range still makes them a very viable unit. The reason why tanks are less used in tvz is a combination of factors. First, marine tank is quite unforgiving. In addition to regular play, broodlords and the new ultras will wreck through the bio and then the tanks in short order. Second, vipers and faster mutas can ruin tank play really hard. Third, bio mine play is better in terms of cost (as you said) and also allows terran to play like zerg. e.g. macro up and then swarm units.
On June 12 2013 15:12 QCD wrote: Some of those statements are a bit iffy, tanks obviously take more skill to use, just by design of unit this is noticable.. Siege Tanks are more often micromanaged then mines, as far as focus firing goes and such. Do people even take the time to focus fire with mines? is it even possible or with the APM actually?
As far as reading this thread and also another thread regarding micro with mines, there are three aspects to micro and mines that I'm aware of.
As shown by Innovation, it's possible to unburrow mines when a single unit is coming at them so as to not waste their shot. This is definitely APM heavy, not sure by how much though.
It is possible to "manually" fire a widow mine by continually right-clicking a unit that comes in range, so that the activation (1.5 seconds, iirc) is reset. Again, this allows you to not waste a shot on something like Roaches and instead target banelings.
If you can kill mines in less than 1.5 seconds, you won't take damage vs them. Meaning you have to kill the mine in a single volley with Muta, for example. Someone mentioned the magic number of Mutas to have to kill a single mine and then the magic number for 2 or 3 mines. I don't remember these numbers.
Void Rays seems to have the same balance problems as Colosus, they are (too) strong on lower level of play but on pro level they get weaker and weaker with better scouting and decision making.
Hellbats on the other hand looks kind of the late wol infestor. Everyone agrees that they are kind of too good because to cost efficient and too useful in any situations but they are so heavily used because terran has not that many other options. Imagine they would cut out the Hellbat drops completely, it would be not viable to drop because the other harass options are got way worse as in wol (mines, Planentary Nexus...).
On June 12 2013 13:58 _Search_ wrote: This guy seems to have no clue how to design a game. It's almost like he wants to make changes but can't justify fixing anything based on current win rates.
The win rates WILL change, just give it a month or two before the game devolves into timing attacks, just like WoL took a month or so to turn into marine/SCV all-ins every game.
Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!!
Recently Protosses finally figured out that Zergs aren't allowed to kill air units and we're seeing ridiculously unfair no-risk hatchery snipes with recalled Void Rays. Expect that to increase as the meta stagnates.
Blizzard NEEDS to get on top of their game. It is far from balanced, it is quickly getting stale.
What's wrong with waiting a bit to see what's going on? You JUST saw the meta shift for zergs to wreck the current 3 CC terran build. Terrans will switch it up and then zerg, etc. That is the exact opposite of a stale game. Soulkey won the GSL partly because he used the best builds against the players he faced. Good on him to exploit the all-in. Would you do a knee jerk reaction buff/nerf when things are still in massive shift?
On June 12 2013 15:12 QCD wrote: Some of those statements are a bit iffy, tanks obviously take more skill to use, just by design of unit this is noticable.. Siege Tanks are more often micromanaged then mines, as far as focus firing goes and such. Do people even take the time to focus fire with mines? is it even possible or with the APM actually?
As far as reading this thread and also another thread regarding micro with mines, there are three aspects to micro and mines that I'm aware of.
As shown by Innovation, it's possible to unburrow mines when a single unit is coming at them so as to not waste their shot. This is definitely APM heavy, not sure by how much though.
It is possible to "manually" fire a widow mine by continually right-clicking a unit that comes in range, so that the activation (1.5 seconds, iirc) is reset. Again, this allows you to not waste a shot on something like Roaches and instead target banelings.
If you can kill mines in less than 1.5 seconds, you won't take damage vs them. Meaning you have to kill the mine in a single volley with Muta, for example. Someone mentioned the magic number of Mutas to have to kill a single mine and then the magic number for 2 or 3 mines. I don't remember these numbers.
I can add some more:
Location you burrow them in. Since you have them generally unburrowed, you also have to burrow them quickly in the correct location. Sure someone will say it is trivial, but for example I generally play bio-mech, with some mine support. If a ling/baneling/muta army comes rolling in, you have to siege up your tanks, stim + split your bio, and then also burrow your widow mines in places where they are actually relevant to the fight.
Micro of others units: A while ago I did in the unit test a test (duh) of marine + mine vs zerglings. And to make it fair, both sides unmicro'd, obviously roughly equal cost/supply: Result: mutual assured destruction. Against unmicro'd marines (both with and without stim) the widow mines did so much friendly fire everything just died.
On June 12 2013 15:12 QCD wrote: Some of those statements are a bit iffy, tanks obviously take more skill to use, just by design of unit this is noticable.. Siege Tanks are more often micromanaged then mines, as far as focus firing goes and such. Do people even take the time to focus fire with mines? is it even possible or with the APM actually?
As far as reading this thread and also another thread regarding micro with mines, there are three aspects to micro and mines that I'm aware of.
As shown by Innovation, it's possible to unburrow mines when a single unit is coming at them so as to not waste their shot. This is definitely APM heavy, not sure by how much though.
It is possible to "manually" fire a widow mine by continually right-clicking a unit that comes in range, so that the activation (1.5 seconds, iirc) is reset. Again, this allows you to not waste a shot on something like Roaches and instead target banelings.
If you can kill mines in less than 1.5 seconds, you won't take damage vs them. Meaning you have to kill the mine in a single volley with Muta, for example. Someone mentioned the magic number of Mutas to have to kill a single mine and then the magic number for 2 or 3 mines. I don't remember these numbers.
Not only that, but innovation's widow mine play is quite a bit better than other terrans. One major "skill' thing in addition to the burrow/unborrow micro he does is positioning. I'd argue that, while tanks might require more in-battle micro (target firing, which isn't that much different than burrow/unborrow micro). mines require more pre-battle positioning. WoL tank play mostly involves sieging 6-8 or so tanks in reasonable position, most of the time not even splitting them up individually that much (because vipers didn't exist). HotS mines require something like 10+ mines being positioned individually. Innovation makes engagements that can be fairly random without mine targeting/positioning be fairly predictably good for him.
On June 12 2013 14:56 Lumi wrote: It takes so much more apm for a Z to deal with widow mines than for a T to use them.. this 'analysis' of theirs seems pretty sloppy. Also, this mentality that drops = fun seems to only be considering audiences, and not players. Speedvac has made this game so much more about just staying at home and defending against that threat as a Z or a P. I was prepared to deal with a slow experience of waiting on blizz to be careful about addressing balance.. Z had it easy in the end of WoL. But.. this far into HotS, Blizzard's "patience" is starting to look more like ignorance, again. "We hear the voices of expert players, and fans at large. But we've done a poor job at looking into things ourselves, and have decided to do nothing."
Thanks for the update Blizz? :X
It also takes more apm for T to deal with banes than for a Z to use them. Remember that. I do agree with the other stuff you said though.
Using tanks take way more skill than widowmines which are basically a fire and forget disposable unit and they introduce new units for Z and P which are either gimmics or flat out crap to use or watch.Terran has replaced Zerg as the mass unit race with cheap disposable armies of marines,hellbats and WM at Pro level.
Reading David Kims post does not inspire confidence. he talks about fast dynamic game play but SH and Tempest are the complete opposite.HOTS i suspect will suffer a major drop in interest within 6 months, its basically a patch for Terran whilst the other 2 races are stuck in WoL mode
Tanks are so broken in nonTvT matchups that there is really no way to fix them. They are too cost/supply inefficient against many tech on top of their many other weaknesses.
There is basically no room to adjust tank anymore for mid/late game play. They are the Terran sentry: potentially needed early to block allin/pressure, but ineffective beginning midgame.
Another good report but they seem to dodge some things. Like you have to do be aggressive in TvP and not overextend because if you make a single little mistake you wont have a chance if you are playing on the same skill level.
The main reason why WM is replacing tanks, their cost and vipers, never even gets mentioned but I guess they dont want to change another unit
You have to remember, while I don't disagree with some of your statements about awareness, what has HOTS actually given Terran? What new units? Warhound was taken out; Hellbat transformation nerfed to oblivion before launch; upgrades for mid tier units taking forever. What more do you want? Are you to say the reaper autoheal is what separates HOTS from WoL. I think Widow Mine drops and usage was more designed for high level play (something you may or may not have) so there might be a bias here.
What has HotS given terran? a confirmed OP unit (hellbat) and a seemingly OP unit (mine). Warhound was taken out, so was replicant, and oracle has been a gimmick-ridden unit from the start despite the many changes made.
Any diamond terran can do a widow mine drop, it's not hard, in fact they do that all the time. What kind of insane micro does it take to use a unit that doesn't move when attacking?
On June 12 2013 08:13 juicyjames wrote: “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” [LIST][*]We believe the answer is yes.
well i disagree, i thought mines were a defensive unit
On June 12 2013 08:13 juicyjames wrote: [*]When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
it comes down to the skill of the zerg player you mean
You have to remember, while I don't disagree with some of your statements about awareness, what has HOTS actually given Terran? What new units? Warhound was taken out; Hellbat transformation nerfed to oblivion before launch; upgrades for mid tier units taking forever. What more do you want? Are you to say the reaper autoheal is what separates HOTS from WoL. I think Widow Mine drops and usage was more designed for high level play (something you may or may not have) so there might be a bias here.
What has HotS given terran? a confirmed OP unit (hellbat) and a seemingly OP unit (mine). Warhound was taken out, so was replicant, and oracle has been a gimmick-ridden unit from the start despite the many changes made.
Any diamond terran can do a widow mine drop, it's not hard, in fact they do that all the time. What kind of insane micro does it take to use a unit that doesn't move when attacking?
You clearly haven't played with widow mine.
In low league, Terran just burrow his widow mines and they hit random targets, but it works because the opponent doesn't deal with them correctly.
Now if you watch some terran like flash or innovation, you will see widow mine always hitting the right unit so that the widow mine hit does the most damage output possible (with the splash). This is extremely difficult to do since you have to manually select the unit you want the widow mine to hit, before the widow mine detonates on a random target, while still controlling your army. Plus, if the opponent split correctly, you have to keep switching targets with your widow mines so that they don't detonate on the splitted unit and wait for the whole army to pass by.
Again, this requires insane micro and game sense (if there are detection, you can't afford to wait for long). At least as much as the split required by the opponent.
On June 12 2013 09:01 BronzeKnee wrote: Shocked that they won't change the Widow Mine.
It isn't overpowered statistically, but the effect it has on the game is dramatic. It controls APM better than any other unit, to the extent that in TvZ it allows Terran to dominate multitasking. Idra said this is the reason so many people have been doing Roach-Bane busts, simply because a Terran player who is good at multitasking can dominate an equally skilled Zerg player using Widow Mines. As a Protoss bystander, I'm inclined to agree when I watch high level Terran or Zerg streams. It ruined my favorite match up to watch for me.
Also as another poster said above, it promotes a chance aspect, rather than skill. The skill in using Tanks isn't just focus firing, it is in the positioning! Blizzard seems to have lost sight of this.
The thing here is that Terran have been multitasking their army for the last 3 years whereas it was possible to win without this level of control with Z, I'm sure pro Zergs will find a way (such as Life) to defeat widow mines, it will just require just as much multitasking with the army, which Zergs aren't used to.
I hate how conservative they are with their small steps. They've never been an innovative company, but they were good at identifying good ideas and making them into perfect ideas. When have they lost that ability? 2013, still fighting with shitty and boring units like Corrupters, Void Rays and so forth because the keep ignoring the real issues with the game.
The Warp Prism change we tested last week is a good example of a tweak that benefits players who are amazing at multitasking, while having little effect on the game below the pro level. For an eSport game like SC2, we want more things in the game that separate out the very best from the average, not less.
Well when do we get to see this change in the actual game? cant wait!
When people talk about how marine-tank is viable TvZ you clearly don't understand how sc2 works nowadays, you can't use tanks nowadays when the maps are this massive. It's appalling to see massive Zerg whine when they have to control units for the first time ever.
I think the post made it quite clear they are looking at PRO LEVEL play 1st, and everyone else gets a trickle down effect. So comments about how good/bad things work at the level of almost anyone posting in this thread is hardly relevant.
With that said, they've already addressed the strength of Hellbat drops, and in this very update talks about looking to address more stagnant/turtle play like Swarm Hosts w/ mass defenses. There are a lot of people who make their living from creating, playing, displaying, and marketing around this game .... so don't think there will be any massive changes, or knee-jerk changes just because the diamond players are having trouble.
We are all here playing, watching, and in many cases spending money on this game ... so they must be doing something right. Right? Dial back the venom.
Am I retarded or did they completely skip the result of the Warp Prism testing. Will it be in implemented in the game or not? Everyone I talk with who play on a competitive level always disregard any "balance testing map" as not the real thing until it is in the actual game, and as a result don't bother even trying it out once. It looked like a promising change for Protoss though.
i dont get the argument: if you know, that marine/tanks will defenitly destroy a zerg army like david kim said and that marine/mines are more likely to fail, why would you switch to marine/mines instead of marine/tanks?
I like how Bliz and DK are handling this. Now I would say something still needs to be done for the hellbat (in all the m-u, not only TvT) and the widow mine (in TvZ).
Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!!
what do you mean? each game had a distinctly different all-in. two of them worked.
remember zvt before the queen/overlord patch? Z opened 4 queens every game then flipped a coin, it was either 2 base lair or roach baneling all in. Terran could easily outgreed the 2-base lair builds (extra CCs and e-bays before making units), and the only thing keeping them honest was the threat that z would roach bust him a little under half the time.
the patch addressed that by letting zerg out of his base, but was generally considered to be overkill because no one really knew just how good creep was, because they never had the means to get it truly out of control.
what about subtle changes to units secondary stats. acceleration. damage point. range slop. Change the way the units feel under your control, without drastically changing their stats.
Not seeing enough oracles? better acceleration lets them dip and dive more easily without giving the capability of singlehandedly annihilating a worker line. Maybe they'd be better at casting revelation without dying. At worst, you still don't see enough of them, but when you do see them they are cool to watch.
Hellbats killing worker line too quickly, but playing the proper role in midgame and lategame? Increase the delay on their attack, and adjust cooldown so its the same DPS but starts later. More time to pull workers away from it as the medivac flies overhead. More possible to reactively micro against them. Ironically might be a buff against lings/zealots (see thread on blinding cloud vs hellbats: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405902)
while we're at it, look at the acceleration for BCs, carriers, banshees and broodlords. maybe void rays, mutalisks, and medivacs too.
I disagree totally with David Kim on this one. To me the issue is mobility. When you replace tanks with widow mines, you basically have the most maneuverable army with splash damage and burst damage at range. At least with marine/tank the terran had to think ahead about his attack path, consume the map and be careful. Widow mines are far too forgiving to be the "replacement." Also, facing widow mines you WILL ALWAYS lose economically in trades and because unburrowed mines have zero threat level, you often have to manually click every mine as you are chasing down the stimmed medic/marine. The only unit that zerg has in the midgame that can snipe mines are hydras, and if the terran sees you make hydras, he laughs all the way to stealing your ladder points. The cheapness of mines also lends itself to fast pressure on the zerg 3rd, which i find almost impossible to hold unless i build turbonoobie spines/spores, and with the closed off attack paths, the zerg has to already be in position to defend from multiple angles as the attack comes while simultaneously defending all bases from drops.
I really don't know what you could do with the unit to make it more palatable, but i would say elimination of the fast burrow and slowing the movement speed would be a good start. If the terran is making that push, having it delayed by a few seconds would be the difference in possibly getting in good position, or not.
I hesitate to talk about the continued abuse of skytoss. Totally retarded, cannon yourself in on 3 bases and get void/templar/colossus. Because again attack paths, even if the map is big, limits greatly the effectiveness of zerg anti-air, and due to the ridiculousness of corruptors vs. void rays, this is never a winning proposition for zerg. I've remaxed 2x and more not being able to defend this. The only success i've had is to plant a dozen or more spores and try to trick the protoss into fighting over the spores. Other than that, i've got no clue of how anyone is stopping this, especially after +3 air attack and/or mothership comes into play.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
He means that in case of zerg vs. marine/mines, Z player can micro and outcome will depend on it, he can send a few units to deactivate mines, and if he's succesful his attack will be stronger, on the other hand it also requires terran micro, to position his unit so that he will be able to kill such "kamikaze" zerg units and still be protected by mines (when actual attack comes), this was show in a tonn of games already, and I believe widow mines are one of the most succesfull addition to the game (I'm not terran).
Meh, I'm not sure I agree with them on widow mines.
I don't really like them as an offensive tool, and I find tanks to be way more fun to watch and play with.
This point in particular seems completely wrong to me:
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle. The current design of Widow Mines rewards both players who are skilled at using them and opposing players who are skilled at defeating them.
Marine/Tank vs Muta/Ling/Bling wars in 2011 TvZ was like the most skillbased and fun thing to watch and play of all WoL history. Mines are way more random than tanks, and require less careful planning and positionning :/
I'd really like them to get the tanks back to their rightful spot in TvZ. Mines should be a defensive tool used to seal off counter-attack path, not mini tanks
tldr: I like tanks better, mines should be defensive units.
On June 12 2013 17:17 Ragnarork wrote: How were the discussion about the spider mines and the reaver's scarab in BW ? I feel they're more (or at least equally) random than widow mines...
Point is though, tanks were used in BW, with spider mines. In SC2, we see much fewer tanks nowadays...
That's a very interesting point, can anyone kind of describe how spider mines and tanks worked in BW? For the rest of us SC2-only newbies.
In pure Theorcraft, I've always thought it would be smart/cool to use both siege tanks and widow mines. Set up tanks somewhere, set up mines were flank should come, -> yay. Something like that
"The Warp Prism change we tested last week is a good example of a tweak that benefits players who are amazing at multitasking, while having little effect on the game below the pro level."
On June 12 2013 08:27 Qwyn wrote: I'm amused by how Blizzard says that widow mines reward skillful usage from Terran players. I also "like" how they say that when an army of tanks and marines goes against an opposing Zerg force, that observers can tell who will win the battle and who will lose...
That indicates a problem to me. If it is so obvious that a Zerg will win or lose against a force of marine/tank, then it should also be equally obvious whether or not a Zerg will win against a force of marine/mine. It's not skill on the Terran's part to use mines - in fact, the usage of tanks promotes even more skill. Instead of setting and forgetting tanks, they can also be focus fired, spread out strategically across terrain, and can shell a target from a safe distance. Mine usage promotes a CHANCE aspect. The only skill involved in a Z v. burrowed mine engagement occurs on the side of the zerg, attempting to mitigate as much damage from the mine as possible.
Blizzard is so desperate to remove the siege tank from TvZ that they call getting a few tanks to defend against a roach/bane allin "getting tanks." If the siege tank and the mine clash so much that Terran players predominantly choose one over the other and tank usage has largely disappeared, then one of the units is poorly designed and should be fixed so that their roles do not conflict, or it should be removed.
I also think that Blizzard is focusing too much on removing defensive strategies such as swarmhost + static in order to avoid the infestor/broodlord effect, without actually considering why such strategies exist in the first place. The reason that strategy exists is that it is the only way that Zerg can consistently beat an endgame Protoss deathball. Instead of attempting to stamp that out Blizzard should consider why the comp exists in the first place and what is causing it...It's ironic because outside of two-base allins the sole goal of a Protoss is to turtle to death on 3 bases.
In attempting to remove anything that is not aggressive from the game Blizzard is removing a lot of options and complexity. Just because something is defensive does not mean it is bad. Do not focus so much on the spectator that you limit potential gameplay. The death of the siege tank is a prime example of this.
On June 12 2013 13:56 megapants wrote: corruptor needs to be reworked, if not just straight up buffed. as of right now, it's only strength is as a mid game colossus killer and a buffer for mutalisks vs phoenix. zerg needs an air to air unit that can actually be used to support your ground army.
So while admitting corruptors work against colossi and phoenix, you also want them to work against void ray, basically forcing the protoss to go stalker, a unit that per cost is countered by every zerg unit able to hit it - including drones?
Overall while pro balance would look okay-ish, if the protoss in Code S/WCS manage to not only show up in numbers but actually win something, the amount of hellbat drops in tvt and to a lesser extent tvp is a pain to watch.
I like the "wait and see" approach currently used by Blizzard/Kim. After the terrible last months of WoL HotS made several matchups including all involving zerg interesting to watch again.
the corruptor is a unit that zergs are building solely when scouting robotics and plan to go for a timing or after building 20 mutas and scouting phoenix production and playing an incredibly long game of attrition.
the corruptor shouldn't also work against void ray, its a unit that should be designed to help zergs combat the void ray that might happen to also be useful vs colossus and phoenix in certain circumstances. why do you need the corruptor vs colossus anymore? blizzard added the viper to the zerg arsenal, which is obviously an excellent tool against colossus. and fungal growth, as unreliable as it may be at times, is already the unit that zergs are using the finish off phoenix fleets in those long, drawn out air to air stalemates.
the corruptor is still just an expensive, low mobility, low utility air to air unit.
edit: on a similar, but possibly somewhat derailing note, if blizzard had designed the corruptor better off in the beginning of WoL, then maybe void ray speed wouldn't have been removed. instead of redesigning zerg's options against mass air, they simply removed what they thought made protoss air too strong. but something can only be too strong if it's taking advantage of another's weaknesses, so why not increase the strength of zerg's anti-air options and leave in a potentially dynamic part of the game? because they took this approach, void rays were doomed to be used in 1 base allins against terran, never to see the late game again. i'd personally like to see the void ray have a bit more time to enjoy the spotlight this time around.
Marine/Tank vs Muta/Ling/Bling wars in 2011 TvZ was like the most skillbased and fun thing to watch and play of all WoL history. Mines are way more random than tanks, and require less careful planning and positionning :/
I strongly disagree there, Mines require more careful positioning than tanks. Okay with upgrade you can reposition them faster, but their position is more important. (Although with vipers also siege tank positioning got more important, thats true). They simply have less range.
On June 12 2013 17:17 Ragnarork wrote: How were the discussion about the spider mines and the reaver's scarab in BW ? I feel they're more (or at least equally) random than widow mines...
Point is though, tanks were used in BW, with spider mines. In SC2, we see much fewer tanks nowadays...
That's a very interesting point, can anyone kind of describe how spider mines and tanks worked in BW? For the rest of us SC2-only newbies.
In pure Theorcraft, I've always thought it would be smart/cool to use both siege tanks and widow mines. Set up tanks somewhere, set up mines were flank should come, -> yay. Something like that
Thats my default vs zerg strat, siege tanks, bio, with some widow mines added. Widow mines have several roles, depending on what enemy does. Vs mutas always a bunch around the siege tanks, they operate pretty much as mobile missile turrets, so I don't have to worry as much about mutas sniping tanks. With vipers they are placed a bit further from tanks, but idea to help kill vipers before they cast too many blinding clouds, since widow mines aren't affected by them. And besides that obviously just in the front rows to help thin out the enemy army, and with siege tanks behind it, good luck setting them off with single units.
Edit: And why not pure bio-mine? My limitted micro skills, with siege tanks it quickly becomes a bit more slow paced. (Yes I said it, I use siege tanks over mines to have to micro less).
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people.
On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people.
"But terran players must innovate !"
Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...)
On June 12 2013 17:17 Ragnarork wrote: How were the discussion about the spider mines and the reaver's scarab in BW ? I feel they're more (or at least equally) random than widow mines...
Point is though, tanks were used in BW, with spider mines. In SC2, we see much fewer tanks nowadays...
Only a mech-ing terran would make both. You can also make both when you mech in sc2.
On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people.
"But terran players must innovate !"
Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...)
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle. The current design of Widow Mines rewards both players who are skilled at using them and opposing players who are skilled at defeating them.
Marine/Tank vs Muta/Ling/Bling wars in 2011 TvZ was like the most skillbased and fun thing to watch and play of all WoL history. Mines are way more random than tanks, and require less careful planning and positionning :/
I'd really like them to get the tanks back to their rightful spot in TvZ. Mines should be a defensive tool used to seal off counter-attack path, not mini tanks
tldr: I like tanks better, mines should be defensive units.
agree on this one. Tank positioning and leapfrogging against muta ling baneling was amazing to watch. Not to mention there was constant trading and traded fairly evenly most of the time, Each drop was more dedicated and clever rather than now non-stop drop drop damage damage multi task action.
There were much more careful movement of the terran army, how to control the enemy army position etc.
bio mine is just an extremely fast, splash, high damage dealing combo, compared to slower siege tank careful positioning timing attacks.
[*]So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” [LIST][*]We believe the answer is yes.
.... This is absolutely retarded.
agree 100% ten fingers up
you have my fingers, too!
I like the game as it is now, gameplay, balance, comebacks....except the F*****G widowmine. Bring back tanks to tvz!
On June 12 2013 09:02 EFermi wrote: I think WM should be adjusted against air units, it's complete BS when a big flock of mutas dies to a few forgotten mines by the Terran.
If YOU lose a flock of mutas to Widow mines, you're the one who needs to be done something about :D
I'm not ok with widow mines. It clearly takes much more skill for the zerg player to deal with them than to use cost efficiently for the terran. The widow mine's "skill" element of good placement can even be frontloaded before the battle, and when the battle does occur, all APM is free for marine splitting. Meanwhile, the zerg has to do all the normal combat micro tasks in addition to bringing detection and splitting against mines.
Widow mines also have very few weaknesses and will almost never kill nothing. Perhaps if they didn't attack air, if they unburrowed to fire, or if they took damage from their own splash, they'd be more reasonable to beat.
Also, contrary to what David Kim appears to believe, being unable to predict the outcome of a battle is not a good thing.
On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people.
"But terran players must innovate !"
Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...)
Also, contrary to what David Kim appears to believe, being unable to predict the outcome of a battle is not a good thing.
He didn't say that the result is random. He said that who microes better wins. I think that fights which involve widow mines are much funnier to watch than tanks in TvZ. But then again, I speak as a viewer who doesn't play that matchup.
I like their stance and the direction they're taking the game. SC2's undeniably in the best state it's ever been in, both balance wise and for spectators. Imo that is.
The only thing that was a little bit iffy about this situation report is the widow mine replacing siege tank statement. I want to contínue to see siege tanks used more frequently. The good thing is, I don't believe Blizz will need to take action, but that Terrans will need to develop their meta a little further, and that we'll see a mix of siege tanks and mines in the future.
Also, contrary to what David Kim appears to believe, being unable to predict the outcome of a battle is not a good thing.
Yes it is. Otherwise, micro would be an utterly useless concept. I you can look at both player's army and say "X will win this engagement", then it is very wrong.
It does not mean there aren't case like that (for example, huge supply differences), but even in these case, an excellent player has the possibility to micro his way towards a come back, and that's far more interesting than knowing you'll just watch a 2-10 minutes death animation... It mustn't be easy, but the fact that it's possible makes it far more enjoyable to watch...
Widdow mines are jsut stupidly easy to use just burrow them when your under attack stimm and run back bhind your mines mines will kill everything then the bio does the rest as long as you have 8 mines its kind of over... the must be changed to the hellbat no comment voidrays just dies when you focus them and stop them from being in high numbers
God forbid zerg has to micro. I think the only overpowered unit would be hellbat drops, easiest low-risk, high-reward strategy in the game. Then 1 base blink stalker all-ins follow that.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
I think he means the skill of splitting units off so Widow Mines don't kill everything?
In otherwords, ForGG had no skill when he lost all his full Medivacs to his own Widow Mines when he played Stephano. Apparently, to David Kim, that had nothing to do with chance.[.
Uhm, uhm uhm. You are at fault now, David Kim hasnt even mentioned that particular moment and he didnt even mention widow mines was never chance
---
When i play terran, itsvery easy to win with the widowmines, i feel i always have the upperhand, and when i play zerg its hard as hell always, i feel my opponent has the upper hand at all time with terran (when he stabilize with good economy )
But ofcourse, my zerg opponents are master level, AND most important they are not experts vs widowmine AND NEITHER AM I so in time, zerg should become better against it, and so will i BUT STILL its unfair imo I feel zerg needs something buffed
I still love the widowmine, no a-move and stuff, makes it alot more dynamic for the zergs view
nice one. also LOVE that they see SH turtle as boring and look into it. its so stupid the only way for Z to fight the P deathball lategame is with mass static defense. just finally remove NP and rework it to an anti-caster spell like emp, feedback or sth. like that because the HT is the main problem Z has in lategame because other than mass locusts to kill them there is nothing to fight them. please nerf SH turtle and buff faster lategame comps of Z to have a chance vs P deathball.
On June 12 2013 09:01 BronzeKnee wrote: Shocked that they won't change the Widow Mine.
It isn't overpowered statistically, but the effect it has on the game is dramatic. It controls APM better than any other unit, to the extent that in TvZ it allows Terran to dominate multitasking. Idra said this is the reason so many people have been doing Roach-Bane busts, simply because a Terran player who is good at multitasking can dominate an equally skilled Zerg player using Widow Mines. As a Protoss bystander, I'm inclined to agree when I watch high level Terran or Zerg streams. It ruined my favorite match up to watch for me.
Also as another poster said above, it promotes a chance aspect, rather than skill. The skill in using Tanks isn't just focus firing, it is in the positioning! Blizzard seems to have lost sight of this.
The thing here is that Terran have been multitasking their army for the last 3 years whereas it was possible to win without this level of control with Z, I'm sure pro Zergs will find a way (such as Life) to defeat widow mines, it will just require just as much multitasking with the army, which Zergs aren't used to.
What stupid and bullshitty thing to say, that terran player believe in such statement is just so silly.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
Yeah, complete nonsense. Good luck predicting the outcome of Mine hits.
LOL. There were some post of me and you discussing about Mines and you were pretty sure they can be "focused" manually by the player. I suppose, this is the skill DK is talking about. I disagree and just see Innovation run far from mines early enough the allow them hit only the Zerg army and prevent the friendly fire.For me there is no skill at using widow mines, just burrow them. Tanks requiere spreading and focus fire banelings WHILE run with stimmed marines...Where is the skill ,DK??? And about predictible...For sure,when you see a huge army of Zerg approach siege line usually you can say who will win,but still if the terran focus well,spread well marines,maybe can win,but with widow mine YOU NEVER KNOW: They maybe hit ALL the banelngs,or mutas,or lings or you army....I suppose living this in hands of LUCK is fun to watch.Ask ForGG when his mines just smashed his own army in 4 full medivacs...
On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people.
"But terran players must innovate !"
Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...)
(Making this article appear in "Spotlight" wasn't enough it seems... *sigh*)
Whatever man. Hellbats come out of a factory, get upgrade by armory, and for some bizarre reason go well with the rest of my mech army.
You refusing to make them and say "mech no viable pvt" (which is a statement that you kinda took out of your ass, I saw strelok beat mana yesterday with it) just shows you don't know anything about mech tvp.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
Tanks are simple to use.Siege,target fire that's it.
Widow mines are complicated.You don't know what's gonna happen before the battle.Their range is much smaller.It depends on the individual skill of the players(how they split,how they attack)
A good terran can control his mines better,he has the micro to split the bio and target with mines(which is not that easy).
A bad terran might blow up his whole army(with the help of a good zerg).
Thanks to David Kim for commenting on the future of the game and the balance teams view on the game. It's nice to know the process behind the games evolution.
seems david kim just joined wood league, showing no insight into SC II at all. How is burrowing your mines and hope for some lucky hits, instead of killing your own army (like with forgg vs stephano) skillfull? With tanks you need to watch your positioning and target fire, while they opponent has to choose his attack carefully, unlike the 1-a vs mines. As for protoss, how is no more long macro games a good thing, when it gets replaced by cheesy all-ins, unable to be hold unless scouted perfectly. Harrasment shouldn't be the main objective of pro-players. macro, map awareness, decision making, macro and multi-tasking should be the point of focus. Harrasment should only come in play as a punishment for not having a good defence. David Kim should seriously take a better look at SC II or consider resigning if he keeps on going like this, aiming for only <10 min games filled with cheesy all-in "action"
On June 12 2013 14:53 Naphal wrote: i notice how all nonterrans love the siegetank xD because they are so easy to exploit and counter?
I'm Terran and I sure as hell love the siege tank. Really disappointed to hear those blizzard comments about it.
If you love siege tanks then use them. Watch some Mvp's and Strelok's games for inspiration and go for it.What's stopping you?
I am not talking for me as a player, I can make whatever the hell I want and if i play well enough I should win at my level. I'm talking about at the Pro Level, I enjoy seeing tanks in tvz, especially marine/tank composition as I felt it was a beautiful composition to watch, and that is a rare event these days
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
Tanks are simple to use.Siege,target fire that's it.
Widow mines are complicated.You don't know what's gonna happen before the battle.Their range is much smaller.It depends on the individual skill of the players(how they split,how they attack)
A good terran can control his mines better,he has the micro to split the bio and target with mines(which is not that easy).
A bad terran might blow up his whole army(with the help of a good zerg).
There you go Wax.
Much of his post I don't agree with.. look watch this:
Mines are simple to use.Burrow,wait that's it.
Tanks are complicated.You don't know what's gonna happen before the battle. They need to be well positioned.It depends on the individual skill of the players(how they split,how they attack)
A good terran can position his tanks better,he has the micro to split the bio and target banelings with tanks (which is not that easy).
A bad terran won't split his marines up and won't have the tanks fire on banelings while mutalisk just clean everything up (with the help of a good zerg).
What I'm getting at is there are many more complicated things to take into account that can't really be explained by simple statements.
i do not agree with not changing both these units, the voidray ht combination is insanely strong against zerg. There is no way to deal with it remotely cost efficient because of the prismatic allignment. And for the widdow mine I think it is too eazy to use and too random. It takes so much apm for the zerg to get rid of them properly, while the oterran only has to press e.
And how can they think WM is skillfull ? the fact that the battles with innation look so good is that he can control multiple groups of marine marauder mine and the zerg can't cost efficiently deal with multiple groups of that it would require more apm then the terran.
On June 12 2013 19:50 Madtulip wrote: i do not agree with not changing both these units, the voidray ht combination is insanely strong against zerg. There is no way to deal with it remotely cost efficient because of the prismatic allignment. And for the widdow mine I think it is too eazy to use and too random. It takes so much apm for the zerg to get rid of them properly, while the oterran only has to press e.
And how can they think WM is skillfull ? the fact that the battles with innation look so good is that he can control multiple groups of marine marauder mine and the zerg can't cost efficiently deal with multiple groups of that it would require more apm then the terran.
Do play Terran and try to have good engagements with the widowmine. It is infact a bit random, but its skillfull as hell. When I wasn't used to it, I had games blowing up 70 supply in one shot of my own units. You need to position and be very careful, also the micro is very different on top or around a mine field.
Everything is called out easy, before you have tried it. I really preferred the tank as well but the tank leaves you less mobile compared to the widowmine. On smaller maps I can see the tank being superior, on bigger maps where Zerg can choose to not engage (especially when the creepspread is good) tanks are inferior. Mines allow you to enter the creep, tanks cannot do that as you will get SHREDDED to pieces.
Apart from the "hits air" part, I don't see widow mines posing a significantly different challenge for Zerg players than banelings posed for terrans for the last three years: they have to scout/detect, split, micro now. Am I missing something?
On June 12 2013 08:27 Qwyn wrote: I'm amused by how Blizzard says that widow mines reward skillful usage from Terran players. I also "like" how they say that when an army of tanks and marines goes against an opposing Zerg force, that observers can tell who will win the battle and who will lose...
That indicates a problem to me. If it is so obvious that a Zerg will win or lose against a force of marine/tank, then it should also be equally obvious whether or not a Zerg will win against a force of marine/mine. It's not skill on the Terran's part to use mines - in fact, the usage of tanks promotes even more skill. Instead of setting and forgetting tanks, they can also be focus fired, spread out strategically across terrain, and can shell a target from a safe distance. Mine usage promotes a CHANCE aspect. The only skill involved in a Z v. burrowed mine engagement occurs on the side of the zerg, attempting to mitigate as much damage from the mine as possible.
Blizzard is so desperate to remove the siege tank from TvZ that they call getting a few tanks to defend against a roach/bane allin "getting tanks." If the siege tank and the mine clash so much that Terran players predominantly choose one over the other and tank usage has largely disappeared, then one of the units is poorly designed and should be fixed so that their roles do not conflict, or it should be removed.
I also think that Blizzard is focusing too much on removing defensive strategies such as swarmhost + static in order to avoid the infestor/broodlord effect, without actually considering why such strategies exist in the first place. The reason that strategy exists is that it is the only way that Zerg can consistently beat an endgame Protoss deathball. Instead of attempting to stamp that out Blizzard should consider why the comp exists in the first place and what is causing it...It's ironic because outside of two-base allins the sole goal of a Protoss is to turtle to death on 3 bases.
In attempting to remove anything that is not aggressive from the game Blizzard is removing a lot of options and complexity. Just because something is defensive does not mean it is bad. Do not focus so much on the spectator that you limit potential gameplay. The death of the siege tank is a prime example of this.
can't agree more
thank you so much for this, this is exactly how I feel.
Im still praying for a complete rework of protoss as a race to Legacy of the Void, get rid of sentries, get rid of forcefields, make GW units useful rather than promote a ball of death, reduce the gimmickness of the race, promote multitasking.
Why do they keep insisting on easier ways of harassing, attack, harassing, attack?? What if I dont want to and just counter defend? Its like they're killing off all defensive tools. What kind of strategy game is this where base trading has a higher chance of you winning than defending the actual attack...???
If my memory serves me right, BW had some of the most turtle-y units, but no games were ever boring.. why? because you actually had to keep expanding, a need to get resources. Fighting over terrain ala high ground, because it actually meant something.
I do admit HOTS is better than WoL, but sometimes I really don't understand their perspective. They should just remove the seige tank/PFs every static defense all together. Give us more harass and attack units!! The goal of the game is to attack attack and ATTACK! yay fun! /smh.
Imho, this game really needs to look at the resource system which is the root of ALL the problems period.
The importance of siege tanks and why we loved watching them:
Epic TvT between two titans
A must see TvZ, don't live another day not watching this.
TvP Not a scary mech game but it shows some tanks and is a very fun less lengthy game to end your BW viewing of this post
[T/N]Why won't these show up as videos? T_T
edit: Added rant. When was the last time we saw unit that actually enhanced other units. That cloud ability from the viper turned out to be a flop. SC2 is missing spells like DMatrix that could turn the tide of a situation on the defensive end or enhance harassment on the offensive end too. It could also help push on engagements. They need to start looking at unit synergy rather then solving one goal which currently for them is to harass everything. And why hasn't the viper/blinding cloud been reworked yet. I haven't seen it used once in a PL game yet. Am I missing something there?
On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people.
"But terran players must innovate !"
Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...)
(Making this article appear in "Spotlight" wasn't enough it seems... *sigh*)
Whatever man. Hellbats come out of a factory, get upgrade by armory, and for some bizarre reason go well with the rest of my mech army.
You refusing to make them and say "mech no viable pvt" (which is a statement that you kinda took out of your ass, I saw strelok beat mana yesterday with it) just shows you don't know anything about mech tvp.
"It comes out of the factory and get Armory armor upgrade so it is mech". Nope !
Hint : Mechanical unit =/= mech playstyle. You should read the link I gave you before reacting, would avoid these kind of mistakes :/
Plus "Strelok beat MaNa with mech so mech is viable in TvP" is completely wrong to justify your point. One game doesn't make a strategy viable...
While I also think it's good that they aren't changing things, I still feel it's a bit idiotic to state:
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle. When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle. The current design of Widow Mines rewards both players who are skilled at using them and opposing players who are skilled at defeating them.
You can micro tanks and you can micro against tanks. Furthermore, my biggest grieviance with WMs has always been it's randomness. It's often very hard to see if a player is targeting with the VMs or if the opponent is microing against them. It's very hard to go "ohh that was brilliant micro" when you have also bronze players able to "perform" the same trick by sheer luck.
In a big battle of bio + VMs you don't really know what is going on until the dust has settled. Now I don't think it needs changing, or atleast not a rushed change, but to read Blizzard saying they like it more than tank usage is just... dissappointing.
Edit: And jesus christ, I was sure the WP buff was not going through. Not excited for that...
not happy with this. the void ray is such a lame unit that just does extra damage when you turn a on switch. at least before you had some interesting pre charge up occasionally.
the mine has replaced the tank and its sad because the tank is imo very interesting to watch on the attack. the positioning and the blunders are really fun to watch.
the mine is a little less fun to watch because the investment in them are rather low and so terrans just place them around willy nilly on the attack and defense. its not hard to split mines despite what casters rave on about, they are damn invisible and they dont take as much time to plant like tanks, basically its not as hard and risky as using tanks.
at least the tanks had an investment cost and difficulty in usage. the mine is a very shallow version of the tank.
Only change I wan't for this game atm, is that Widowmines have a higher attack priority when they are not burrowed. I think it's stupid mines are running among my units, and the poof... BOOM, yes you can focus fire them, but as a zerg with mainly melee units often I need to actually select A: my entire army which is dumb. B: the exact units that are around the mines. I don't mind anything els about the mines really.
On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people.
"But terran players must innovate !"
Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...)
(Making this article appear in "Spotlight" wasn't enough it seems... *sigh*)
Whatever man. Hellbats come out of a factory, get upgrade by armory, and for some bizarre reason go well with the rest of my mech army.
You refusing to make them and say "mech no viable pvt" (which is a statement that you kinda took out of your ass, I saw strelok beat mana yesterday with it) just shows you don't know anything about mech tvp.
"It comes out of the factory and get Armory armor upgrade so it is mech". Nope !
Hint : Mechanical unit =/= mech playstyle. You should read the link I gave you before reacting, would avoid these kind of mistakes :/
Plus "Strelok beat MaNa with mech so mech is viable in TvP" is completely wrong to justify your point. One game doesn't make a strategy viable...
Bro, don't be condescending. Not only did I read that article, but I loved playing mech myself in BW. And don't derail this thread into the eternal "mech ain't viable" discussion, we got loads of those already.
All I said is Hellbats rape zealots, so even though it doesn't promote the "mech playstyle", there is nowadays a lot more space to play a factory based tvp than in WoL.
But sure we can continue playing on words all fuckin day if you want :=)
On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people.
"But terran players must innovate !"
Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...)
(Making this article appear in "Spotlight" wasn't enough it seems... *sigh*)
Whatever man. Hellbats come out of a factory, get upgrade by armory, and for some bizarre reason go well with the rest of my mech army.
You refusing to make them and say "mech no viable pvt" (which is a statement that you kinda took out of your ass, I saw strelok beat mana yesterday with it) just shows you don't know anything about mech tvp.
"It comes out of the factory and get Armory armor upgrade so it is mech". Nope !
Hint : Mechanical unit =/= mech playstyle. You should read the link I gave you before reacting, would avoid these kind of mistakes :/
Plus "Strelok beat MaNa with mech so mech is viable in TvP" is completely wrong to justify your point. One game doesn't make a strategy viable...
Bro, don't be condescending. Not only did I read that article, but I loved playing mech myself in BW. And don't derail this thread into the eternal "mech ain't viable" discussion, we got loads of those already.
All I said is Hellbats rape zealots, so even though it doesn't promote the "mech playstyle", there is nowadays a lot more space to play a factory based tvp than in WoL.
But sure we can continue playing on words all fuckin day if you want :=)
Sorry if that sounded condescending, that was indeed not necessary...
I do agree that you can play more "factory" oriented in TvP thanks to this, but reacted on the fact that hellbat don't promote/help/improve the mech "playstyle"...
I might be truly wrong about the viability of mech in TvP (as in "I'm probably wrong thinking nobody will ever figure out how to play mech in a consistently viable fashion"), but mech viability wasn't really the point of my reaction to your post. Sorry if that was misleading.
Again, sorry for my tone, that wasn't very civil of me T_T
It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
edit: Added rant. When was the last time we saw unit that actually enhanced other units. That cloud ability from the viper turned out to be a flop. SC2 is missing spells like DMatrix that could turn the tide of a situation on the defensive end or enhance harassment on the offensive end too. It could also help push on engagements. They need to start looking at unit synergy rather then solving one goal which currently for them is to harass everything. And why hasn't the viper/blinding cloud been reworked yet. I haven't seen it used once in a PL game yet. Am I missing something there?
On June 12 2013 09:01 BronzeKnee wrote: Shocked that they won't change the Widow Mine.
It isn't overpowered statistically, but the effect it has on the game is dramatic. It controls APM better than any other unit, to the extent that in TvZ it allows Terran to dominate multitasking. Idra said this is the reason so many people have been doing Roach-Bane busts, simply because a Terran player who is good at multitasking can dominate an equally skilled Zerg player using Widow Mines. As a Protoss bystander, I'm inclined to agree when I watch high level Terran or Zerg streams. It ruined my favorite match up to watch for me.
Also as another poster said above, it promotes a chance aspect, rather than skill. The skill in using Tanks isn't just focus firing, it is in the positioning! Blizzard seems to have lost sight of this.
The thing here is that Terran have been multitasking their army for the last 3 years whereas it was possible to win without this level of control with Z, I'm sure pro Zergs will find a way (such as Life) to defeat widow mines, it will just require just as much multitasking with the army, which Zergs aren't used to.
What stupid and bullshitty thing to say, that terran player believe in such statement is just so silly.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
I think he's referring to how the widow mines can be baited/splash damage can be minimized. And since it's only a single shot for the length of most engagements (per widow mine) it's a little more realistic to do than say splitting your zerglings so a couple take the entire siege tank line each volley every 2-3 seconds
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
I'm not sure about that, cause I don't remember there being a tank nerf just ghost nerfs after that GSL time period.
If protoss now get flying siege tanks and zerg has viper grab, then cliff tanks seem perfectly reasonable now.
On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people.
"But terran players must innovate !"
Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...)
(Making this article appear in "Spotlight" wasn't enough it seems... *sigh*)
Whatever man. Hellbats come out of a factory, get upgrade by armory, and for some bizarre reason go well with the rest of my mech army.
You refusing to make them and say "mech no viable pvt" (which is a statement that you kinda took out of your ass, I saw strelok beat mana yesterday with it) just shows you don't know anything about mech tvp.
"It comes out of the factory and get Armory armor upgrade so it is mech". Nope !
Hint : Mechanical unit =/= mech playstyle. You should read the link I gave you before reacting, would avoid these kind of mistakes :/
Plus "Strelok beat MaNa with mech so mech is viable in TvP" is completely wrong to justify your point. One game doesn't make a strategy viable...
Bro, don't be condescending. Not only did I read that article, but I loved playing mech myself in BW. And don't derail this thread into the eternal "mech ain't viable" discussion, we got loads of those already.
All I said is Hellbats rape zealots, so even though it doesn't promote the "mech playstyle", there is nowadays a lot more space to play a factory based tvp than in WoL.
But sure we can continue playing on words all fuckin day if you want :=)
Sorry if that sounded condescending, that was indeed not necessary...
I do agree that you can play more "factory" oriented in TvP thanks to this, but reacted on the fact that hellbat don't promote/help/improve the mech "playstyle"...
I might be truly wrong about the viability of mech in TvP (as in "I'm probably wrong thinking nobody will ever figure out how to play mech in a consistently viable fashion"), but mech viability wasn't really the point of my reaction to your post. Sorry if that was misleading.
Again, sorry for my tone, that wasn't very civil of me T_T
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
I'm not sure about that, cause I don't remember there being a tank nerf just ghost nerfs after that GSL time period.
If protoss now get flying siege tanks and zerg has viper grab, then cliff tanks seem perfectly reasonable now.
Patch 1.1.0 General Information Version: 16561 SEA Release Date: September 22nd 2010 NA Release Date: September 21st 2010 EU Release Date: September 22nd 2010 KOR Release Date: September 22nd 2010
Siege Tank Siege mode damage changed from 50 to 35 (+15 armored). Upgrade damage changed from +5 to +3 (+2 armored).
Only thing is, this was before my SC2 time and I don't know when the maps were removed.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
The problem with this is: how do you make it so that ONLY tanks have an advantage, while marines can't go completly Yolo when the opponent does not have a lot of surface area on them. Shakuras Plateau was a pretty decent map in achieving this. Also Antiga was pretty good in that aspect and Bel'Shire Vestige does a good job as well. But they already stretch balance to its borders, and especially from the last example we see that it's not like it mainly makes Tanks better, but the more mobile ranged units - such as MMM play grants - have probably even bigger advantages, as they are capable of moving in ways that minimize surface area. (against melee or lowranged attackers)
Still, I think, Muta regeneration is one of the biggest problems with HotS, especially in PvZ. I'm pretty much fine with everything else at the moment.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
I'm not sure about that, cause I don't remember there being a tank nerf just ghost nerfs after that GSL time period.
If protoss now get flying siege tanks and zerg has viper grab, then cliff tanks seem perfectly reasonable now.
Tanks got nerfed to 35 damage and +15 to armored in early 2011, the Ghost snipe nerf happened more towards early 2012 if I remember correctly. And the game you are thinking off was game 7 of the Blizzcup finals between MMA and DRG on Shakuras Plateau.
On topic, I really don't agree with Blizzard on the topic of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks on multiple points even. First I don't agree that the outcome of Marine, Tank, Medivac engagement vs Ling, Bling, Muta, being already decided before it happens, the outcome always depended on the skill of both players and the positioning. The zerg could absolutely crush the terran army, the terran army could do the same, or both could trade evenly. Yes there where situations when the terran could get a very good position that made it very, very hard for the zerg to engage cost efficiently with Marine Tank, but the same is true with Bio Mine as well.
Secondly, while I agree that the widow mine creates really dynamic and positional play, which is somewhat different from that of tanks, I don't agree with them replacing tanks at all, in my opinion marine tank creates better and deeper games overall, promotes more meticulous play, positioning etc.
And the reason why tanks are more interesting and games involving them are better, is because tanks are much more vulnerable and fragile, and much, much more unforgiving if you mess up: -Losing a large tank count can be devastating, they are very expensive and it takes a long time to replace -Positioning them badly means they can easily be picked apart -Clumping them too much makes them even more vulnerable and inefficient
And now there are even more ways to nullify good position of tanks, blinding cloud, abduct, tempests.
Compared to widow mines that are: -Cheeper and easier to produce due to reactored factories -Faster burrow and unburrow making them less punishing then if you mess up positioning them badly -Can target air -Larger burst radius -Requires detection to counter properly
Its no wonder then that tanks are being phased out slowly in some MUs. Yes I know tanks do still have some advantages, like stronger sustained damage and longer range, but compared to the multitude of other advantages that mines have, then it makes them seem severely underpowered.
Adjusting tanks themselves is hard though, giving them more HP would make it even harder to break good tank lines even if you kill the buffer first, it also makes the other races even more dependent on the hard counters to tanks. Giving them more damage could, potentially unbalance them, making it so they can burst down threats before their buffer dies, making them even more cost efficient.
The solution would probably be to adjust some of the counters to tanks, but that also has far reaching repercussions.
In the end the situation isn't so bad though, we still get to see great games and the game is not imbalanced towards any side. Its kind of a good thing that what most of us discuss is purely design related, but its still a sad thing worth discussing, I'd personally love more synergy between mines and tanks and just overall more positional games. But that isn't happening any time soon.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
The problem with this is: how do you make it so that ONLY tanks have an advantage, while marines can't go completly Yolo when the opponent does not have a lot of surface area on them. Shakuras Plateau was a pretty decent map in achieving this. Also Antiga was pretty good in that aspect and Bel'Shire Vestige does a good job as well. But they already stretch balance to its borders, and especially from the last example we see that it's not like it mainly makes Tanks better, but the more mobile ranged units - such as MMM play grants - have probably even bigger advantages, as they are capable of moving in ways that minimize surface area. (against melee or lowranged attackers)
Marines on cliffs aren't as strong as they used to be. Viper+Fungal are two options right away that make it possible. You could even use blinding cloud on them for engagements instead of just pulling them off. And with buffed mutas the dmg isn't as scary.
hmm their aims sound quiet good, but seeing their tries to reach them still worries me. But atleast they do it slower, so I had enough time to enjoy HotS if they mess it up. I still have hope for them though, despite this negative sounding post !
On June 12 2013 08:21 Xivsa wrote: Not a bad report. And it didn't mention Hellbats at all, but I hope that nerf will be coming soon.
Did you watch Day9's report on Hellbats last night? He brought up some good points as to why people believe Hellbats to be more OP than they actually are (but I have the feeling that Hellbats are also under scrutiny at the moment).
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
I'm not sure about that, cause I don't remember there being a tank nerf just ghost nerfs after that GSL time period.
If protoss now get flying siege tanks and zerg has viper grab, then cliff tanks seem perfectly reasonable now.
Tanks got nerfed to 35 damage and +15 to armored in early 2011, the Ghost snipe nerf happened more towards early 2012 if I remember correctly. And the game you are thinking off was game 7 of the Blizzcup finals between MMA and DRG on Shakuras Plateau.
On topic, I really don't agree with Blizzard on the topic of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks on multiple points even. First I don't agree that the outcome of Marine, Tank, Medivac engagement vs Ling, Bling, Muta, being already decided before it happens, the outcome always depended on the skill of both players and the positioning. The zerg could absolutely crush the terran army, the terran army could do the same, or both could trade evenly. Yes there where situations when the terran could get a very good position that made it very, very hard for the zerg to engage cost efficiently with Marine Tank, but the same is true with Bio Mine as well.
Secondly, while I agree that the widow mine creates really dynamic and positional play, which is somewhat different from that of tanks, I don't agree with them replacing tanks at all, in my opinion marine tank creates better and deeper games overall, promotes more meticulous play, positioning etc.
And the reason why tanks are more interesting and games involving them are better, is because tanks are much more vulnerable and fragile, and much, much more unforgiving if you mess up: -Losing a large tank count can be devastating, they are very expensive and it takes a long time to replace -Positioning them badly means they can easily be picked apart -Clumping them too much makes them even more vulnerable and inefficient
And now there are even more ways to nullify good position of tanks, blinding cloud, abduct, tempests.
Compared to widow mines that are: -Cheeper and easier to produce due to reactored factories -Faster burrow and unburrow making them less punishing then if you mess up positioning them badly -Can target air -Larger burst radius -Requires detection to counter properly
Its no wonder then that tanks are being phased out slowly in some MUs. Yes I know tanks do still have some advantages, like stronger sustained damage and longer range, but compared to the multitude of other advantages that mines have, then it makes them seem severely underpowered.
Adjusting tanks themselves is hard though, giving them more HP would make it even harder to break good tank lines even if you kill the buffer first, it also makes the other races even more dependent on the hard counters to tanks. Giving them more damage could, potentially unbalance them, making it so they can burst down threats before their buffer dies, making them even more cost efficient.
The solution would probably be to adjust some of the counters to tanks, but that also has far reaching repercussions.
In the end the situation isn't so bad though, we still get to see great games and the game is not imbalanced towards any side. Its kind of a good thing that what most of us discuss is purely design related, but its still a sad thing worth discussing, I'd personally love more synergy between mines and tanks and just overall more positional games. But that isn't happening any time soon.
This is the perfect VOD to reinforce your first point. Flash vs soO where marines+tanks can trade with zerg and be aggressive.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
The problem with this is: how do you make it so that ONLY tanks have an advantage, while marines can't go completly Yolo when the opponent does not have a lot of surface area on them. Shakuras Plateau was a pretty decent map in achieving this. Also Antiga was pretty good in that aspect and Bel'Shire Vestige does a good job as well. But they already stretch balance to its borders, and especially from the last example we see that it's not like it mainly makes Tanks better, but the more mobile ranged units - such as MMM play grants - have probably even bigger advantages, as they are capable of moving in ways that minimize surface area. (against melee or lowranged attackers)
Marines on cliffs aren't as strong as they used to be. Viper+Fungal are two options right away that make it possible. You could even use blinding cloud on them for engagements instead of just pulling them off. And with buffed mutas the dmg isn't as scary.
except tank or marines can be dropped 5-10 min before infestors or vipers are out which is game ending. remember the old version of lost temple? T just did fast tank drops and could attack the natural without Z being able to do anything about it. like that they got rid of that. was as imbalanced as island expansions would be
and like you say it yourself in the post above me: marine tank is still viable on some maps, so is mech on some maps, MMMM+hellbat is viable on every map. so T has lots of styles to choose from (unlike Z which is forced to go ling bane muta (roach bane all ins arent a style )).
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
The problem with this is: how do you make it so that ONLY tanks have an advantage, while marines can't go completly Yolo when the opponent does not have a lot of surface area on them. Shakuras Plateau was a pretty decent map in achieving this. Also Antiga was pretty good in that aspect and Bel'Shire Vestige does a good job as well. But they already stretch balance to its borders, and especially from the last example we see that it's not like it mainly makes Tanks better, but the more mobile ranged units - such as MMM play grants - have probably even bigger advantages, as they are capable of moving in ways that minimize surface area. (against melee or lowranged attackers)
Marines on cliffs aren't as strong as they used to be. Viper+Fungal are two options right away that make it possible. You could even use blinding cloud on them for engagements instead of just pulling them off. And with buffed mutas the dmg isn't as scary.
except tank or marines can be dropped 5-10 min before infestors or vipers are out which is game ending. remember the old version of lost temple? T just did fast tank drops and could attack the natural without Z being able to do anything about it. like that they got rid of that. was as imbalanced as island expansions would be
I'm not referring to cliffs at the natural. I'm referring to cliffs stationed through out the middle area of the map.
Take a look at Shakuras Plateau:
This is a perfect example of non-base cliffs that could really change the game.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
The problem with this is: how do you make it so that ONLY tanks have an advantage, while marines can't go completly Yolo when the opponent does not have a lot of surface area on them. Shakuras Plateau was a pretty decent map in achieving this. Also Antiga was pretty good in that aspect and Bel'Shire Vestige does a good job as well. But they already stretch balance to its borders, and especially from the last example we see that it's not like it mainly makes Tanks better, but the more mobile ranged units - such as MMM play grants - have probably even bigger advantages, as they are capable of moving in ways that minimize surface area. (against melee or lowranged attackers)
Marines on cliffs aren't as strong as they used to be. Viper+Fungal are two options right away that make it possible. You could even use blinding cloud on them for engagements instead of just pulling them off. And with buffed mutas the dmg isn't as scary.
except tank or marines can be dropped 5-10 min before infestors or vipers are out which is game ending. remember the old version of lost temple? T just did fast tank drops and could attack the natural without Z being able to do anything about it. like that they got rid of that. was as imbalanced as island expansions would be
I'm not referring to cliffs at the natural. I'm referring to cliffs stationed through out the middle area of the map.
Take a look at Shakuras Plateau:
This is a perfect example of non-base cliffs that could really change the game.
beside the fact shakuras is a bad example (since there is only one attack way through the middle which makes the cliffs too strong early in the game) i agree that on bigger maps those cliffs could add some nice gameplay and would allow 3 tanks + some turrets and WMs to hold terrain which isnt possible on open field. after watching the flash vs action game i was reminded how awesome BW was in having very open maps but also having units that are able to hold terrain vs a much bigger army (something SC2 lacks incredibly).
On June 12 2013 19:46 BisuDagger wrote: The thor is used less then the carrier. I really hope they fix that issue.
I would like to see some statistics on this, at least on a pro level this is a blatant lie. Going through MLG, Dreamhack, WCS EU/KR/NA you won't find a single carrier, but tons of thors. Alone the amount of Thors in the MVP - Dimaga game made sure that your wrong.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
The problem with this is: how do you make it so that ONLY tanks have an advantage, while marines can't go completly Yolo when the opponent does not have a lot of surface area on them. Shakuras Plateau was a pretty decent map in achieving this. Also Antiga was pretty good in that aspect and Bel'Shire Vestige does a good job as well. But they already stretch balance to its borders, and especially from the last example we see that it's not like it mainly makes Tanks better, but the more mobile ranged units - such as MMM play grants - have probably even bigger advantages, as they are capable of moving in ways that minimize surface area. (against melee or lowranged attackers)
Marines on cliffs aren't as strong as they used to be. Viper+Fungal are two options right away that make it possible. You could even use blinding cloud on them for engagements instead of just pulling them off. And with buffed mutas the dmg isn't as scary.
oh well, i agree. those sorts of cliffs arent what I talked about. I agree that current mappools could adda few of them. but i believe that you can mainly just ppace them shakuras style - in which case they arent overly relevant. (main strength of shakuras was the choky area around them, whichwas pretty strong defensively regardless of qhether you dropped tanks on them or just went full bio like in TvP)
On June 12 2013 19:46 BisuDagger wrote: The thor is used less then the carrier. I really hope they fix that issue.
I would like to see some statistics on this, at least on a pro level this is a blatant lie. Going through MLG, Dreamhack, WCS EU/KR/NA you won't find a single carrier, but tons of thors. Alone the amount of Thors in the MVP - Dimaga game made sure that your wrong.
Also if it's irony i feel really bad (
It was irony lol, but we are still good <3. I've seen them used, but they definitely haven't made their presence felt like they had in WoL TvZ. And in TvP they are still pretty non existant. What purpose does a thor serve in TvP? I really would love that one explained to me. If the thor didn't exist as an option when ever you played TvP would it change anything?
So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” We believe the answer is yes.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
I don't really agree with these statements. When deploying tanks, you need to put them in good spots and protect them at all times. You might be fortunate and do just that so you trade armies so that's true. It is one of the main reason I like playing terran because I can make trades without feeling something went WAY off. The latter statement suggests widow mines are somehow ''more skillful'' units and tanks are easy. I find it to be the exact opposite. With tanks you never want them to fire off just once. If you are caught unsieged then you kill very little and lose much. With widow mines, you can deploy them very late. Even if they fire off just once, that's okay because they are cheap units compared to tanks. Also you cannot predict the outcome of the battle, AT ALL. With widow mines, things just blow up almost at random. It's like being handed a lottery ticked.
I like the widow mine, its an exciting unit to watch (even if it is annoying to play against), the void ray and units that are similar to it (like mutas) where you can get a critical mass and a-move are not very exciting to watch, particularly void rays. as a protoss player i find them frustrating to play against and when watching pvz i find it dull to watch.
I agree with DK that it's best if harassment is encouraged throughout the game even against players who are good at defending it. I would like tanks to be viable along with mines in tvz, because mine/tank would probably be more fun to watch and play with/against than just mines, but if that's not possible I guess that's how it is.
Edit: I agree with this:
On June 12 2013 21:57 BisuDagger wrote: Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
The problem with this is: how do you make it so that ONLY tanks have an advantage, while marines can't go completly Yolo when the opponent does not have a lot of surface area on them. Shakuras Plateau was a pretty decent map in achieving this. Also Antiga was pretty good in that aspect and Bel'Shire Vestige does a good job as well. But they already stretch balance to its borders, and especially from the last example we see that it's not like it mainly makes Tanks better, but the more mobile ranged units - such as MMM play grants - have probably even bigger advantages, as they are capable of moving in ways that minimize surface area. (against melee or lowranged attackers)
Marines on cliffs aren't as strong as they used to be. Viper+Fungal are two options right away that make it possible. You could even use blinding cloud on them for engagements instead of just pulling them off. And with buffed mutas the dmg isn't as scary.
except tank or marines can be dropped 5-10 min before infestors or vipers are out which is game ending. remember the old version of lost temple? T just did fast tank drops and could attack the natural without Z being able to do anything about it. like that they got rid of that. was as imbalanced as island expansions would be
I'm not referring to cliffs at the natural. I'm referring to cliffs stationed through out the middle area of the map.
Take a look at Shakuras Plateau:
This is a perfect example of non-base cliffs that could really change the game.
On June 13 2013 00:23 MrSusan wrote: I like the widow mine, its an exciting unit to watch (even if it is annoying to play against), the void ray and units that are similar to it (like mutas) where you can get a critical mass and a-move are not very exciting to watch, particularly void rays. as a protoss player i find them frustrating to play against and when watching pvz i find it dull to watch.
I agree the widow mine is an exciting unit, however it should work in congruent with the tanks zone control as spider mines did. On the topic of voidrays being dull I had a stupidly awesome idea that banelings can morph into scourge when hive is researched. That would spice up air play.
DTs can't attack air, Swarm Hosts or any other burrowed unit can't attack air, yet widow mines blow observers out of the sky and the muta flocks. When terrans have missile turrets already doesn't it seem a little bogus for their WM to hit the air units as well? sure let their splash damage still do what it does, but to target air units is kinda bs.
Other things on my mind, I'm doing a lot of thinking today lol:
-Banshees, what purpose do they serve at this time outside of early harassment or early all ins? (Which they are not as efficient at now anyways.) -Ravens, how has the new HSM actually impacted the game. I feel like Ravens still haven't become important enough to late game match ups. The PDD was a major part of TvT in WoL but it seems to not be used anymore. vP and vZ PDD is not used. And the autoturret, last time I was it used was once a TvZ had already been won. I thought burrow and the earlier dts would force more use of raven detection but it seems orbitals are enough to have it covered. -Carrier, may evolve in the metagame but it's not likely when the Tempest is such a better utility unit. No real need to discuss this unit as blizzard said its in there for nostalgia.
On June 13 2013 00:56 yocheco619 wrote: DTs can't attack air, Swarm Hosts or any other burrowed unit can't attack air, yet widow mines blow observers out of the sky and the muta flocks. When terrans have missile turrets already doesn't it seem a little bogus for their WM to hit the air units as well? sure let their splash damage still do what it does, but to target air units is kinda bs.
I agree that I was very suprised it could target air. Jaedong clearly lost a game, I think it was this one versus cure, where widow mines destroyed his mutas as they flew over and it cost him the game. But if we take away the ability to target air then we have a more refined version of a spider mine. And I'm sure that's not what the designers want.
On June 13 2013 00:59 BisuDagger wrote: Other things on my mind, I'm doing a lot of thinking today lol:
-Banshees, what purpose do they serve at this time outside of early harassment or early all ins? (Which they are not as efficient at now anyways.) -Ravens, how has the new HSM actually impacted the game. I feel like Ravens still haven't become important enough to late game match ups. The PDD was a major part of TvT in WoL but it seems to not be used anymore. vP and vZ PDD is not used. And the autoturret, last time I was it used was once a TvZ had already been won. I thought burrow and the earlier dts would force more use of raven detection but it seems orbitals are enough to have it covered. -Carrier, may evolve in the metagame but it's not likely when the Tempest is such a better utility unit. No real need to discuss this unit as blizzard said its in there for nostalgia.
Yeah, banshees are much worse with the new spores now in TvZ. I think they are still good in TvT openings and can be used in the lategame to break tanklines (though, why bother with banshees... just drop mineral only hellbats on them...) Also in TvP openings I don't think they are bad, but again outshone by fast drops (widow mines or hellbats) and you are kind of required to go cloak now with the nexus canon. I think they could need a little love at this point.
Ravens are good as they are. Pretty useful unit in lategame TvZ and TvT... we just hardly ever see lategame TvZ these days, the game usually ends with Terran killing a zerg prehive or dying to a ling/bling/muta counter or a mass ultra counter - which is the metagame's fault and not the unit's.
For the carrier, I would like it if it focused more on killing light units and if they improved the interceptor AI more, so that they don't randomly return all the time.
I think tanks need a slight buff. Mutalisks are faster and can snipe tanks more easily, and vipers can remove them from the game easily. It would be nice to see tanks in play once more (especially seeing tanks kill a bunch of banelings)!
Gameplay has already become stale because MMMW (Marines, Marauders, Medivacs and Widow Mines) appear to be the only viable option to play TvZ. Mech is far less viable because it's often virtually impossible to strike a balance between fending off mutalisk harass with Thors and Missile Turrets, having enough Siege Tanks to hold a potential Roach Hydra or mass Ultralisk bust, not keeping yourself contained on two bases because getting a third requires a great amount of positioning and pre-construction of Supply Depot walls and Missile Turrets, having enough anti-air to snipe Brood Lords, Corruptors and Vipers, and still preventing the Zerg from staying one full saturated base above you.
Additionally, I haven't seen anybody other than Strelok and GoOdy successfully pull off a TvP Mech build. Even then I feel confident their builds would crumble to a precise 2 or 3 gate early game aggressive timing. A good reason why is probably the weakness of Siege Tanks from Wings onwards and the lack of TvP viability for the Widow Mine and Hellion (note, not the Hellbat which is a great unit in its own right.) The Widow Mine is a very useful unit until you consider the fact that a Tier 1.5 unit (Stalker) with detection can completely hard-counter it by outranging its attack radius. This is something the Hydralisk cannot even do until it gets its own upgrade (Grooved Spines) to increase attack range.
Using Widow Mines to defend a 4-gate is also a double edged sword. You may have sniped two Zealots but on the other hand you now have two dead 150 minerals and 50 gas worth of useless dead weight now recharging its attack, in the amount of time it woudl take an extra warp in to breach your main, kill your workers and production and lose you the game.
On the point of the Siege Tank I could elaborate further and give some accurate numbers. Bear in mind the change to overkill doesn't factor in but surely it doesn't excuse a straight-up 20 damage nerf...
Siege Tank BW: 70 Explosive Damage (35 to Small, 52.5 to Medium and 70 to Large units) Siege Tank SC2: 35 Damage (50 vs Armored)
As far as I know, these numbers are 100% accurate.
Siege Tank BW vs Archon BW (360 effective HP) - 360 / 70 = 5 remainder 10. Six hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Archon SC2 (360 effective HP) - 360 / 35 = 10 remainder 11. Eleven hits to kill.
That's right, Archons are now the second-tankiest unit in existence against Siege Tanks, the first being the Immortal with a whopping fourteen hits to kill. This is because despite being large, the Siege Tank does not even do full damage because it is not Armored.
Siege Tank BW vs Dragoon BW (180 effective HP) - 180 / 70 = 2 remainder 40. Three hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Stalker SC2 (160 effective HP) - 160 / 50 = 3 remainder 10. Four hits to kill.
Despite being inferior stat wise to the Dragoon, the Stalker is tankier to tank fire in SC2. Added with better pathing AI and Blink, Stalkers are now the hard-counter for Siege Tanks when in Brood War Tanks soft-countered them.
Siege Tank BW vs Hydralisk BW (85 HP) - 85 / 52.5 = 1 remainder 32.5. Two hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Hydralisk SC2 (85 HP) - 85 / 35 = 2 remainder 15. Three hits to kill.
Hydralisks are also tankier against the Siege Tank. In fact, Roaches take the same number of hits to kill as well. The only reason they would fare weaker against a tank line would likely be the Hellion/Hellbat support in front.
Siege Tank BW vs Reaver BW (180 effective HP) - 180 / 70 = 2 remainder 40. Three hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Colossus SC2 (300 effective HP) - 300 / 50 = Six hits to kill.
That's right, the Colossus - commonly considered an a-move unit - is far tankier to the Siege Tank than the Reaver was in Brood War. The sad reality is that Robo tech in SC2 straight-up sweeps away Mech when it's not in a critical mass.
Siege Tank BW vs Ultralisk BW (400 HP) - 400 / 70 = 4 remainder 20. Five hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Ultralisk SC2 (500 HP) - 500 / 50 = Ten hits to kill.
Here's an even bigger shocker. Ultralisks are now so tanky against Siege Tanks that it takes ten shells to kill them. This is due to their nerfed maximum damage potential and the Ultralisk's 100 health buff in the transition to SC2. Now consider the fact that Blizzard were considering the possibility of adding an autocasted Charge ability to the Ultra.
On June 13 2013 01:11 hansonslee wrote: I think tanks need a slight buff. Mutalisks are faster and can snipe tanks more easily, and vipers can remove them from the game easily. It would be nice to see tanks in play once more (especially seeing tanks kill a bunch of banelings)!
Maybe siege mode tanks can't get grabbed by the viper because they are clamped into the grown. That would be a nice little fix there. I still think they should get an upgrade ability to activate the dmatrix. (I think BC's used dmatrix in sc2 campaign?) Let's have something like that be possible.
Just give splash to turrets or something and remove anti air on mines. Even with 50apm more than my opponent I never have time to clear the minefields with sufficient losses before a new bioball is standing on it. I'm master league and this matchup for me is all about putting out fires for 40minutes and if i manage to not slip up even then I might loose the game. I'm at 30% winpercentage ZvT atm and I usually watch my fellow zergs statistics after each ZvZ and ~30% is what I usually see...
On June 13 2013 01:15 patman wrote: Just give splash to turrets or something and remove anti air on mines. Even with 50apm more than my opponent I never have time to clear the minefields with sufficient losses before a new bioball is standing on it. I'm master league and this matchup for me is all about putting out fires for 40minutes and if i manage to not slip up even then I might loose the game. I'm at 30% winpercentage ZvT atm and I usually watch my fellow zergs statistics after each ZvZ and ~30% is what I usually see...
Something even more simple is to reduce the overpriced turrets to 75 minerals. I feel to invested everytime I have to plant a turret down.
Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
On June 13 2013 01:11 hansonslee wrote: I think tanks need a slight buff. Mutalisks are faster and can snipe tanks more easily, and vipers can remove them from the game easily. It would be nice to see tanks in play once more (especially seeing tanks kill a bunch of banelings)!
Maybe siege mode tanks can't get grabbed by the viper because they are clamped into the grown. That would be a nice little fix there. I still think they should get an upgrade ability to activate the dmatrix. (I think BC's used dmatrix in sc2 campaign?) Let's have something like that be possible.
Well it's not like the grab is the big problem with the tank though, blinding cloud is far worse for the tank.
With the new mutalisk rines just aren't enough like in WoL. Before you could obviously count on that mutas wouldn't actually fight your rines, now they just fight them, kill them and ask for seconds, that is, if you don't have something that threatens them. Sadly even though thor was always suppose to fulfil this role, it never did due to magic boxing. If zerg with the new muta and viper is going to stay in, I don't really think the tank can be saved. It'd be redicilous to not make blinding cloud work on tanks and it'd be dangerous to nerf the most notable change to zerg in HotS(the muta regen/speed), so yeah... think we're stuck with the VM(a buff to the splash of thors would probably fix the muta problem, but it'd still leave tanks sucking vs vipers)...
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
Agreed. The real strength of mech in TvP is the hellbats tbh. You just need tanks to force engagements and kill AoE for the hellbats to do their job. I don't think hellbats need a nerf in current balance, but i'd much rather have a strong tank than a strong hellbat. Admittedly TvZ MMM+hellbat might become pretty weak though.
On June 13 2013 01:56 Snowbear wrote: Can someone explain me why terrans don't go tank + mine (2 factory, 1 techlab 1 reactor) + marine + medivac? Is it bad?
I suppose it´s simply because you´d spent a lot more gas while sacrificing mobility.
WM inconsistency isn't "fun" to watch or play lol. Fix that. Everything else is meh or okay. The fact he didn't really address SH's in any coherent way was irritating. "We're looking at it" is just a paltry excuse for "I don't understand it well enough to say anything with substance."
On June 13 2013 01:14 Clbull wrote: Balance opinions incoming.
Gameplay has already become stale because MMMW (Marines, Marauders, Medivacs and Widow Mines) appear to be the only viable option to play TvZ. Mech is far less viable because it's often virtually impossible to strike a balance between fending off mutalisk harass with Thors and Missile Turrets, having enough Siege Tanks to hold a potential Roach Hydra or mass Ultralisk bust, not keeping yourself contained on two bases because getting a third requires a great amount of positioning and pre-construction of Supply Depot walls and Missile Turrets, having enough anti-air to snipe Brood Lords, Corruptors and Vipers, and still preventing the Zerg from staying one full saturated base above you.
Additionally, I haven't seen anybody other than Strelok and GoOdy successfully pull off a TvP Mech build. Even then I feel confident their builds would crumble to a precise 2 or 3 gate early game aggressive timing. A good reason why is probably the weakness of Siege Tanks from Wings onwards and the lack of TvP viability for the Widow Mine and Hellion (note, not the Hellbat which is a great unit in its own right.) The Widow Mine is a very useful unit until you consider the fact that a Tier 1.5 unit (Stalker) with detection can completely hard-counter it by outranging its attack radius. This is something the Hydralisk cannot even do until it gets its own upgrade (Grooved Spines) to increase attack range.
Using Widow Mines to defend a 4-gate is also a double edged sword. You may have sniped two Zealots but on the other hand you now have two dead 150 minerals and 50 gas worth of useless dead weight now recharging its attack, in the amount of time it woudl take an extra warp in to breach your main, kill your workers and production and lose you the game.
On the point of the Siege Tank I could elaborate further and give some accurate numbers. Bear in mind the change to overkill doesn't factor in but surely it doesn't excuse a straight-up 20 damage nerf...
Siege Tank BW: 70 Explosive Damage (35 to Small, 52.5 to Medium and 70 to Large units) Siege Tank SC2: 35 Damage (50 vs Armored)
As far as I know, these numbers are 100% accurate.
Siege Tank BW vs Archon BW (360 effective HP) - 360 / 70 = 5 remainder 10. Six hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Archon SC2 (360 effective HP) - 360 / 35 = 10 remainder 11. Eleven hits to kill.
That's right, Archons are now the second-tankiest unit in existence against Siege Tanks, the first being the Immortal with a whopping fourteen hits to kill. This is because despite being large, the Siege Tank does not even do full damage because it is not Armored.
Siege Tank BW vs Dragoon BW (180 effective HP) - 180 / 70 = 2 remainder 40. Three hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Stalker SC2 (160 effective HP) - 160 / 50 = 3 remainder 10. Four hits to kill.
Despite being inferior stat wise to the Dragoon, the Stalker is tankier to tank fire in SC2. Added with better pathing AI and Blink, Stalkers are now the hard-counter for Siege Tanks when in Brood War Tanks soft-countered them.
Siege Tank BW vs Hydralisk BW (85 HP) - 85 / 52.5 = 1 remainder 32.5. Two hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Hydralisk SC2 (85 HP) - 85 / 35 = 2 remainder 15. Three hits to kill.
Hydralisks are also tankier against the Siege Tank. In fact, Roaches take the same number of hits to kill as well. The only reason they would fare weaker against a tank line would likely be the Hellion/Hellbat support in front.
Siege Tank BW vs Reaver BW (180 effective HP) - 180 / 70 = 2 remainder 40. Three hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Colossus SC2 (300 effective HP) - 300 / 50 = Six hits to kill.
That's right, the Colossus - commonly considered an a-move unit - is far tankier to the Siege Tank than the Reaver was in Brood War. The sad reality is that Robo tech in SC2 straight-up sweeps away Mech when it's not in a critical mass.
Siege Tank BW vs Ultralisk BW (400 HP) - 400 / 70 = 4 remainder 20. Five hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Ultralisk SC2 (500 HP) - 500 / 50 = Ten hits to kill.
Here's an even bigger shocker. Ultralisks are now so tanky against Siege Tanks that it takes ten shells to kill them. This is due to their nerfed maximum damage potential and the Ultralisk's 100 health buff in the transition to SC2. Now consider the fact that Blizzard were considering the possibility of adding an autocasted Charge ability to the Ultra.
How would I improve the Siege Tank? Simple
Siege Tank:
35 damage (60 vs Armored, 85 vs Massive)
While I don´t believe comparisons to BW are the best way to look at SC2 balancing, it raises an interesting problem: redundant damage codes. While in BW it was mainly sizes (small/medium/large) that influenced damage, which followed an easy logic of bigger is better, in SC2 it is rather inconsistent with (none/light/armored/massive) and thus very hard to balance. Because a buff to armored damage effects almost all relevant units it is shyed away from. There are simply too many armored units, with light and massive being niches. I think that is a big obstacle for a siege tank buff.
A relatively elegant version to buff tanks late game could be via escalating the regular attack upgrades from the armory. Why not give it +3, +5, +10?
A suggestion I've seen regarding tanks is, increase their single target damage while leaving their splash the same, the man that made this suggestion proposed it be done by increasing the main damage to (insert whatever value we find appropriate), while reducing the ratio of damage done from splash, that way a tank line could be more durable against strong single targets, primarily ultras and archons, that can smash trough a tank line with ease if the terrain is not favorable, and it wouldn't mess with small units that much.
However, the biggest problem with tanks doesn't seem to stem from their damage to single targets, but more so from their vulnerability and immobility. Since removing their vulnerabilities to air is a no go, the best way might be to address some of their mobility issues, either increasing top speed (not acceleration) and/or reducing siege and unsiege time by 1 second. It feels like with the paradigm switching so much to mobility and harassment, that tanks might require a small buff in this direction to keep the relevant in the bigger scheme of things.
However another big issue seems to be that, tanks are a lot harder to balance in SC2 due to pathing and they aren't as exciting are they where in BW due to the same reason. In BW even if you amassed a large force of tanks with good enough support, it didn't mean the game was over for the other guy.
The tanks where difficult to control, difficult to get all in the same small area to do huge damage, units didn't clump up as much. The lack of smart fire meant you could abuse them in various ways with zealot bombs or drops.
These limitations meant that often times moving the mech army across the map and taking up position was an interesting affair, you had to lay a minefield ahead, and do it in such a way that it couldn't be abused against the tanks, you had to consider the terrain, you had to spread your tanks optimally to do damage and also avoid taking damage from previously mentioned tactics, and you also had to guard the tanks from other threats such Arbiters, Mutas, Carriers etc, all while moving forward.
This is a far cry from SC2 tanks that, once they reach a critical mass, can almost a-move across the map and obliterate anything in their path, if siege tanks where as strategical and meticulous to use as they are in BW then I'd agree we should do all we can to bring them back into the fold, but sadly, they are not. This is why I honestly hate SC2 mech and I'm absolutely 100% fine with it never being viable, because I can't see how you can make it viable and interesting at the same time.
Mech is fun in TvT because the tank lines and terrain recreate the same BW situation where it was meticulous and interesting to advance forward, bio-mine is fun in TvZ to watch because of the positional aspects and fast paced nature, marine tank is a treat for the strategist in us. However mech vs Toss and mech vs bio is just cringe worthy at times.
So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” We believe the answer is yes.
Ouch...that was painful to read. In my opinion it's horrible that the mine has replaced Siege Tanks as a splash scource. The goal should be to make the mine an essential component of positional tank play, not replace it. I don't really now how to achieve this without going back to a spider-mine like concept, but the current way seems to be very unsatisfactory. Please don't make the #2 iconic Terran unit a gimmick. Terran mech still feels like a contruction site. Sadly no mention of Banshees/Raven. But I guess there are other issues at hand.
Other than that I like the thoughts of Blizzard at the moment. They seem to follow the right way.
I think the idea of giving the Terran more options with siege tanks is a good idea. As long as it does not create an overpowered composition but rather a different composition it should be fine. Currently, they are simply out-shadowed by mines. I think a damage boost like what Clbull suggested sounds good. Though I think a research to boost its damage makes more sense.
Additionally, I haven't seen anybody other than Strelok and GoOdy successfully pull off a TvP Mech build. Even then I feel confident their builds would crumble to a precise 2 or 3 gate early game aggressive timing.
You have failed to establish why this is a bad thing. Strelok and GoOdy have some of the most boring, turtley playstyles I've ever seen in TvP. Why should it be a priority for Blizzard to make that low-APM, a-move style more viable? I know people like to wax poetic about how mech players are "decision making" geniuses, but let's call a spade a spade. There's nothing particularly interesting about watching mech TvP because both sides have mostly one-dimensional units with a couple of spellcasters. We can theorize about the Siege Tank all we want, but in Sc2 (i.e not BW) Siege Tank based mech versus Protoss is basically turtling until 170-200 supply and then pushing slowly and unstoppably across the map. This is not fun. Seeing rings of turrets and Photon Cannons at every base to discourage drops means that both players are just vying for positioning with really boring long-ranged units like Carriers, Siege Tanks, and Tempests. No thanks.
Meanwhile bio based TvP is mechanically demanding for both players and much more fast-paced than mech based styles.
On June 13 2013 01:56 Snowbear wrote: Can someone explain me why terrans don't go tank + mine (2 factory, 1 techlab 1 reactor) + marine + medivac? Is it bad?
Why would you? There is just so much overlap between the two, yet to optimize them you have completely different playstyles. VMs optimal usage is constant aggression, where you are trading efficiently with the zerg. Tanks you generally don't want to just trade with the zerg, you want to win a battle.
I must say, as an observer, I prefer to watch siege tanks to widow mines. Widow mines give the 1 time thrill of "is it going to work or fail?", and the suspense is over in a heartbeat. Siege tanks deliver a much greater sense of extended suspense and sustained tension in matches, and there are few things better than watching a very well executed, methodical siege-tank push.
Really, widow mines play out a lot like burrowed banes, except they require less attention on the part of the player and because the missile is ranged also require less precise placement. Part of what makes watching burrowed banes exciting is that if the zerg player isn't paying attention they miss out on an awesome hit. Again tho, the suspense is very brief and the results are very all-or-none, unlike the sustained tension that siege tanks bring to many games.
On June 13 2013 01:56 Snowbear wrote: Can someone explain me why terrans don't go tank + mine (2 factory, 1 techlab 1 reactor) + marine + medivac? Is it bad?
Why would you? There is just so much overlap between the two, yet to optimize them you have completely different playstyles. VMs optimal usage is constant aggression, where you are trading efficiently with the zerg. Tanks you generally don't want to just trade with the zerg, you want to win a battle.
Why would you? Well: 1) Tanks can manually target banelings and they can shoot several times 2) Mines force zerg micro
Doesn't it become much harder to micro against mines backed up with tanks? I feel like the combination of these 2 would do so much splash damage, but I can be wrong. I am definitely going to take a look at this.
I use tank+mine (+bio) myself. And yeah it has some advantages, also some disadvantages, which is the reason it probably isn't as good as bio+mine for pro's at least. The main issue you give up all your mobility by going siege tanks, together with the option of retreat.
On June 13 2013 01:56 Snowbear wrote: Can someone explain me why terrans don't go tank + mine (2 factory, 1 techlab 1 reactor) + marine + medivac? Is it bad?
Why would you? There is just so much overlap between the two, yet to optimize them you have completely different playstyles. VMs optimal usage is constant aggression, where you are trading efficiently with the zerg. Tanks you generally don't want to just trade with the zerg, you want to win a battle.
Why would you? Well: 1) Tanks can manually target banelings and they can shoot several times 2) Mines force zerg micro
Doesn't it become much harder to micro against mines backed up with tanks? I feel like the combination of these 2 would do so much splash damage, but I can be wrong. I am definitely going to take a look at this.
Well tanks are very costly units, and a tank simply isn't going to be doing 275 resource worth of dmg on a consistant basis, especially when you have very few actually on the field at a time(like VM usage playstyle revolves around).
On June 13 2013 01:14 Clbull wrote: Balance opinions incoming.
Gameplay has already become stale because MMMW (Marines, Marauders, Medivacs and Widow Mines) appear to be the only viable option to play TvZ. Mech is far less viable because it's often virtually impossible to strike a balance between fending off mutalisk harass with Thors and Missile Turrets, having enough Siege Tanks to hold a potential Roach Hydra or mass Ultralisk bust, not keeping yourself contained on two bases because getting a third requires a great amount of positioning and pre-construction of Supply Depot walls and Missile Turrets, having enough anti-air to snipe Brood Lords, Corruptors and Vipers, and still preventing the Zerg from staying one full saturated base above you.
Additionally, I haven't seen anybody other than Strelok and GoOdy successfully pull off a TvP Mech build. Even then I feel confident their builds would crumble to a precise 2 or 3 gate early game aggressive timing. A good reason why is probably the weakness of Siege Tanks from Wings onwards and the lack of TvP viability for the Widow Mine and Hellion (note, not the Hellbat which is a great unit in its own right.) The Widow Mine is a very useful unit until you consider the fact that a Tier 1.5 unit (Stalker) with detection can completely hard-counter it by outranging its attack radius. This is something the Hydralisk cannot even do until it gets its own upgrade (Grooved Spines) to increase attack range.
Using Widow Mines to defend a 4-gate is also a double edged sword. You may have sniped two Zealots but on the other hand you now have two dead 150 minerals and 50 gas worth of useless dead weight now recharging its attack, in the amount of time it woudl take an extra warp in to breach your main, kill your workers and production and lose you the game.
On the point of the Siege Tank I could elaborate further and give some accurate numbers. Bear in mind the change to overkill doesn't factor in but surely it doesn't excuse a straight-up 20 damage nerf...
Siege Tank BW: 70 Explosive Damage (35 to Small, 52.5 to Medium and 70 to Large units) Siege Tank SC2: 35 Damage (50 vs Armored)
As far as I know, these numbers are 100% accurate.
Siege Tank BW vs Archon BW (360 effective HP) - 360 / 70 = 5 remainder 10. Six hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Archon SC2 (360 effective HP) - 360 / 35 = 10 remainder 11. Eleven hits to kill.
That's right, Archons are now the second-tankiest unit in existence against Siege Tanks, the first being the Immortal with a whopping fourteen hits to kill. This is because despite being large, the Siege Tank does not even do full damage because it is not Armored.
Siege Tank BW vs Dragoon BW (180 effective HP) - 180 / 70 = 2 remainder 40. Three hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Stalker SC2 (160 effective HP) - 160 / 50 = 3 remainder 10. Four hits to kill.
Despite being inferior stat wise to the Dragoon, the Stalker is tankier to tank fire in SC2. Added with better pathing AI and Blink, Stalkers are now the hard-counter for Siege Tanks when in Brood War Tanks soft-countered them.
Siege Tank BW vs Hydralisk BW (85 HP) - 85 / 52.5 = 1 remainder 32.5. Two hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Hydralisk SC2 (85 HP) - 85 / 35 = 2 remainder 15. Three hits to kill.
Hydralisks are also tankier against the Siege Tank. In fact, Roaches take the same number of hits to kill as well. The only reason they would fare weaker against a tank line would likely be the Hellion/Hellbat support in front.
Siege Tank BW vs Reaver BW (180 effective HP) - 180 / 70 = 2 remainder 40. Three hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Colossus SC2 (300 effective HP) - 300 / 50 = Six hits to kill.
That's right, the Colossus - commonly considered an a-move unit - is far tankier to the Siege Tank than the Reaver was in Brood War. The sad reality is that Robo tech in SC2 straight-up sweeps away Mech when it's not in a critical mass.
Siege Tank BW vs Ultralisk BW (400 HP) - 400 / 70 = 4 remainder 20. Five hits to kill. Siege Tank SC2 vs Ultralisk SC2 (500 HP) - 500 / 50 = Ten hits to kill.
Here's an even bigger shocker. Ultralisks are now so tanky against Siege Tanks that it takes ten shells to kill them. This is due to their nerfed maximum damage potential and the Ultralisk's 100 health buff in the transition to SC2. Now consider the fact that Blizzard were considering the possibility of adding an autocasted Charge ability to the Ultra.
How would I improve the Siege Tank? Simple
Siege Tank:
35 damage (60 vs Armored, 85 vs Massive)
Siege Tank BW: No Smart AI Targetting Siege Tank SC2: Very Smart AI Targetting
Units BW: Didn't clump Units SC2: Clump
I don't mind if you get your damage buff as long as you remove the smart AI Targetting, make siege mode research again, make tanks cost the same as they did in BW, and make units stop clumping magically against them.
Additionally, I haven't seen anybody other than Strelok and GoOdy successfully pull off a TvP Mech build. Even then I feel confident their builds would crumble to a precise 2 or 3 gate early game aggressive timing.
You have failed to establish why this is a bad thing. Strelok and GoOdy have some of the most boring, turtley playstyles I've ever seen in TvP. Why should it be a priority for Blizzard to make that low-APM, a-move style more viable? I know people like to wax poetic about how mech players are "decision making" geniuses, but let's call a spade a spade. There's nothing particularly interesting about watching mech TvP because both sides have mostly one-dimensional units with a couple of spellcasters. We can theorize about the Siege Tank all we want, but in Sc2 (i.e not BW) Siege Tank based mech versus Protoss is basically turtling until 170-200 supply and then pushing slowly and unstoppably across the map. This is not fun. Seeing rings of turrets and Photon Cannons at every base to discourage drops means that both players are just vying for positioning with really boring long-ranged units like Carriers, Siege Tanks, and Tempests. No thanks.
Meanwhile bio based TvP is mechanically demanding for both players and much more fast-paced than mech based styles.
Is it possible for other people to have other opinions? Maybe even like different things and have a different perception on what is boring and what isn't? Interesting questions...my Lord
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
I'm not saying this is needed (and it may in fact cause more issues than it solves), but if you want some way for widow mines to synergize with tanks, wouldn't having them attack only air be a possible solution? The reason I suggest this is that Mech really has terrible anti-air without going into a bio-mech composition, and part of what people want from mech is more positional play. Widow mines, like tanks, need to deploy to be effective (although their deploy is called burrow), and the stats of the widow mine could be tweaked to make them into more of a dedicated anti-aircraft unit.
Just a suggestion, and I'd like to re-affirm that I don't think it's needed as a nerf - it may just be an interesting possible change.
I'm really surprised we dont see more pros trying to use Liquid`Sea's style of Mech TvP that hit hard with fast and unpredictable timings. Terran Mech is like a WIP right now but that doesn't mean we won't see it ever being used. Its anyones guess what kind of styles will develop in the future of the matchup.
Personally I dislike widow mines as a unit, I really don't see where the skill comes in with them - the only decision making for the terran is where/when to burrow it and for zergs its about remembering where they are and either baiting out shots before moving in or trying to cause friendly fire. Tanks are much more interesting to me.
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
Am I the only one who feels it's wrong that in the end we'll have the following :
Damage : 35 (+ 15 vs Armored) (+15 vs shield) (+10 vs Psionic) (insert another exception damage)
On June 13 2013 03:18 Aequos wrote: I'm not saying this is needed (and it may in fact cause more issues than it solves), but if you want some way for widow mines to synergize with tanks, wouldn't having them attack only air be a possible solution? The reason I suggest this is that Mech really has terrible anti-air without going into a bio-mech composition, and part of what people want from mech is more positional play. Widow mines, like tanks, need to deploy to be effective (although their deploy is called burrow), and the stats of the widow mine could be tweaked to make them into more of a dedicated anti-aircraft unit.
Just a suggestion, and I'd like to re-affirm that I don't think it's needed as a nerf - it may just be an interesting possible change.
So you are essentially forcing the Terrans to use a less mobile army against zergs when going bio. I don't know what logic persuaded you to think that this is not a nerf.
Additionally, I haven't seen anybody other than Strelok and GoOdy successfully pull off a TvP Mech build. Even then I feel confident their builds would crumble to a precise 2 or 3 gate early game aggressive timing.
You have failed to establish why this is a bad thing. Strelok and GoOdy have some of the most boring, turtley playstyles I've ever seen in TvP. Why should it be a priority for Blizzard to make that low-APM, a-move style more viable? I know people like to wax poetic about how mech players are "decision making" geniuses, but let's call a spade a spade. There's nothing particularly interesting about watching mech TvP because both sides have mostly one-dimensional units with a couple of spellcasters. We can theorize about the Siege Tank all we want, but in Sc2 (i.e not BW) Siege Tank based mech versus Protoss is basically turtling until 170-200 supply and then pushing slowly and unstoppably across the map. This is not fun. Seeing rings of turrets and Photon Cannons at every base to discourage drops means that both players are just vying for positioning with really boring long-ranged units like Carriers, Siege Tanks, and Tempests. No thanks.
Meanwhile bio based TvP is mechanically demanding for both players and much more fast-paced than mech based styles.
I have had this position since early in Wings. I think the community push for mech to be viable in TvP (that blizzard has responded to) is a mistake. The TvP mech that we have seen is extremely boring, and totally contrary to blizzards stated goals of making the game more action packed.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
I think they are eluding to the fact that you have to drag the zerg army over your mines without killing your own army. The difference being that Tanks just shoot constantly from the back of the battle but Widow mines have to be placed well and then you have to lure the zerg army in to them, which does take more skill.
You watch a pro use a widow mine, they lure the enemy in and boom, or the enemy is smart and just sends a couple of lings to trigger the mine and then moves in with the rest. You can't have this dynamic with tanks, widow mines are very cool and using them to their full potential requires much higher skill than doing the same with seige tanks, to use a seige tank to its full potential you just have to get it to the battle and make sure it doesn't get surrounded before it gets it shots off... not that difficult tbh
I think tweaks could be made to the wm, it seems a bit to simple at the moment, but I don't really know, it would be interesting if the spell would have to be cast individually, but maybe that's to difficult for the wm user.
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
Am I the only one who feels it's wrong that in the end we'll have the following :
Damage : 35 (+ 15 vs Armored) (+15 vs shield) (+10 vs Psionic) (insert another exception damage)
If it worked I couldn't care less.
On June 13 2013 03:55 IcookTacos wrote: I think tweaks could be made to the wm, it seems a bit to simple at the moment, but I don't really know, it would be interesting if the spell would have to be cast individually, but maybe that's to difficult for the wm user.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
I think they are eluding to the fact that you have to drag the zerg army over your mines without killing your own army. The difference being that Tanks just shoot constantly from the back of the battle but Widow mines have to be placed well and then you have to lure the zerg army in to them, which does take more skill.
You watch a pro use a widow mine, they lure the enemy in and boom, or the enemy is smart and just sends a couple of lings to trigger the mine and then moves in with the rest. You can't have this dynamic with tanks, widow mines are very cool and using them to their full potential requires much higher skill than doing the same with seige tanks, to use a seige tank to its full potential you just have to get it to the battle and make sure it doesn't get surrounded before it gets it shots off... not that difficult tbh
Let's also not forget the devastating "surround the Terran army over their own mines" trick. We have seen a couple of pro games where Terrans take more damage from their own mines than the Zerg, and many many more streamed games where that has happened.
Nerf buff nerf buff nerf buff... everyone's favourite topic in SC2. Noone's forcing Terran to go widow mine, or Zerg to go muta ling.
It's funny how people who are asking for nerfs have probably never used the unit they're asking to nerf in the first place.
On the bright side - it appears Blizzard have learnt from their previous mistake (of over-nerfing Terran due to balance whine), and are now sensible enough to ignore the anti-Terran sentiment within SC2, due to people being jealous of the historical success Terrans had in the past.
In the meantime, have fun whining, knowing that Blizzard are not going to carry out any nerfs any time soon since there is no obvious imbalance within the game at the moment.
This is simply scary, reading David Kim you can tell he's not an expert on balance and doesnt understand the essence of it, it's not making the game "more fun" and "viewer friendly", by adding shittons of drops and big explosions (mainly to one race that already won a shitload of titles in WoL but clearly was weak in the end of it, but now ahah what the fuck start of WoL all over again). They're looking at it the wrong way, they're trying to make the game exciting and "promote skill"? How's widow mine gameplay promoting skill? Thats just a really ridiculous thing to say as head of SC2 balance team... Zergs cheesing the fuck out of terrans even when they got much better macro (Soulkey vs Alive rofl, tell me Soulkey isnt confident in a stable macro game against Alive, and yet he still goes for coin flippy early timings that can get blind countered, especially after his final vs innovation, Alive should have prepared, he didnt, yay, coin flip won) than their opponent should be enough for them to wake up. The thing is, the ball is on terran side in the ZvT match up, they are going to get much better at defending timings, and learn to use properly their bio mine gameplay, I seriously dont see ZvT in 3 months being anything else than roach bane / +1+1 ling bane timings type of play, followed by "macro" after damage has been dealt. But hey, "they're taking their time", good for them, less work I suppose, but this is fucked up, ZvZ, spore buff, what the fuck... When you see the spore buff you know for good that they dont have a fucking clue... And most of this is said from a viewer perspective, call me biased, I was the first to aknowledge infestors were OP in WoL and even avoided including them in gameplay because I hated feeling outplayed and winning at the same time, same reason I switched to zerg 3 months into WoL, I play this game for fun and to do my best, and I mostly watch, not play, I wished terran would be honest about this and stop that fucking hypocrisy, this is way too long for the esport scene, they're killing it because they ARE going to make big changes, we all know it, and the longer it takes, just like first GSLs, we'll just look at it and be like "meh, was ugly back then", good thinking David, good thinking...
Many terrans use only the units starting with an M, which I think mostly shows that the game is far from being figured out. For instance, the raven isn't a popular unit although it's effective in many situations and probably will see more use in the future.
On June 12 2013 09:01 BronzeKnee wrote: Shocked that they won't change the Widow Mine.
It isn't overpowered statistically, but the effect it has on the game is dramatic. It controls APM better than any other unit, to the extent that in TvZ it allows Terran to dominate multitasking. Idra said this is the reason so many people have been doing Roach-Bane busts, simply because a Terran player who is good at multitasking can dominate an equally skilled Zerg player using Widow Mines. As a Protoss bystander, I'm inclined to agree when I watch high level Terran or Zerg streams. It ruined my favorite match up to watch for me.
Also as another poster said above, it promotes a chance aspect, rather than skill. The skill in using Tanks isn't just focus firing, it is in the positioning! Blizzard seems to have lost sight of this.
It requires more skill from the zerg player because he cant just a-move and "micro the banes" into a marine tank army.
I am a bit annoyed they seem content to relegate the siege tank to history. Forget the fucking carrier, the siege tank IS the iconic unit of this game.
Widow mines... I don't know. I get what he is saying, that you have to split carefully and that requires a lot of skill. No doubt, it requires a LOT of skill. Maybe too much effort involved, because you can't do it only during engagements... you have to do it for every single movement your army makes anywhere. Everything you needed to do just got doubled for Zerg or anybody playing against Widowmines. As a Protoss main, I've only played Z and T casually. But I have to say, widowmines feel a little dirty when you just leave one lying around randomly and you kill half his zerglings while he's moving out. You often just get lucky kills, and the fact that they hit air so hard there is literally no safe unit to use against them without huge amounts of attention. Granted, at the pro level, Zergs probably just have to suck it up and double their APM, but even that is a little harsh. Can anybody function at 800 APM?
On June 13 2013 04:32 mahO wrote: This is simply scary, reading David Kim you can tell he's not an expert on balance and doesnt understand the essence of it, it's not making the game "more fun" and "viewer friendly", by adding shittons of drops and big explosions (mainly to one race that already won a shitload of titles in WoL but clearly was weak in the end of it, but now ahah what the fuck start of WoL all over again). They're looking at it the wrong way, they're trying to make the game exciting and "promote skill"? How's widow mine gameplay promoting skill? Thats just a really ridiculous thing to say as head of SC2 balance team... Zergs cheesing the fuck out of terrans even when they got much better macro (Soulkey vs Alive rofl, tell me Soulkey isnt confident in a stable macro game against Alive, and yet he still goes for coin flippy early timings that can get blind countered, especially after his final vs innovation, Alive should have prepared, he didnt, yay, coin flip won) than their opponent should be enough for them to wake up. The thing is, the ball is on terran side in the ZvT match up, they are going to get much better at defending timings, and learn to use properly their bio mine gameplay, I seriously dont see ZvT in 3 months being anything else than roach bane / +1+1 ling bane timings type of play, followed by "macro" after damage has been dealt. But hey, "they're taking their time", good for them, less work I suppose, but this is fucked up, ZvZ, spore buff, what the fuck... When you see the spore buff you know for good that they dont have a fucking clue... And most of this is said from a viewer perspective, call me biased, I was the first to aknowledge infestors were OP in WoL and even avoided including them in gameplay because I hated feeling outplayed and winning at the same time, same reason I switched to zerg 3 months into WoL, I play this game for fun and to do my best, and I mostly watch, not play, I wished terran would be honest about this and stop that fucking hypocrisy, this is way too long for the esport scene, they're killing it because they ARE going to make big changes, we all know it, and the longer it takes, just like first GSLs, we'll just look at it and be like "meh, was ugly back then", good thinking David, good thinking...
Pretty sure he is an expert on balance by definition, he's certainly more of an authority than anyone else here. And they are looking at it the exactly right way. Widowmines have spiced up the game more than anything else they put in the game in HotS. And Soulkey destroyed Alive, coin-flippy is 50/50, and I'm pretty sure he won more than half his games. He punished greedy play. You don't macro up vs. greedy play, you punish it.
I'd like to see tanks buffed in NON-seige mode. I think mobile tank armies look really cool, and if the non-seige tank was buffed it would put a damper on just how freaking good Hellbats are. I have no idea what the buff would be, and it would have to be balanced to make siege mode still worth the dramatic tradeoff in versatility, but I don't like the idea of people just not needing Tanks because Mines are so good.
I'm really confused at the lack of Ravens in mid game Terran play by the way, at least in TvZ. A flying detector with a spell that nullifies Mutalisks around a certain area? Why don't more people go for it? HSM timings could even be explored.
I think mines may need a rework, something like a smaller radius wouldn't be bad. I don't know. But the general sentiment is that the mine is pretty damn strong, not the most interesting unit and it's replacing the siege tank that everyone loves.
@Crownlol, they should get extra armor unsieged so that they become actual tanks! xD
On June 12 2013 08:27 Qwyn wrote: ... I also think that Blizzard is focusing too much on removing defensive strategies such as swarmhost + static in order to avoid the infestor/broodlord effect, without actually considering why such strategies exist in the first place. The reason that strategy exists is that it is the only way that Zerg can consistently beat an endgame Protoss deathball. Instead of attempting to stamp that out Blizzard should consider why the comp exists in the first place and what is causing it...It's ironic because outside of two-base allins the sole goal of a Protoss is to turtle to death on 3 bases. ...
So true... blizzard "watching DEFENSIVE swarmhost play carefully" but giving protoss planetary nexus, timwarp, teleport... i mean protoss is the most defensive race ever,outside of allins, but if zerg has to camp to stop it ...
On June 13 2013 03:18 Aequos wrote: I'm not saying this is needed (and it may in fact cause more issues than it solves), but if you want some way for widow mines to synergize with tanks, wouldn't having them attack only air be a possible solution? The reason I suggest this is that Mech really has terrible anti-air without going into a bio-mech composition, and part of what people want from mech is more positional play. Widow mines, like tanks, need to deploy to be effective (although their deploy is called burrow), and the stats of the widow mine could be tweaked to make them into more of a dedicated anti-aircraft unit.
Just a suggestion, and I'd like to re-affirm that I don't think it's needed as a nerf - it may just be an interesting possible change.
So you are essentially forcing the Terrans to use a less mobile army against zergs when going bio. I don't know what logic persuaded you to think that this is not a nerf.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that it had to be done; what I was suggesting is that they could potentially redefine the role of the Widow Mine to be the dedicated anti-air of the mech army. I wasn't saying this has to happen, or even should; I wanted to say that it was a possibility to make the unit more interesting and not overlap with Siege Tanks quite so much. Obviously this change couldn't be made in a vaccuum - you would have to adjust another unit (most likely the siege tank, but possibly something else) to fill the gap left by its changing role, were this to go through in any form.
Tank lines arent scary against protoss (at all), 50 damage per shot (against armored; 35 otherwise) is really nothing, no matter how you look at it. Archons tank a ton of tank shots, i wont even mention immortals. On top of that widow mines outperform tanks in TvZ. Mech is underwhelming and the only thing keeping it afloat is the hellbat (which is weak against archons, biological >.<). So even after the expansion Terran is forced into specific compositions for the two non-mirror matchups and in both of them mech is weaker. I dont know if im right here, but in my opinion a siege tank buff (at the very least against protoss) is definitely needed.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the Zerg player in that specific battle.
What happens when Terran a-moves his mines in, burrows all his mines right next to each other, and some banelings roll in? You're making it sound like Terran don't have to do anything in engagements. When it came to tanks, you just hit siege and maybe target priority targets if you can spare the APM (from splitting bio). Mines not so easy. You have to move them to the front, split them, burrow... that's more APM not focused on your bio.
I've seen plenty of pro games where Terran isn't microing at all with his bio/mine army, and the zerg (also not microing) a-moves in and wins. Stop pretending like Terran can just a-move in and win while Zerg need 400 APM.
Most of these issues could be solved by simply mitigating how much armies clump together
I understand the development team has resisted this change fearing that MarineKing's splits will become a thing of the past, however in doing so they've failed to acknowledge two things: first, that splits are really only reliable for armies on the retreat (e.g. splitting infantry while retreating from banelings), and second, that splitting armies prior to advancing is most often pointless because they always break formation and re-clump immediately after issuing a move or attack command (and for you smart asses, I don't keep all of my units on a single control group). In short, the inability to hold a spread out formation while advancing is what truly makes Widow Mines so devastating.
Would every AOE ability besides the widow mine and hellbat need to be buffed as a result of this change? Most likely, yes. Would it be worth it? I sincerely believe so.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the Zerg player in that specific battle.
I specifically use tanks in TvZ to lower the amount of micro required. I don't want to say lower the amount of skill required, since tanks require other stuff more. But simply saying widow mines require less skill than what we had with siege tanks is flat out incorrect.
On June 12 2013 11:19 xAdra wrote: I think they could try introducing more buffs as opposed to nerfs. Like something that will majorly shake up the game, such as Tanks getting +damage against shields, or stalkers having better upgrade scaling but longer blink cooldown. It would be really cool, especially the former which will make mech viable. If mech were viable, TvP as both a viewer and a player would be diversified so much, it would seem like an all new sc2.
Tanks getting +damage against shields? What? Er, no. Thanks, but no, thanks.
Can't argue with this kinda reasoning.
Yeah, I think it's good to try out. I mean, mech is not viable against toss as it is.
Why should it be viable? Apart from the panting longing for BW Mech?
Terran also has a unit that can be produced in multiple numbers that is able to destroy Protoss shields. And now you want another? Which already also does considerable damage, especially to armoured on top of that? Think about it for a while, and you'll see why it's another one of those ideas that sound nice, but are really, just more than a little silly.
Because we want to diversify play? Is that wrong? Would you like to be back in the days when protoss had to go robo every game or die instantly? Saying that marauders take that role is stupid: would you go marauder/tank? Units that have different upgrades?
I'm no terran player, but it's obvious that bio and mech are completely different playstyles. While bio players want constant harass and aggression, relying on micro and mechanics to stay on even footing, mech players utilize decision making and positioning to a greater extent. By allowing mech against protoss, you make the game more interesting.
Let's ask a different question: why are you so violently adverse to the idea of making mech more viable? Apart from the panting longing for ladder points against terran?
When some players say they want mech vs Protoss to be viable, what they mean is they want to be able to make 90% of their army be siegetanks and that it should beat any and all groundarmies no matter what. That's sort of like Protoss saying they want skytoss to be valid against Terran, and wanting to be able to make 90% of their army voidrays that can kill any and all ground armies.
Does that sound reasonable in the least? Neither sound resonable. To make mech fair in PvT, Blizzard would have to severely nerf bio into the ground in all matchups. That will never happen. Just like to make an all voidrays army work against Terran, the whole game would have to be rearranged.
I can't get to make all voidrays or phoenix or any air unit and win in a macro game against Terran, and you (non-pro joes) will have to be content to not make all tanks and win in a macro game against P.
On June 12 2013 12:11 Elldar wrote: Well, everything boils down to the three broken mechanics of sc2 either way (warp gate, larva inject and mule) ...
warp gate gives the protoss instant reiforcement, larva inject let the zerg create new armies instantly and mule let the terran have better economy then the other races(less workers needed for the same eco as the other races). These mechanics is all imbalanced given certain situations which makes for flimsical gameplay.
on topic though I can not see how widow mines require as much skill to use as to play against. Only real microing that can be going is reburrowing, retargetting is not something any good terran can do without neglecting something else. Maybe you can retarget 1-3 wm in battle but that is pushing it (if all terran did so every battle would be bad for the zerg). Reburrowing just make the terran tantrum from beta that zerg should bait widow mines shots with a few lings obsolete or not as great.
On a side note the most boring match-up is ZvP to play on ladder, the toss either does some weirdass all in with 1 or 2 bases Or they sit on there asses while getting void rays then 1-a at some point unless you hit a nice hydra timing. Just a ridicolous match-up right now. Widow is less random then the toss cheeses imo.
Toss likes allins vs Zerg in current meta because late game swarmhosts are no fun and broken if done correctly.
On June 12 2013 13:10 DavoS wrote: The reason that the Void ray isn't screwing with the win percentages is because it's only broken in PvP (spoiler: Protoss wins). There's no Protoss unit that can trade effectively vs Void rays using overcharge, so it's like Hellbat drops in TvT. I'm a random player, and my WoL PvP was pretty terrible. But in HotS, I have a great win rate going mass void ray. I'm glad to see my ability to box a-move and then hit e be rewarded with a huge win rate
But there is a unit... two even... that can trade effectively vs. voidrays. Three if you count high templar with storm.
On June 12 2013 13:40 Msr wrote: Well shows how clueless blizzard is about the game's balance. Leaving the mine is understandable in the skill it requires for both players, but not fixing the lack of priority the mine takes in fights is honestly a joke.
The voidray is not exciting to me atleast and requires 0 skill while destroying everything (pvz atleast). If they are content with the voidray then either the hydra or corrupter need massive reworking because they are not cost effective vs the voidray.
Mine priority... yeah that has been discussed and maybe it would make it better. It does feel just a little too good and easier on the Terran side in straight up fights. It is certainly too easy to use as random defense and killing of large groups of expensive units with zero input from the Terran. Like when Zerg wins a battle and chases away the T army, but doesn't know two mines are left b/c all the detection died. Before detection is rebuild, loses 5 infestors or something equally insane. That happened not long ago at high Korean matches.
Voidray... well the VR is sort of boring, but Protoss is in desperate need of something vs. Zerg. Colossus got nerfed into the ground via the viper, and swarmhost turtling is unbeatable. Waiting for legacy of the void.
On June 13 2013 05:15 Incognoto wrote: I'm really confused at the lack of Ravens in mid game Terran play by the way, at least in TvZ. A flying detector with a spell that nullifies Mutalisks around a certain area? Why don't more people go for it? HSM timings could even be explored.
A 5 second seeker missile is useless against extremely fast-moving units that wrap around your army when they engage, you end up hitting yourself with splash. PDD is "okay" but really not good enough to stop medivac production for ravens.
Ravens are great against most zerg units, just not ling/muta/ultra.
On June 13 2013 05:15 Incognoto wrote: I'm really confused at the lack of Ravens in mid game Terran play by the way, at least in TvZ. A flying detector with a spell that nullifies Mutalisks around a certain area? Why don't more people go for it? HSM timings could even be explored.
A 5 second seeker missile is useless against extremely fast-moving units that wrap around your army when they engage, you end up hitting yourself with splash. PDD is "okay" but really not good enough to stop medivac production for ravens.
Ravens are great against most zerg units, just not ling/muta/ultra.
also raven too expensive. 2 starport with tech lab is heavy investment and means you won't have any medivacs
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
Am I the only one who feels it's wrong that in the end we'll have the following :
Damage : 35 (+ 15 vs Armored) (+15 vs shield) (+10 vs Psionic) (insert another exception damage)
No, you are not. I've argued elsewhere in the thread why this particular idea is silly.
SC2 is a different game from BW. Mech will likely not work in the same way. It's time to let go of that particular Tank fetish.
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
Am I the only one who feels it's wrong that in the end we'll have the following :
Damage : 35 (+ 15 vs Armored) (+15 vs shield) (+10 vs Psionic) (insert another exception damage)
No, you are not. I've argued elsewhere in the thread why this particular idea is silly.
SC2 is a different game from BW. Mech will likely not work in the same way. It's time to let go of that particular Tank fetish.
And adopt a clearly superior hellbat/widowmine fetish.
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
Am I the only one who feels it's wrong that in the end we'll have the following :
Damage : 35 (+ 15 vs Armored) (+15 vs shield) (+10 vs Psionic) (insert another exception damage)
No, you are not. I've argued elsewhere in the thread why this particular idea is silly.
SC2 is a different game from BW. Mech will likely not work in the same way. It's time to let go of that particular Tank fetish.
And adopt a clearly superior hellbat/widowmine fetish.
Transforming flamethrower buggies and walker robot missile bases are clearly superior technology of the future. Tank & infantry is so last century. :p
On June 12 2013 08:13 juicyjames wrote: More Action throughout the Game
We strongly believe that this is the main direction the game should go. More action means more diversity, which makes the game more challenging to play and more fun to watch.
They really are stupid as can be, because "more more more action" makes every little piece of "action" less exciting, important and more meaningless. If every piece of action can win the game the matches will be shorter and shorter and the Hellbat drop harrass is one example of such shitty design.
There actually is such a thing as "too fast" for SC2, but they dont realize it.
Dear Blizzard devs,
BETTER = BETTER ... MORE =/= BETTER ...
Improve the QUALITY of the engagements instead of simply increasing the number of them!
Kill count works for Hot Shots 2 ... as a joke, but not as a "measurement scale for quality" of Starcraft 2 gameplay!
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
Am I the only one who feels it's wrong that in the end we'll have the following :
Damage : 35 (+ 15 vs Armored) (+15 vs shield) (+10 vs Psionic) (insert another exception damage)
No, you are not. I've argued elsewhere in the thread why this particular idea is silly.
SC2 is a different game from BW. Mech will likely not work in the same way. It's time to let go of that particular Tank fetish.
I'm sorry but tanks working in TvP would be such a cool thing, having two totally different ways to play a match up has no drawbacks.
On June 13 2013 05:15 Incognoto wrote: I'm really confused at the lack of Ravens in mid game Terran play by the way, at least in TvZ. A flying detector with a spell that nullifies Mutalisks around a certain area? Why don't more people go for it? HSM timings could even be explored.
A 5 second seeker missile is useless against extremely fast-moving units that wrap around your army when they engage, you end up hitting yourself with splash. PDD is "okay" but really not good enough to stop medivac production for ravens.
Ravens are great against most zerg units, just not ling/muta/ultra.
Use them against Queens, Overseers and drones! xD I don't know I just feel that a few ravens here and there as flying support might be nice, then again as you mentioned it might cut into medivac production. ^^
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
And how exactly WMs are rewarding for both sides? Which terran gives a crap if he looses a 75/25 unit or ten of them?
David Kim refuses to see the truth. Even If Zerg makes the perfect attack he will SURELY loose something from WM detonations. Overlords? 3 lings per WM? Something like that. So at best case scenario, his ling/bling combo will kill bio and WMs but will probably be too weak too to make a counter or something. At worst case scenario ofc, bio stims and kills everything afterwards (which is the more usual one btw - unless u expect for Diamond to Bronze Zerg to have 400 APM). The case that a WM will kill all.. medivacs of a suicidical Terran player (Stephano style) only happen once on every 100 games. If David Kim thinks that that's enough, I rest my case.
On June 13 2013 19:59 teodoreh wrote: And how exactly WMsBanelings are rewarding for both sides? Which terranZerg gives a crap if he looses a 7550/25 unit or ten of them?
David Kim refuses to see the truth. Even If ZergTerran makes the perfect attackdefense he will SURELY loose something from WMBaneling detonations.
Neither of those two units are particularly well designed. The WM is far less fun to watch compared to the Widow Mine and also doesnt really synergize well with any other army unit; the Baneling can be stacked in high enough numbers to require perfect micro from the defender while needing only minimal effort to use them well.
The only plus part about the Widow Mine is the fact that it is about the only unit which doesnt really have a critical number ... because it isnt really an army unit at all (even though it costs supply).
On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... ... To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. ...
Wouldn't it be simpler to change the maps to feature much narrower paths so that number of units required to efficiently defend is reduced, hence attackers will have to multi-prong multiple locations to breach rather than bashing into a meat grinder?
Or would force-field be too dominant on such maps? Still, one spell change and map changes sounds simpler than altering pathfinding and all splash damages in the game.
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
Am I the only one who feels it's wrong that in the end we'll have the following :
Damage : 35 (+ 15 vs Armored) (+15 vs shield) (+10 vs Psionic) (insert another exception damage)
No, you are not. I've argued elsewhere in the thread why this particular idea is silly.
SC2 is a different game from BW. Mech will likely not work in the same way. It's time to let go of that particular Tank fetish.
And adopt a clearly superior hellbat/widowmine fetish.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
More action = A higher amount of engagements =/ more units dying.
If there is a higher degree of small engagements, it is entirely possible that less units will be killed in the proces. Having critical numbers is an extremely important element in "match-up"-design, as it incentivies the opponent to army trade.
The other important element in match-updesign is to give the the opponent the required tools to army trade efficiently. If those requirements are fulfilled we will see very few deathball engagement and lots of action.
The degree of micro required in battles are very much uncorrelated to the amount of engagements. Instead quality of engagements can be improved by a better "unit-design". It is important to disguisnish unit-design from matchup-design as both of them can be optimized simultaneously.
I don't think David Kim fully understands the depth of match-up design, but his philosophy is more sound than most people give him credit for.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
More action = A higher amount of engagements =/ more units dying.
If there is a higher degree of small engagements, it is entirely possible that less units will be killed in the proces. Having critical numbers is an extremely important element in "match-up"-design, as it incentivies the opponent to army trade.
The other important element in match-updesign is to give the the opponent the required tools to army trade efficiently. If those requirements are fulfilled we will see very few deathball engagement and lots of action.
The degree of micro required in battles are very much uncorrelated to the amount of engagements. Instead quality of engagements can be improved by a better "unit-design". It is important to disguisnish unit-design from matchup-design as both of them can be optimized simultaneously.
I don't think David Kim fully understands the depth of match-up design, but his philosophy is more sound than most people give him credit for.
"More smaller engagements" is something that you have to FORCE, because the whole reason behind the deathball or the "one big clump of army" is the same logic that is also behind the critical number. At a certain point units get much more efficient with a bigger clump and that enables this clump to simply crush their opponent with a smaller clump. The players WANT that ... according to Dustin Browder (from one of his China interviews). It is a silly logic if you ask me, but then I am not a lead designer for SC2.
The big question is ... How do you make people go for "lots of small engagements" instead of the big army? Terran Siege Tank mech is super immobile and thus that kind of a deathball has its serious drawback (plus the vulnerability to air). There are no drawbacks that are as big for any other deathball, so a really big change seems necessary to entice players into engaging with smaller forces. In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army.
The only chance for units which are efficient in small groups is harrassment units (or tactics), BUT they can never be made that powerful because any such power multiplies if you create a whole army out of that unit. Hellbat drops have shown us evaporating Protoss armies if they are dropped on top of them en masse.
I disagree with you on the "better unit design", because we have units which can - and should - be microed, BUT that is ignored totally because of the power of reproduction ... in massive numbers. If you only have one Stalker you will micro it against those three Marines, but if there are 10 Stalkers against 30 Marines it doesnt make sense to stutter-step because the Marines will simply evaporate one of them each time the Stalkers stop and they get in range of the huge number of Marines. Thus reducing the numbers of units on the battlefield seems the much better option. Micro will always be lost as long as it is easier to reproduce a unit than to keep it alive.
A question: Give me an example of a "tool to trade army efficiently". That is just an empty phrase unless you can fill it with some "meat". I cant really come up with anything other than "powerful AoE" to discourage clumps of armies and Blizzard seems extremely unwilling to do that since they leave the Siege Tank at its pitifully low damage output. Adding too much power to such units will make them far too powerful if you can "discourage" your opponent from going for a deathball, but at the same time you yourself will be using your units which can trade efficiently at a maximum concentration ... because that is exactly the CRITICAL NUMBERS PROBLEM ... units will simply become untouchable. For an "immobile" unit which doesnt shoot air - like the Siege Tank - that isnt the case as much, but all other similar units are much more mobile.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
To the above quote: 1 and 2 are covered pretty well in WarCraft III. The high tempo of StarCraft II is part of what seperates players skill-wise.
Anyway, there's a lot of complaining that Widow Mines requires a lot of micro from the defending (Zerg) player and none for the Terran player. That is quite untrue. In the pro scene, Widow Mines have lost some popularity and impact, because Zerg players are better at playing around them and even using them against the Terran players. Players like Innovation still makes good use of them, because his sense of positioning as well as micro is extremely good. To say that Widow Mines doesn't require micro is false, basically due to the way they work, which is: When a unit comes withing range, the mine locks onto it and fires after 1.5 second, provided the unit is still within range. During that 1.5 second delay, you can manually target another unit for the mine to lock onto, which starts a new 1.5 second timer before launch. This means that if you don't micro your Widow Mines, you participate in a lottery much the same as an opponent who doesn't micro against it. You aren't sure to get anything good out of it, if you just blindly burrow and leave them there.
"More smaller engagements" is something that you have to FORCE, because the whole reason behind the deathball or the "one big clump of army" is the same logic that is also behind the critical number. At a certain point units get much more efficient with a bigger clump and that enables this clump to simply crush their opponent with a smaller clump. The players WANT that ... according to Dustin Browder (from one of his China interviews). It is a silly logic if you ask me, but then I am not a lead designer for SC2.
The big question is ... How do you make people go for "lots of small engagements" instead of the big army? Terran Siege Tank mech is super immobile and thus that kind of a deathball has its serious drawback (plus the vulnerability to air). There are no drawbacks that are as big for any other deathball, so a really big change seems necessary to entice players into engaging with smaller forces. In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army.
In the below thread I covered that question quite extensively; (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=291) Overall, you have some points, but I think that if you read my posts you'll realize the importance making a disctinction between what is cost-effective and what is efficient. Thus are two very different terms. Action will occur when player x assess that he can trade armies efficiently. In that assseesment he is weighting incentivizes against the potential of taking an cost-ineffective trade.
The key-takeway is that a terran player is more likely to engage a protoss player that is in the proces of obtaining a critical mass of collosus (for instance), than engaging against a player which didn't benfit from scale (certeris paribus). Thus the "critical unit-element" is a very important aspect of game design as it incentivies the opponent to army-trade even though he may take a cost-ineffive trade in the proces.
It is important to note though, that neither player must benefit from critical numbers to the same degree as that will result in neither of them having a strong incentive to army trade.
If you only have one Stalker you will micro it against those three Marines, but if there are 10 Stalkers against 30 Marines it doesnt make sense to stutter-step because the Marines will simply evaporate one of them each time the Stalkers stop and they get in range of the huge number of Marines. Thus reducing the numbers of units on the battlefield seems the much better option. Micro will always be lost as long as it is easier to reproduce a unit than to keep it alive.
But in terms of unit-design we can give players new micro-opportunities as the game progresses; For instance blink, HT, Reavers or redesigned collosus etc. There are many ways to increase the micro requirements throughout the entire game. It's just a different type of micro, and to be honest I see that as a good thing as watching only stupper step throughout the entire game might be a bit boring.
Btw, I don't want to defend Dustin Browder. I think time has shown that he has a pretty bad understanding of both matchup-design (swarm hosts and tempests doesn't exactly create good games) and unit design (collosus and forcefields are quite boring).
In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army.
I think yoou may be mixing things together different here. High economy doesn't matter in it self. The only metric that matters is the ratio of army food/bases. A worse economy will decrease the above metric and therefore force players to spread them selves thinner. This will benefit the race that has the incentivize to army-trade (it will buff his tools).
When his tools are strong, action is more likely to occur (assuming his incentivie is unchanged).
However, I think the point you are missing is that it doesn't really matter whether the one player wants to keep his army in a deathball (or whether he wants to spread it out). What matters instead,is the strenght of the tools available from the opponent to army trade/harass efifciently against the defensive player (that benefits from scale). If his tools are significantly strong then action will occur regardless, and if his tools are "mobility-based" then multitasking will occur and the defensive player will be forced (despite what he wants to) to spread out his army.
It is important to note that the army size/bases-ratio is just one way to increase the relative mobility disadvantage of the defensive player. Buffing the mobility of the opposing player can create the same effect (if done correctly).
Give me an example of a "tool to trade army efficiently". That is just an empty phrase unless you can fill it with some "meat".
I gave a lot of examples in the second post of the thread I referred to.
On June 13 2013 19:59 teodoreh wrote: And how exactly WMsBanelings are rewarding for both sides? Which terranZerg gives a crap if he looses a 7550/25 unit or ten of them?
David Kim refuses to see the truth. Even If ZergTerran makes the perfect attackdefense he will SURELY loose something from WMBaneling detonations.
Neither of those two units are particularly well designed. The WM is far less fun to watch compared to the Widow Mine and also doesnt really synergize well with any other army unit; the Baneling can be stacked in high enough numbers to require perfect micro from the defender while needing only minimal effort to use them well.
The only plus part about the Widow Mine is the fact that it is about the only unit which doesnt really have a critical number ... because it isnt really an army unit at all (even though it costs supply).
Any number of widow mines is a critical number so it does not really count? Besides critical number is not essentially a bad thing, it basically just mean that unit function differently in small, medium and large numbers. Which creates variance in engagements which actually better for gameplay imo, if you always knew how your unit would function in an engangement it would reward the player who sat on his/her ass and built a heavier tech army.
Yeah , and wm doesn' synergize with other units? WTF! Innovation got it all wrong then? I mean what were you thinking when wrote that. Besides you mean banelings can be stack so one tank can kill them?
All of a sudden, I think many of the points brought up in this daily become important:
Specifically; even if a unit can be very strong, a unit is just a piece of a much larger puzzle. I think it's really important to look at the large puzzle before anything else. To the credit of DK, when talking about Hellbats, he did indeed refer to the timings of hellbats drops instead of hellbats or just medivacs alone.
On June 12 2013 13:58 _Search_ wrote: Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!!
Recently Protosses finally figured out that Zergs aren't allowed to kill air units and we're seeing ridiculously unfair no-risk hatchery snipes with recalled Void Rays. Expect that to increase as the meta stagnates.
Blizzard NEEDS to get on top of their game. It is far from balanced, it is quickly getting stale.
Roach bane stuff counters greedy play into bio mines (which up until then seemed a bit too strong). Is this a bad thing? I don't understand your comment. It's too early still to know if widow mines are a problem, and since a very possible counter has been found they just got less scary.
As for Voidrays, they have plenty of counters. Hydra timings, mutas, queens, mutas + corruptors. For instance, why shouldn't zerg need to save up larva and gas and mass pump mutas to counter them? Maybe Zergs have to open air by default - or open with overlord speed to scout what is up. Voidrays have far from been proven to be overpowered, and they are certainly killable if you have the right units.
On June 13 2013 19:59 teodoreh wrote: And how exactly WMsBanelings are rewarding for both sides? Which terranZerg gives a crap if he looses a 7550/25 unit or ten of them?
David Kim refuses to see the truth. Even If ZergTerran makes the perfect attackdefense he will SURELY loose something from WMBaneling detonations.
Neither of those two units are particularly well designed. The WM is far less fun to watch compared to the Widow Mine and also doesnt really synergize well with any other army unit; the Baneling can be stacked in high enough numbers to require perfect micro from the defender while needing only minimal effort to use them well.
The only plus part about the Widow Mine is the fact that it is about the only unit which doesnt really have a critical number ... because it isnt really an army unit at all (even though it costs supply).
lol you dare to compare WMs with banelings? A (i) ranged, (ii) automated, (iii) air&ground (iv) cloaked (v) non-suicidal unit? No you don't..
On June 12 2013 13:58 _Search_ wrote: Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!!
Recently Protosses finally figured out that Zergs aren't allowed to kill air units and we're seeing ridiculously unfair no-risk hatchery snipes with recalled Void Rays. Expect that to increase as the meta stagnates.
Blizzard NEEDS to get on top of their game. It is far from balanced, it is quickly getting stale.
Roach bane stuff counters greedy play into bio mines (which up until then seemed a bit too strong). Is this a bad thing? I don't understand your comment. It's too early still to know if widow mines are a problem, and since a very possible counter has been found they just got less scary.
As for Voidrays, they have plenty of counters. Hydra timings, mutas, queens, mutas + corruptors. For instance, why shouldn't zerg need to save up larva and gas and mass pump mutas to counter them? Maybe Zergs have to open air by default - or open with overlord speed to scout what is up. Voidrays have far from been proven to be overpowered, and they are certainly killable if you have the right units.
I don't understand why people think the roach/bane play is some desperate move because zerg can't win. Soulkey did it because the current terran builds were so greedy. Fast cc into factory, into double Ebay and four raxs' all at once, followed by a third CC. All on the back of 6 hellions.
It was a build that way beyond greedy and got punished for being so. its how the meta works out.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new. The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point.
I also don't agree with making the fights slower. The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2. If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting. It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
You don't get small engagements when it is a much superior strategy to take advantage of unit critical mass. People just build up to that mass and voila, you have deathballs.
I think balancing with maps is the way to go. Maps with more chokes will favour smaller engagements imo. Then you can have battles like in the movie 300 if a player decides to push up a choke with his whole army against smaller but better positioned squad.
TLDR:
More chokes, tighter chokes = less deathball. Also fuck Collosi cliff-walking; completely disregards chokes.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
I always find it funny that everyone thinks the infinite limit on unit selection is a progress of technology when during the original design all the way back in Warcraft I there was no upper limit design issue originally, and it was a design choice by the team to limit unit selection capabilities as explained below.
I believe that Warcraft was the first game to use this user-interface metaphor. When I first implemented the feature it was possible to select and control large numbers of units at a time; there was no upper limit on the number of units that could be selected.
While selecting and controlling one hundred units at a time demonstrated terrible weaknesses in the simple path-finding algorithm I had implemented, after I got the basic algorithms working I nevertheless spent hours selecting units and dispatching game units to destinations around the map instead of writing more code; it was the coolest feature I had ever created in my programming career up to that time!
Later in the development process, and after many design arguments between team-members, we decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II. Command and Conquer, the spiritual successor to Dune 2, didn’t have any upper bound on the number of units that could be selected. It’s worth another article to talk about the design ramifications, for sure.
Apart from the ability to control multiple units at one time, at this phase Warcraft resembled nothing so much as a stripped-down version of Dune 2, so much so that I defensively joked that, while Warcraft was certainly inspired by Dune 2, the game was radically different — our radar minimap was in the upper-left corner of the screen, whereas theirs was in the lower-right corner.
"More smaller engagements" is something that you have to FORCE, because the whole reason behind the deathball or the "one big clump of army" is the same logic that is also behind the critical number. At a certain point units get much more efficient with a bigger clump and that enables this clump to simply crush their opponent with a smaller clump. The players WANT that ... according to Dustin Browder (from one of his China interviews). It is a silly logic if you ask me, but then I am not a lead designer for SC2.
The big question is ... How do you make people go for "lots of small engagements" instead of the big army? Terran Siege Tank mech is super immobile and thus that kind of a deathball has its serious drawback (plus the vulnerability to air). There are no drawbacks that are as big for any other deathball, so a really big change seems necessary to entice players into engaging with smaller forces. In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army.
In the below thread I covered that question quite extensively; (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=291) Overall, you have some points, but I think that if you read my posts you'll realize the importance making a disctinction between what is cost-effective and what is efficient. Thus are two very different terms. Action will occur when player x assess that he can trade armies efficiently. In that assseesment he is weighting incentivizes against the potential of taking an cost-ineffective trade.
The key-takeway is that a terran player is more likely to engage a protoss player that is in the proces of obtaining a critical mass of collosus (for instance), than engaging against a player which didn't benfit from scale (certeris paribus). Thus the "critical unit-element" is a very important aspect of game design as it incentivies the opponent to army-trade even though he may take a cost-ineffive trade in the proces.
It is important to note though, that neither player must benefit from critical numbers to the same degree as that will result in neither of them having a strong incentive to army trade.
If you only have one Stalker you will micro it against those three Marines, but if there are 10 Stalkers against 30 Marines it doesnt make sense to stutter-step because the Marines will simply evaporate one of them each time the Stalkers stop and they get in range of the huge number of Marines. Thus reducing the numbers of units on the battlefield seems the much better option. Micro will always be lost as long as it is easier to reproduce a unit than to keep it alive.
But in terms of unit-design we can give players new micro-opportunities as the game progresses; For instance blink, HT, Reavers or redesigned collosus etc. There are many ways to increase the micro requirements throughout the entire game. It's just a different type of micro, and to be honest I see that as a good thing as watching only stupper step throughout the entire game might be a bit boring.
Btw, I don't want to defend Dustin Browder. I think time has shown that he has a pretty bad understanding of both matchup-design (swarm hosts and tempests doesn't exactly create good games) and unit design (collosus and forcefields are quite boring).
In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army.
I think yoou may be mixing things together different here. High economy doesn't matter in it self. The only metric that matters is the ratio of army food/bases. A worse economy will decrease the above metric and therefore force players to spread them selves thinner. This will benefit the race that has the incentivize to army-trade (it will buff his tools).
When his tools are strong, action is more likely to occur (assuming his incentivie is unchanged).
However, I think the point you are missing is that it doesn't really matter whether the one player wants to keep his army in a deathball (or whether he wants to spread it out). What matters instead,is the strenght of the tools available from the opponent to army trade/harass efifciently against the defensive player (that benefits from scale). If his tools are significantly strong then action will occur regardless, and if his tools are "mobility-based" then multitasking will occur and the defensive player will be forced (despite what he wants to) to spread out his army.
It is important to note that the army size/bases-ratio is just one way to increase the relative mobility disadvantage of the defensive player. Buffing the mobility of the opposing player can create the same effect (if done correctly).
Give me an example of a "tool to trade army efficiently". That is just an empty phrase unless you can fill it with some "meat".
I gave a lot of examples in the second post of the thread I referred to.
1. Your theory of "adding incentives to be aggressive" sounds nice, but is stupid, because the bottom line of this - as your Terran example shows - is a whole lot of "don't let them get there" strategies. That is silly for an RTS where you *should have* units to deal with any threat ... in every stage of the game ... and with every race. That keeps the design of the game nice and simple. The "kill Zerg early" tactic of Terrans was only devised because it was the only way to win. You can't add such a "threatening unit combo where others have to kill you before you get there" for all three races, because that would result in a possible "both players decide NOT to harrass and focus on getting the max army" scenarios ... which is the opposite of "forcing more action". Only one race can have the advantage over the other.
2. I have no idea what examples you are referring to and if you are incapable of copying them from your own post then that isnt my problem. I am not going to go through all your posts and guess what you are talking about, because then I would be answering to something completely different.
3. BW has a MUCH smaller economy and games there involve a much lower unit density, so please dont try to tell me that I have got it wrong.
4. Hint: Blink is a NECESSARY "microing tool" to make the Stalker worthwile against mass Marines or Zerglings. You seem to have missed that point and are still thinking that it is a neat microing trick which they added because it was cute.
5. Critical numbers are BAD ... VERY BAD for game design, because they imporve the unit efficiency by a large margin and thus change the balancing of the unit. Get rid of the notion that the game can work with them or that they can be used as an incentive to force someone to attack an opponent.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
They aren't going to totally revamp the entire game two months after HotS came out. You do realize that removing Reactors, MULEs, Warpgate, Inject, Creep, and all that other stuff would utterly change literally every single aspect of the game, right? It's just not going to happen.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
They aren't going to totally revamp the entire game two months after HotS came out. You do realize that removing Reactors, MULEs, Warpgate, Inject, Creep, and all that other stuff would utterly change literally every single aspect of the game, right? It's just not going to happen.
Rabiator doesn't really care about what is possible or if things could destroy the game as we know it. He likes to be an arm chair game designer and provide all the "reasons" why SC2 is not "amazing". Of course, he also thinks that BW was mechanically easier than SC2 and more accessible.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo.
Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!!
what do you mean? each game had a distinctly different all-in. two of them worked.
remember zvt before the queen/overlord patch? Z opened 4 queens every game then flipped a coin, it was either 2 base lair or roach baneling all in. Terran could easily outgreed the 2-base lair builds (extra CCs and e-bays before making units), and the only thing keeping them honest was the threat that z would roach bust him a little under half the time.
the patch addressed that by letting zerg out of his base, but was generally considered to be overkill because no one really knew just how good creep was, because they never had the means to get it truly out of control.
what about subtle changes to units secondary stats. acceleration. damage point. range slop. Change the way the units feel under your control, without drastically changing their stats.
Not seeing enough oracles? better acceleration lets them dip and dive more easily without giving the capability of singlehandedly annihilating a worker line. Maybe they'd be better at casting revelation without dying. At worst, you still don't see enough of them, but when you do see them they are cool to watch.
Hellbats killing worker line too quickly, but playing the proper role in midgame and lategame? Increase the delay on their attack, and adjust cooldown so its the same DPS but starts later. More time to pull workers away from it as the medivac flies overhead. More possible to reactively micro against them. Ironically might be a buff against lings/zealots (see thread on blinding cloud vs hellbats: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405902)
while we're at it, look at the acceleration for BCs, carriers, banshees and broodlords. maybe void rays, mutalisks, and medivacs too.
Good post. Acceleration changes on units (Oracle at the least) and the delay on attack for hellbats makes a great deal of sense from where I am sitting.
I don't understand why people think the roach/bane play is some desperate move because zerg can't win. Soulkey did it because the current terran builds were so greedy. Fast cc into factory, into double Ebay and four raxs' all at once, followed by a third CC. All on the back of 6 hellions.
It was a build that way beyond greedy and got punished for being so. its how the meta works out.
Not according to what I've seen. Often times, T will stick to 4Ms and expand as they trade Z will have to improve the unit composition in order to beat the same (but more) army. As Z dries out or fails to secure more bases Z seem to fighting against the clock.
I don't think the match up is off-balance statistically. All in or not, I expect better players win in TvZs. But having one race as an attacker and the other as a defender/receiver throughout the game seems a bit too much. Example: I miss mutalisks wrecking havoc in terran bases. Haven't seen those for so long.
On June 14 2013 01:12 plogamer wrote: I think balancing with maps is the way to go. Maps with more chokes will favour smaller engagements imo. Then you can have battles like in the movie 300 if a player decides to push up a choke with his whole army against smaller but better positioned squad.
TLDR:
More chokes, tighter chokes = less deathball. Also fuck Collosi cliff-walking; completely disregards chokes.
I agree but then we would have to think about a way to deal with force-field because that spell would become too powerful.
But it's still lot easier/elegant to implement than overhauling pathfinding IMO.
David Kim is just talking to back his own game, PvT I feel is in a worse state than WoL. Before there was actually more action going on from the protoss side, protoss is even more forced into a defend drops and win when the ball is complete type of play. Stargate is a failure in the matchup, it's completely gimmicky and the mothership core is never used for timings/harassment with recall, literally haven't seen it once in progame.. It's not going to get fixed in HotS though, maybe some small stargate / drop buffs for P and slight drop nerfs for T but the matchup will remain the worst of the non-mirrors.
I do agree voidrays are in an excellent spot, not overpowered and seeing the right amount of use making stargate a nice alternative in both PvP and PvZ. If only it could work in PvT and actually see protoss using meaningfull air plays except the '2 oracles and hope i surprise you' gimmickness. Widow mines are fine too on a balance level but I don't think them replacing siege tanks in TvZ is better for the game. I had rather seen them be complimentary in some way.
All in all balance is pretty much fine now and most matchups are ok but there are definately improvements to be made. PvT needs to be more dynamic especially from the P side, ZvT could see some more strat diversity and TvT needs some hellbat drop change. Just a small general drop nerf for T is probably the best move, they are showing signs of slightly being too strong and it just benefits the game if drop defense wouldn't be the only focus when playing against terran.
Mine burrowed (was active, not on cooldown), my units were in range (i could see the mine without detection) but for 3 secs nothing happened and i just moved my units away...
They don't even fire if something is in range some times. I love this as a Zerg player, but it's kinda random.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
I always find it funny that everyone thinks the infinite limit on unit selection is a progress of technology when during the original design all the way back in Warcraft I there was no upper limit design issue originally, and it was a design choice by the team to limit unit selection capabilities as explained below.
I believe that Warcraft was the first game to use this user-interface metaphor. When I first implemented the feature it was possible to select and control large numbers of units at a time; there was no upper limit on the number of units that could be selected. [b] While selecting and controlling one hundred units at a time demonstrated terrible weaknesses in the simple path-finding algorithm I had implemented[/b], after I got the basic algorithms working I nevertheless spent hours selecting units and dispatching game units to destinations around the map instead of writing more code; it was the coolest feature I had ever created in my programming career up to that time!
Later in the development process, and after many design arguments between team-members, we decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II. Command and Conquer, the spiritual successor to Dune 2, didn’t have any upper bound on the number of units that could be selected. It’s worth another article to talk about the design ramifications, for sure.
Apart from the ability to control multiple units at one time, at this phase Warcraft resembled nothing so much as a stripped-down version of Dune 2, so much so that I defensively joked that, while Warcraft was certainly inspired by Dune 2, the game was radically different — our radar minimap was in the upper-left corner of the screen, whereas theirs was in the lower-right corner.
high lighted and underline the important part. I mean if we just look at some of the classic RTS games, most have limits on their selections and even earlier iteration you cannot even select more than 1. Technological limits is definitely at effect here.
Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers, and it have very little social options. Team modes are way too imbalance and Blizzard should have strive team mode to be as balance as it can be.
Most people, including myself, played wc3 solely for team games. Its casual and fun, but not so much for sc2. Blizz should add things specifically for team games (such as units) that will make the experience much more balance and enjoyable. For instance, some sort of recall options or specialized defend structures.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new. The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point.
I also don't agree with making the fights slower. The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2. If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting. It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever.
I will continue to "crusade" for limited unit selection until it isnt necessary anymore, because of the reasons I have explained many times. Unlimited unit selection allows for critical numbers, which will shift the efficiency of some units (or unit combinations) to a super efficient amount and it is the core reason for thepower (compared to the user-friendliness) of the deathball. So far no one seems to try and argue that I am wrong and all people say is "it will never happen" or "boohoo I am too lazy to use several control groups and technology has advanced, boohoo".
The questions you have to ask yourself: Does "more action" and "more deaths" limit the gameplay in some way? Do those things have drawbacks? Personally I think they do, because more units mean you - as a player - have to spend a lot of attention on macro instead of your army and as a consequence of having soo many units it is easier to rebuild them instead of trying to save them. I dont like that, because I believe it is the wrong focus for the game. The example which I always bring is "2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings" fighting each other and one player winning with both his Zerglings alive. That is what I would love to see more, but the current focus on production and economy directly counters the "small numbers quality play". You are free to have a different preference for the game, but be warned ... you can not have everything in such a game ... large armies AND super micro with few units is impossible, because there are just too many units.
You say it yourself ... the fights are "fast and volatile" ... and I see the risk of introducing a kind of randomness into the game which should not be there. Games should be decided by skill and not being lucky in one deciding split-second. "Skill" in this case should be "skill at using units" and not "skill at building lots of stuff".
Everyone has their preferences and these are mine ...
----
On June 14 2013 09:46 iky43210 wrote: Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers,
A part of the reason for the difficulty of SC2 is the unlimited unit selection IMO, because newbies can become overwhelmed by sheer numbers (kinda like a shark faced with a swarm of fish) AND if they play against some other newbie who just happens to have a slightly better grasp of that concept he will lose. Limiting it to 12 units is a nice small amount and balances both sides ... oh and we could do it "back in the days", so why are you kiddies unable to do it? Pure laziness IMO.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo.
It is a lot harder IF you change the movement system to make flying units drift apart rather fast like they did in BW. Then you have to click A LOT and that requires skill.
After the changes I propose air units will be the only ones which can actually reach a critical number, because they can still stack on top of each other. As long as you agree with me that critical numbers are bad and should be removed you will have to agree with me on those changes (forced unit spreading while moving + limited unit selection + redcuced economy and production) being an improvement.
Part of the solution is also to limit the production and getting to 24 Void Rays on a lower economy without Chronoboost will be tricky at least, because you still have to defend your bases with other stuff. Only Zerg would be reasonable able to do such a "nearly instant" production of a critical number (of Mutalisks) due to the larva based nature of the production ... but I think that is ok without larva inject since the Mutalisk isnt as powerful as a Void Ray IMO (lower range - compared to the VR - means they have to get into dangerous terrain much more).
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
You can't argue that decreased unit selection would be hindering the user via the UI and hence a step backwards in technology, can you?
On June 14 2013 08:50 Chemist wrote: Widowmine needs redesign, it's completly fu***up.
Mine burrowed (was active, not on cooldown), my units were in range (i could see the mine without detection) but for 3 secs nothing happened and i just moved my units away...
They don't even fire if something is in range some times. I love this as a Zerg player, but it's kinda random.
Widow mine has a sort of 'lock on' time, if the unit it was locked on to moved out of it's lock on range before the mine fires then it will change target and not fire.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new. The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point.
I also don't agree with making the fights slower. The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2. If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting. It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever.
I will continue to "crusade" for limited unit selection until it isnt necessary anymore, because of the reasons I have explained many times. Unlimited unit selection allows for critical numbers, which will shift the efficiency of some units (or unit combinations) to a super efficient amount and it is the core reason for thepower (compared to the user-friendliness) of the deathball. So far no one seems to try and argue that I am wrong and all people say is "it will never happen" or "boohoo I am too lazy to use several control groups and technology has advanced, boohoo".
The questions you have to ask yourself: Does "more action" and "more deaths" limit the gameplay in some way? Do those things have drawbacks? Personally I think they do, because more units mean you - as a player - have to spend a lot of attention on macro instead of your army and as a consequence of having soo many units it is easier to rebuild them instead of trying to save them. I dont like that, because I believe it is the wrong focus for the game. The example which I always bring is "2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings" fighting each other and one player winning with both his Zerglings alive. That is what I would love to see more, but the current focus on production and economy directly counters the "small numbers quality play". You are free to have a different preference for the game, but be warned ... you can not have everything in such a game ... large armies AND super micro with few units is impossible, because there are just too many units.
You say it yourself ... the fights are "fast and volatile" ... and I see the risk of introducing a kind of randomness into the game which should not be there. Games should be decided by skill and not being lucky in one deciding split-second. "Skill" in this case should be "skill at using units" and not "skill at building lots of stuff".
Everyone has their preferences and these are mine ...
On June 14 2013 09:46 iky43210 wrote: Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers,
A part of the reason for the difficulty of SC2 is the unlimited unit selection IMO, because newbies can become overwhelmed by sheer numbers (kinda like a shark faced with a swarm of fish) AND if they play against some other newbie who just happens to have a slightly better grasp of that concept he will lose. Limiting it to 12 units is a nice small amount and balances both sides ... oh and we could do it "back in the days", so why are you kiddies unable to do it? Pure laziness IMO.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo.
It is a lot harder IF you change the movement system to make flying units drift apart rather fast like they did in BW. Then you have to click A LOT and that requires skill.
After the changes I propose air units will be the only ones which can actually reach a critical number, because they can still stack on top of each other. As long as you agree with me that critical numbers are bad and should be removed you will have to agree with me on those changes (forced unit spreading while moving + limited unit selection + redcuced economy and production) being an improvement.
Part of the solution is also to limit the production and getting to 24 Void Rays on a lower economy without Chronoboost will be tricky at least, because you still have to defend your bases with other stuff. Only Zerg would be reasonable able to do such a "nearly instant" production of a critical number (of Mutalisks) due to the larva based nature of the production ... but I think that is ok without larva inject since the Mutalisk isnt as powerful as a Void Ray IMO (lower range - compared to the VR - means they have to get into dangerous terrain much more).
Yes, please change the entire game to make a point.
Why do you keep posting about something that just won't happen. Just make your own damn game. At least try and keep it relatively possible
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new. The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point.
I also don't agree with making the fights slower. The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2. If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting. It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever.
I will continue to "crusade" for limited unit selection until it isnt necessary anymore, because of the reasons I have explained many times. Unlimited unit selection allows for critical numbers, which will shift the efficiency of some units (or unit combinations) to a super efficient amount and it is the core reason for thepower (compared to the user-friendliness) of the deathball. So far no one seems to try and argue that I am wrong and all people say is "it will never happen" or "boohoo I am too lazy to use several control groups and technology has advanced, boohoo".
The questions you have to ask yourself: Does "more action" and "more deaths" limit the gameplay in some way? Do those things have drawbacks? Personally I think they do, because more units mean you - as a player - have to spend a lot of attention on macro instead of your army and as a consequence of having soo many units it is easier to rebuild them instead of trying to save them. I dont like that, because I believe it is the wrong focus for the game. The example which I always bring is "2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings" fighting each other and one player winning with both his Zerglings alive. That is what I would love to see more, but the current focus on production and economy directly counters the "small numbers quality play". You are free to have a different preference for the game, but be warned ... you can not have everything in such a game ... large armies AND super micro with few units is impossible, because there are just too many units.
You say it yourself ... the fights are "fast and volatile" ... and I see the risk of introducing a kind of randomness into the game which should not be there. Games should be decided by skill and not being lucky in one deciding split-second. "Skill" in this case should be "skill at using units" and not "skill at building lots of stuff".
Everyone has their preferences and these are mine ...
----
On June 14 2013 09:46 iky43210 wrote: Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers,
A part of the reason for the difficulty of SC2 is the unlimited unit selection IMO, because newbies can become overwhelmed by sheer numbers (kinda like a shark faced with a swarm of fish) AND if they play against some other newbie who just happens to have a slightly better grasp of that concept he will lose. Limiting it to 12 units is a nice small amount and balances both sides ... oh and we could do it "back in the days", so why are you kiddies unable to do it? Pure laziness IMO.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo.
It is a lot harder IF you change the movement system to make flying units drift apart rather fast like they did in BW. Then you have to click A LOT and that requires skill.
After the changes I propose air units will be the only ones which can actually reach a critical number, because they can still stack on top of each other. As long as you agree with me that critical numbers are bad and should be removed you will have to agree with me on those changes (forced unit spreading while moving + limited unit selection + redcuced economy and production) being an improvement.
Part of the solution is also to limit the production and getting to 24 Void Rays on a lower economy without Chronoboost will be tricky at least, because you still have to defend your bases with other stuff. Only Zerg would be reasonable able to do such a "nearly instant" production of a critical number (of Mutalisks) due to the larva based nature of the production ... but I think that is ok without larva inject since the Mutalisk isnt as powerful as a Void Ray IMO (lower range - compared to the VR - means they have to get into dangerous terrain much more).
Yes, please change the entire game to make a point.
Why do you keep posting about something that just won't happen. Just make your own damn game. At least try and keep it relatively possible
he just wishes we were still playing Brood war unfortunately we have moved on and this is the SC2 forum
On June 14 2013 17:48 Nekovivie wrote: Really stupid reasoning over mines replacing tanks.
'A Marine-Tank army is autowin against Zerg.'
Get real Blizzard, give some credit to the players involved here.
I think you greatly missinterprete what they were saying. DK's point was, that with marine/tank vs zerg it's much easier to just check the army sizes, watch the precombat positioning, and then you know which side will win the battle before the battle takes place. While with widow mines instead, you dont know because it depends a lot more on small micro moves.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new. The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point.
I also don't agree with making the fights slower. The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2. If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting. It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever.
I will continue to "crusade" for limited unit selection until it isnt necessary anymore, because of the reasons I have explained many times. Unlimited unit selection allows for critical numbers, which will shift the efficiency of some units (or unit combinations) to a super efficient amount and it is the core reason for thepower (compared to the user-friendliness) of the deathball. So far no one seems to try and argue that I am wrong and all people say is "it will never happen" or "boohoo I am too lazy to use several control groups and technology has advanced, boohoo".
The questions you have to ask yourself: Does "more action" and "more deaths" limit the gameplay in some way? Do those things have drawbacks? Personally I think they do, because more units mean you - as a player - have to spend a lot of attention on macro instead of your army and as a consequence of having soo many units it is easier to rebuild them instead of trying to save them. I dont like that, because I believe it is the wrong focus for the game. The example which I always bring is "2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings" fighting each other and one player winning with both his Zerglings alive. That is what I would love to see more, but the current focus on production and economy directly counters the "small numbers quality play". You are free to have a different preference for the game, but be warned ... you can not have everything in such a game ... large armies AND super micro with few units is impossible, because there are just too many units.
You say it yourself ... the fights are "fast and volatile" ... and I see the risk of introducing a kind of randomness into the game which should not be there. Games should be decided by skill and not being lucky in one deciding split-second. "Skill" in this case should be "skill at using units" and not "skill at building lots of stuff".
Everyone has their preferences and these are mine ...
On June 14 2013 09:46 iky43210 wrote: Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers,
A part of the reason for the difficulty of SC2 is the unlimited unit selection IMO, because newbies can become overwhelmed by sheer numbers (kinda like a shark faced with a swarm of fish) AND if they play against some other newbie who just happens to have a slightly better grasp of that concept he will lose. Limiting it to 12 units is a nice small amount and balances both sides ... oh and we could do it "back in the days", so why are you kiddies unable to do it? Pure laziness IMO.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo.
It is a lot harder IF you change the movement system to make flying units drift apart rather fast like they did in BW. Then you have to click A LOT and that requires skill.
After the changes I propose air units will be the only ones which can actually reach a critical number, because they can still stack on top of each other. As long as you agree with me that critical numbers are bad and should be removed you will have to agree with me on those changes (forced unit spreading while moving + limited unit selection + redcuced economy and production) being an improvement.
Part of the solution is also to limit the production and getting to 24 Void Rays on a lower economy without Chronoboost will be tricky at least, because you still have to defend your bases with other stuff. Only Zerg would be reasonable able to do such a "nearly instant" production of a critical number (of Mutalisks) due to the larva based nature of the production ... but I think that is ok without larva inject since the Mutalisk isnt as powerful as a Void Ray IMO (lower range - compared to the VR - means they have to get into dangerous terrain much more).
TL;DR, do yourself and everyone a favor and just go back to bw or make a mod lol
"More smaller engagements" is something that you have to FORCE, because the whole reason behind the deathball or the "one big clump of army" is the same logic that is also behind the critical number. At a certain point units get much more efficient with a bigger clump and that enables this clump to simply crush their opponent with a smaller clump. The players WANT that ... according to Dustin Browder (from one of his China interviews). It is a silly logic if you ask me, but then I am not a lead designer for SC2.
The big question is ... How do you make people go for "lots of small engagements" instead of the big army? Terran Siege Tank mech is super immobile and thus that kind of a deathball has its serious drawback (plus the vulnerability to air). There are no drawbacks that are as big for any other deathball, so a really big change seems necessary to entice players into engaging with smaller forces. In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army.
In the below thread I covered that question quite extensively; (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=291) Overall, you have some points, but I think that if you read my posts you'll realize the importance making a disctinction between what is cost-effective and what is efficient. Thus are two very different terms. Action will occur when player x assess that he can trade armies efficiently. In that assseesment he is weighting incentivizes against the potential of taking an cost-ineffective trade.
The key-takeway is that a terran player is more likely to engage a protoss player that is in the proces of obtaining a critical mass of collosus (for instance), than engaging against a player which didn't benfit from scale (certeris paribus). Thus the "critical unit-element" is a very important aspect of game design as it incentivies the opponent to army-trade even though he may take a cost-ineffive trade in the proces.
It is important to note though, that neither player must benefit from critical numbers to the same degree as that will result in neither of them having a strong incentive to army trade.
If you only have one Stalker you will micro it against those three Marines, but if there are 10 Stalkers against 30 Marines it doesnt make sense to stutter-step because the Marines will simply evaporate one of them each time the Stalkers stop and they get in range of the huge number of Marines. Thus reducing the numbers of units on the battlefield seems the much better option. Micro will always be lost as long as it is easier to reproduce a unit than to keep it alive.
But in terms of unit-design we can give players new micro-opportunities as the game progresses; For instance blink, HT, Reavers or redesigned collosus etc. There are many ways to increase the micro requirements throughout the entire game. It's just a different type of micro, and to be honest I see that as a good thing as watching only stupper step throughout the entire game might be a bit boring.
Btw, I don't want to defend Dustin Browder. I think time has shown that he has a pretty bad understanding of both matchup-design (swarm hosts and tempests doesn't exactly create good games) and unit design (collosus and forcefields are quite boring).
In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army.
I think yoou may be mixing things together different here. High economy doesn't matter in it self. The only metric that matters is the ratio of army food/bases. A worse economy will decrease the above metric and therefore force players to spread them selves thinner. This will benefit the race that has the incentivize to army-trade (it will buff his tools).
When his tools are strong, action is more likely to occur (assuming his incentivie is unchanged).
However, I think the point you are missing is that it doesn't really matter whether the one player wants to keep his army in a deathball (or whether he wants to spread it out). What matters instead,is the strenght of the tools available from the opponent to army trade/harass efifciently against the defensive player (that benefits from scale). If his tools are significantly strong then action will occur regardless, and if his tools are "mobility-based" then multitasking will occur and the defensive player will be forced (despite what he wants to) to spread out his army.
It is important to note that the army size/bases-ratio is just one way to increase the relative mobility disadvantage of the defensive player. Buffing the mobility of the opposing player can create the same effect (if done correctly).
Give me an example of a "tool to trade army efficiently". That is just an empty phrase unless you can fill it with some "meat".
I gave a lot of examples in the second post of the thread I referred to.
1. Your theory of "adding incentives to be aggressive" sounds nice, but is stupid, because the bottom line of this - as your Terran example shows - is a whole lot of "don't let them get there" strategies. That is silly for an RTS where you *should have* units to deal with any threat ... in every stage of the game ... and with every race. That keeps the design of the game nice and simple. The "kill Zerg early" tactic of Terrans was only devised because it was the only way to win. You can't add such a "threatening unit combo where others have to kill you before you get there" for all three races, because that would result in a possible "both players decide NOT to harrass and focus on getting the max army" scenarios ... which is the opposite of "forcing more action". Only one race can have the advantage over the other.
2. I have no idea what examples you are referring to and if you are incapable of copying them from your own post then that isnt my problem. I am not going to go through all your posts and guess what you are talking about, because then I would be answering to something completely different.
3. BW has a MUCH smaller economy and games there involve a much lower unit density, so please dont try to tell me that I have got it wrong.
4. Hint: Blink is a NECESSARY "microing tool" to make the Stalker worthwile against mass Marines or Zerglings. You seem to have missed that point and are still thinking that it is a neat microing trick which they added because it was cute.
5. Critical numbers are BAD ... VERY BAD for game design, because they imporve the unit efficiency by a large margin and thus change the balancing of the unit. Get rid of the notion that the game can work with them or that they can be used as an incentive to force someone to attack an opponent.
I will quote my posts instead then. But the reason I linked was that the posts are really long. But if you had read (and understood) the second properly you would realize that your 1st and 5th are already adressed in my post. The key is to create a dynamic matchup with the clock switching sides over the course of a game. This means that there is no longer any such thing as a "don't let him get there". Instead, there will be a new concept :"you have to do damage(either direct or indirect) before he gets there".
Regarding your point 4: Honestly I don't get your point here. I think in my last post I clearly stated that the addition of blink worked as a substitute for kiting. That just prooves that you can still have micro (but a different kind of) without changing the density of units as long as the unit design is good enough. Is your point that it is bad game-design if kiting stalkers isn't rewarding throughout the entire game?
On June 05 2013 19:50 Hider wrote: Introduction (to a long post) I have for a long time wanted to write a post discussing how we can make the game even more awesome and fun to play and watch. However, while I always feel like I have understood some of the ingredients required in awesome games, I didn't really feel like I properly understood the whole package. But after having thought about gamedynamic/design on a daily basis for a couple of months, I think I have obtained a decent knowledge of the various factors which determine how players play during a matchup.
Therefore I have written a quite lenghty post where I discuss the neccesary factors, relate them to Starbow and come up with suggestions and how we can improve Starbow. To limit myself, this post will only focus on the TvZ matchup.
Let me first try try to present the elements I want to see in a matchup.
1) A very action- and multitaskpacked game where Tasteless wouldn't have time to talk about his favourite pokemon (which implies that there is also action early in the game). 2) A game where different types of strategies for each race are viable (players can opt between offensive and defensive strategies) 3) A dynamic matchup where both races have viable options to pressure/attack/harass the opponent. It shouldn't just be a one-way thing.
There are two overall types of ways this can be done; Approach 1: Overbuff harass-units which will make it efficient to harass the opponent rather than attacking with your deathball.
Approach 2: This approach has two steps. The first is to create the right incentive. To understand the importance of incentive we can look at the TvZ HOTS matchup. IMO this matchup is probably the most actionpacked matchup in any RTS ever developed (ok, I am talking just sc2, starbow and BW. I have no clue about other games). While this mathcup isn't particularly dynamic as zerg for the majority of the game can't really attack/pressure the terran player in any non-allinsh'h way. But lets ignore that for now, and just focus on understanding why it is so actionpacked...
Based on my observartions and play, the terran player has such a strong incentivie to army trade and harass the opponent for three reasons;
1) His 200/200 army is worse than the muta/bling 200 food army as widow mines (while cost effective) are supply ineffective. This means that he doesn't want the zerg to ever be maxed (especially not with a bank). 2) While bio + mines can trade somwhat evenly with muta/bling, they are quite cost ineffective vs infestor + ultra's, which creates a "clock" on the bio player. Basically he needs to be at an advantageous position when zerg has tier 3 units out. 3) Trading armies generally favor the more mobile army, and in this case the bio/mine/medivac army is actually more mobile than the bling/muta army (+infestor/ultra) army. The intuition behind this logic is that it is easier for the more mobile army to harass a 4base 130 food zerg army thats static defenses than a 180 food zerg army with lots of static defenses.
The combinations of the above 3 factors, results in giving the terran player a really strong incentive to trade armies with the zerg player. However, in it self these 3 factors doesn't imply that he can do it. In WOL for instance you could argue that the terran player had the a similar incentive vs broodlord/infestor. However, they simply couldn't harass/trade armies efficiently back then, so this means that the second requirement in approach 2 is to give the players the tools to "follow their incentive".
The main difference between approach 1 and 2, is that in approach 1 the harass/army-trading needs to be costeffective while it just needs to be efficient in Approach 2. For instance, if you have a much better economy it can be efficient to trade armies at a 70% cost efficiency.
Why this is relevant for the lurker/baneling debate
This is highly relevant because we need to think about how the matchup will work depending on how we change the units. But lets first look at how TvZ in Starbow currently works.
- Does it use Approach 1? Reapers and banshee's I think are examples of "overpowered" cost-efficient harass units. However, I don't 2 units are enough to give it the "Approach1-effect".
- What about approach 2: One could argue that the zerg player has a strong incentive to army-trade vs the mech'ing player. But are his tools really that strong?, and does the zerg player really have a strong enough economy to make costineffective armytrading efficient? I am not convinced thereof.
What about when the terran goes bio; Who is the more mobile in muta/bling vs bio? I would argue that the muta-bling player is a bit more mobile as the zerg player (unlike in BW) can get a lot more than 12 mutalisks which makes it quite hard for the terran player to move out. Thus in theory the bio player shouldn't be interested in army trading vs that composition and instead try to become more cost effective by mixing in tanks and SV's. The clock will be on the zerg player here as he needs to do damage before the terran gets a critical mass of tanks and vikings to deal with mutas (or w/e unit Kabel will come up with). However, the problem in Starbow (unlike in in WOL anno 2011 where the tank/marine vs muta/bling was really dynamic and interesting) is that the zerg player going muta/bling simply doesn't have a stronger economy than the terran player. So he can't really army trade efficiently. Thus he needs to play a bit carefully and look for cost effective engagements when/if the terran player is caught of guard. This isn't easy as bio is still quite mobile. So to sum up; The problem is that muta/bling and biological heavy units are too similar in terms of their strenghts and disadvantages.
What about when the zerg player uses lurker instead of banelings? Isn't it the exact same thing? The bio player still needs to play somewhat defensively and tech to tanks and SV's. His best-response is the exact same thing as when he plays vs banelings, and I don't think that is particularly good game design.
I think it should be clear by now that the TvZ Starbow matchup isn't working optimal. While it isn't terrible by any means, Approach 2 could be improved upon by quite a lot by giving the players the tools and the incentive to create a more actionpacked game.
Suggestion 1: Further increase the mobility of muta/bling to improve its tools. Also consider reducing the efficiency of his 200/200 food army by increasing baneling supply from 0.5 to 1 as this will put a clock on the zerg player. Suggestion 2: Reduce mobility but increase cost efficiency of the lurker to make the terran bio player more mobile than the zerg if he opts for Lurkers. Suggestion 3: The counter to lurkers shouldn't just be based on the pure quantity of Scicence vessels as that will remove the "clock-effect" of bio. Make irradiate a soft-counter to Lurkers instead of a hard-counter.
But even with these 3 suggestions, the matchup won't work properly as the zerg player still won't have a strong enough economy to make a cost-ineffective trade efficient with muta/bling. Again, this wasn't a problem in BW as the zerg (when going mutas) wasn't as mobile due to the unit selection max. And, as should be clear by now, the mobile race needs a significantly stronger economy than the immobile race.
And in the end I don't see that I can do anything else, but conclude that the Starbow zerg economy doesn't work. In order to create the correct incentives, the zerg player needs to have at least +10 worker lead advantage while going muta-bling. I don't see the any other potential solution than; Suggestion 4: Buff larva-generation efficiency of the zerg economy. Suggestion 5: Reduce cost efficiency of speedlings (this is a neccesary change if suggestion 4 goes through).
Obviously this will probably be an unpopular suggestion in this forum, because some people like BW over Sc2, and in BW you would do XX with zerg. However, if you respond to this suggestion, please look at this logically rather than basing your arguments on nostalgia Thanks in advance.
Below is my second post (giving examples of tools).
On June 06 2013 06:36 Hider wrote: Let me be a bit more specific of the effect I think a zerg economy buff will have;
Early game/early midgame: Opponent is incentivized to force the zerg player into making army units instead of drones. Leaving the zerg alone is not particularly punishing currently in Starbow, however it will be quite bad after a zerg econ change (this will incentivize early game action).
Midgame: Assuming that the zerg player in an average game will end up with a better econ than the opponent, but less cost effective and that he will scale inefficetly (e.g. against a bio heavy player with just 1-2 tanks he will do pretty okay'ish. but against 6-7 tanks he will do pretty bad). Compared to WOL zvt, A muta/bling zerg in Starbow is actually an advantegous position in terms of tools available as the opponent needs to bases quicker in Starbow which will make abusing immobility more efficient for the zerg player. On the other hand he will be a bit less cost effective (TvZ at least) due to medi's and stronger tanks.
Late game: If the zerg does a pretty decent job of further strenghen his lead in the midgame, he can either opt for the killing blow or use his economical advantage to tech into higher tier units. That will too some extent change the clock from the zerg player to the therran player. This is what I call a dynamic game; When the clock can switch from one player to another multiple times over the cause of a single game.
However, it should be important to stress out that it must not be optimal for the zerg player to tech directly into tier 3 and thus skip the whole midgame proces. This tier 3 tech switch must be something which requires a midgame-advantage (too avoid the whole 14minute broodlord thing from WOL).
But let me ask: Does anyone consider the above game dynamic to be bad, because at least from a theoretical POV adopting an Sc2 zerg'ish economy will fit perfectly into Starbow (it will work better than in Sc2 I think).
Let me also try to redefine what I imply by tools: I see 4 overall types of tools: Type 1: Cost effective army trading Type 2: Risk-free harass/engaging (which occurs when you can always escape. This tool in it self is not particular efficient though). Type 3: Abuse of immobility Type 4: Having a significant better econ so you can afford to trade cost ineffectively.
Though one could argue that the "cost effective army-trading"-tool contradicts with the fact that the more mobile army needs to be cost ineffective, it's actually not that simple afterall. We need to take a more nuanced POV to understand how incentives and tools work. In HOTS the terran can actually trade armies cost effective against a zerg player. This is a neccesary requirement for the terran player in HOTS as his econ typically will be slightly worse in the midgame than the econ of the zerg player. But instead, the threat of letting the zerg tech to tier 3 ultras + the supply inefficiency incentives the terran player to army trade.
His tools are actually a combination of all 3 of them. He can abuse immobiltiy with medivacs, but that factor in it self only works when your army is significantly more mobile than the muta/bling army. The MMMM army is only slightly more mobile than the muta/bling army, so the terran player needs the two other factors as well in order to have effective tools. So when taking the role as a game designer with a topdown approach we need to analyze the overall value of the tools in a given matchup.
For instance lets relate this to the current Starbow TvZ matchup. We clarified previously that neither player really had strong incentivies to do anything. Bio + SV's + a couple of tanks are cost effective enough to deal with most stuff. Too some extent the bio player will probably at a disadvantage when ultras are out, thus there is a bit of a clock running against him, but its not particularly strong.
But now, let's look at his tools the terran player has avaiable against a muta-bling player; - Should he invest 100/50 in dropships to abuse immobility (the 3rd type of tool)? Well probably not untill the zerg is on 5+ bases (because it is just too easy to deal with them with mutas when you as a zerg player isn't spread out thinly). - Can he army-trade efficiently when going pure bio? Not really (unless your marineking), thus we can conclude that pure bio really (theoretically) isn't that good of a unit composition against muta-bling. So instead he will (should) mix in tanks which puts the clock on the zerg player.
However, what kind of tools does the zerg have? - Is the abuse of immobility with banelings being of medium mobility really strong enough? - Are mutalisks harass really strong enough in them selves to make the abuse of immobility efficient?
Personally I think that the answer to the above 2 questions is; "Too some extent, but not enough". As we already established that the zerg player can't efficiently army trade (which mean there is no type 1), it seems that we either should further strenghten mobility of the zerg army or increase the cost effectiveness (type 1), buff its econ (type 4) or/and improve its mobility (type 3).
I believe we should choose the latter two options (eco buff and mobility).
Again this was a long post, but I think an understanding of this subject is extremely important if we want to develop an awesome game. We can't just cross fingers and hope that everything will turn out awesome.
On June 14 2013 08:37 Markwerf wrote: David Kim is just talking to back his own game, PvT I feel is in a worse state than WoL. Before there was actually more action going on from the protoss side, protoss is even more forced into a defend drops and win when the ball is complete type of play. Stargate is a failure in the matchup, it's completely gimmicky and the mothership core is never used for timings/harassment with recall, literally haven't seen it once in progame.. It's not going to get fixed in HotS though, maybe some small stargate / drop buffs for P and slight drop nerfs for T but the matchup will remain the worst of the non-mirrors.
I do agree voidrays are in an excellent spot, not overpowered and seeing the right amount of use making stargate a nice alternative in both PvP and PvZ. If only it could work in PvT and actually see protoss using meaningfull air plays except the '2 oracles and hope i surprise you' gimmickness. Widow mines are fine too on a balance level but I don't think them replacing siege tanks in TvZ is better for the game. I had rather seen them be complimentary in some way.
All in all balance is pretty much fine now and most matchups are ok but there are definately improvements to be made. PvT needs to be more dynamic especially from the P side, ZvT could see some more strat diversity and TvT needs some hellbat drop change. Just a small general drop nerf for T is probably the best move, they are showing signs of slightly being too strong and it just benefits the game if drop defense wouldn't be the only focus when playing against terran.
This is true. David Kim still has a very unrefined design philosphy. His philosphy is this; Offense must be better than defense so stalemales don't occur (he said something like this in a SOTG episode).
However, that philosphy is only partly true. The thing is; Offense must be efficient, but if the strenght of offense is based on mobility (such as drops), then its potential damage must be limited. The problem in TvP is that if the protoss is slightly caught out of position, a couple of medivacs in the base can end the game. This is poor "match-up"-design as it incentivies the protoss to stay in the base and "defend".
So a buff to offense (buff of speed medivacs) is actually counterproductivty in TvP as it rewards passive play from the protoss side. We are seing the same thing in TvT with hellbats where it a player opening bio-tank needs to have a bunker with a tank in each mineral line to defend against a mech'ing terrans potential hellbat drops.
This is terrible "match-up"deisgn as the bio heavy player (if he plays well) neutralizies the hellbat drop play, but at the expense of letting the mech'ing terran get an economy of similar strenght (or perhaps even slightly better). When that occurs the bio heavy player can't army trade efficiently anymore, which incenntivies passive play.
Instead, great "match-up design" decreases the potential damage that a drop/nydus play/runbuy's can do --> The punishment of being caught out of position is reduced.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new. The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point.
I also don't agree with making the fights slower. The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2. If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting. It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever.
I will continue to "crusade" for limited unit selection until it isnt necessary anymore, because of the reasons I have explained many times. Unlimited unit selection allows for critical numbers, which will shift the efficiency of some units (or unit combinations) to a super efficient amount and it is the core reason for thepower (compared to the user-friendliness) of the deathball. So far no one seems to try and argue that I am wrong and all people say is "it will never happen" or "boohoo I am too lazy to use several control groups and technology has advanced, boohoo".
The questions you have to ask yourself: Does "more action" and "more deaths" limit the gameplay in some way? Do those things have drawbacks? Personally I think they do, because more units mean you - as a player - have to spend a lot of attention on macro instead of your army and as a consequence of having soo many units it is easier to rebuild them instead of trying to save them. I dont like that, because I believe it is the wrong focus for the game. The example which I always bring is "2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings" fighting each other and one player winning with both his Zerglings alive. That is what I would love to see more, but the current focus on production and economy directly counters the "small numbers quality play". You are free to have a different preference for the game, but be warned ... you can not have everything in such a game ... large armies AND super micro with few units is impossible, because there are just too many units.
You say it yourself ... the fights are "fast and volatile" ... and I see the risk of introducing a kind of randomness into the game which should not be there. Games should be decided by skill and not being lucky in one deciding split-second. "Skill" in this case should be "skill at using units" and not "skill at building lots of stuff".
Everyone has their preferences and these are mine ...
----
On June 14 2013 09:46 iky43210 wrote: Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers,
A part of the reason for the difficulty of SC2 is the unlimited unit selection IMO, because newbies can become overwhelmed by sheer numbers (kinda like a shark faced with a swarm of fish) AND if they play against some other newbie who just happens to have a slightly better grasp of that concept he will lose. Limiting it to 12 units is a nice small amount and balances both sides ... oh and we could do it "back in the days", so why are you kiddies unable to do it? Pure laziness IMO.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo.
It is a lot harder IF you change the movement system to make flying units drift apart rather fast like they did in BW. Then you have to click A LOT and that requires skill.
After the changes I propose air units will be the only ones which can actually reach a critical number, because they can still stack on top of each other. As long as you agree with me that critical numbers are bad and should be removed you will have to agree with me on those changes (forced unit spreading while moving + limited unit selection + redcuced economy and production) being an improvement.
Part of the solution is also to limit the production and getting to 24 Void Rays on a lower economy without Chronoboost will be tricky at least, because you still have to defend your bases with other stuff. Only Zerg would be reasonable able to do such a "nearly instant" production of a critical number (of Mutalisks) due to the larva based nature of the production ... but I think that is ok without larva inject since the Mutalisk isnt as powerful as a Void Ray IMO (lower range - compared to the VR - means they have to get into dangerous terrain much more).
Yes, please change the entire game to make a point.
Why do you keep posting about something that just won't happen. Just make your own damn game. At least try and keep it relatively possible
Also it is worth nothing that most types of "critical-mass" problem are actually relatively easy to solve by increasing the supply of the unit.
If 25 VR's are unbeatable, then increase the supply of the VR's so the protoss player can only have 15-20.
On June 15 2013 00:26 Hider wrote: I will quote my posts instead then. But the reason I linked was that the posts are really long. But if you had read (and understood) the second properly you would realize that your 1st and 5th are already adressed in my post. The key is to create a dynamic matchup with the clock switching sides over the course of a game. This means that there is no longer any such thing as a "don't let him get there". Instead, there will be a new concept :"you have to do damage(either direct or indirect) before he gets there".
Your answer to the "how do we do this" is OVERBUFF HARRASS units ... and that is plainly silly, because we see the consequences right now for the Hellbats. If you make harrass units too efficient you could do up to three things: a. The person who harrasses first wins the game, because he still has economy while his opponent does not. This has nothing to do with player skill and everything with "stupid movie directors and spectators wanting to see more colorful explosions". That isnt what a strategy game should be about. b. The deathball is made up of the newly overbuffed units instead of the "old unbuffed junk". c. Games get pretty short.
Your second option for "how do we do this" includes trading armies ... which is really a bad thing, because it puts too much focus on the ability to rebuild your stuff. Zerg has a distinct advantage here and Terrans are the most limited and these racial differences should be kept out of the gameplay equasion as much as possible for this exact reason. They should be flavor, but the fact is that they are deciding games ... every time a commentator says something about "he can not lose that mech army" you know it affects the outcome of the game.
I wont comment on the "Muta/ling stuff" you posted, because I believe a general solution is necessary to this general problem.
-----------
On June 15 2013 00:26 Hider wrote: Regarding your point 4: Honestly I don't get your point here. I think in my last post I clearly stated that the addition of blink worked as a substitute for kiting. That just prooves that you can still have micro (but a different kind of) without changing the density of units as long as the unit design is good enough. Is your point that it is bad game-design if kiting stalkers isn't rewarding throughout the entire game?
Blink is NOT a substitute for kiting, because with kiting you are running away while still attacking. Yes you take a few shots, but the end result is that your kiting units are alive while the enemy units are dead ... that is what kiting is ... killing stuff without losses by outmaneuvering (= having longer range and greater speed).
The current state of "maximum unit (=dps) concentration and huge armies" makes Blink microing simply unrealistic AND the huge number of units on the battlefield make one-shotting possible and surrounds rather easy, so there is no point to blinking if there is no place to run. You have to have room to maneuver, because you cant kite in a small room ... you need the great wide plains for that and especially the "one-shotting is possible" makes kiting impossible.
You also cant generalize the "kiting works for Stalkers so unit design is still fine with massive numbers" because it doesnt work for all units. Not every unit has a blink (or burrow) option.
EDIT: The most important part about Blink is that it is necessary because they can not fight an equal number of Roaches or Marines face-to-face.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new. The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point.
I also don't agree with making the fights slower. The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2. If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting. It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever.
I will continue to "crusade" for limited unit selection until it isnt necessary anymore, because of the reasons I have explained many times. Unlimited unit selection allows for critical numbers, which will shift the efficiency of some units (or unit combinations) to a super efficient amount and it is the core reason for thepower (compared to the user-friendliness) of the deathball. So far no one seems to try and argue that I am wrong and all people say is "it will never happen" or "boohoo I am too lazy to use several control groups and technology has advanced, boohoo".
The questions you have to ask yourself: Does "more action" and "more deaths" limit the gameplay in some way? Do those things have drawbacks? Personally I think they do, because more units mean you - as a player - have to spend a lot of attention on macro instead of your army and as a consequence of having soo many units it is easier to rebuild them instead of trying to save them. I dont like that, because I believe it is the wrong focus for the game. The example which I always bring is "2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings" fighting each other and one player winning with both his Zerglings alive. That is what I would love to see more, but the current focus on production and economy directly counters the "small numbers quality play". You are free to have a different preference for the game, but be warned ... you can not have everything in such a game ... large armies AND super micro with few units is impossible, because there are just too many units.
You say it yourself ... the fights are "fast and volatile" ... and I see the risk of introducing a kind of randomness into the game which should not be there. Games should be decided by skill and not being lucky in one deciding split-second. "Skill" in this case should be "skill at using units" and not "skill at building lots of stuff".
Everyone has their preferences and these are mine ...
----
On June 14 2013 09:46 iky43210 wrote: Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers,
A part of the reason for the difficulty of SC2 is the unlimited unit selection IMO, because newbies can become overwhelmed by sheer numbers (kinda like a shark faced with a swarm of fish) AND if they play against some other newbie who just happens to have a slightly better grasp of that concept he will lose. Limiting it to 12 units is a nice small amount and balances both sides ... oh and we could do it "back in the days", so why are you kiddies unable to do it? Pure laziness IMO.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo.
It is a lot harder IF you change the movement system to make flying units drift apart rather fast like they did in BW. Then you have to click A LOT and that requires skill.
After the changes I propose air units will be the only ones which can actually reach a critical number, because they can still stack on top of each other. As long as you agree with me that critical numbers are bad and should be removed you will have to agree with me on those changes (forced unit spreading while moving + limited unit selection + redcuced economy and production) being an improvement.
Part of the solution is also to limit the production and getting to 24 Void Rays on a lower economy without Chronoboost will be tricky at least, because you still have to defend your bases with other stuff. Only Zerg would be reasonable able to do such a "nearly instant" production of a critical number (of Mutalisks) due to the larva based nature of the production ... but I think that is ok without larva inject since the Mutalisk isnt as powerful as a Void Ray IMO (lower range - compared to the VR - means they have to get into dangerous terrain much more).
TL;DR, do yourself and everyone a favor and just go back to bw or make a mod lol
Do yourself a favor and try to THINK about what I am saying. Here is a good start: Give me a reason why CRITICAL NUMBER (and the resulting increase of efficiency) is a good thing ti have in the game ... (Are units still "balanced" after they reach a critical number?)
After that fails you have to think about the consequences of having it in the game. Maybe you "get it" in the end.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new. The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point.
I also don't agree with making the fights slower. The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2. If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting. It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever.
I will continue to "crusade" for limited unit selection until it isnt necessary anymore, because of the reasons I have explained many times. Unlimited unit selection allows for critical numbers, which will shift the efficiency of some units (or unit combinations) to a super efficient amount and it is the core reason for thepower (compared to the user-friendliness) of the deathball. So far no one seems to try and argue that I am wrong and all people say is "it will never happen" or "boohoo I am too lazy to use several control groups and technology has advanced, boohoo".
The questions you have to ask yourself: Does "more action" and "more deaths" limit the gameplay in some way? Do those things have drawbacks? Personally I think they do, because more units mean you - as a player - have to spend a lot of attention on macro instead of your army and as a consequence of having soo many units it is easier to rebuild them instead of trying to save them. I dont like that, because I believe it is the wrong focus for the game. The example which I always bring is "2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings" fighting each other and one player winning with both his Zerglings alive. That is what I would love to see more, but the current focus on production and economy directly counters the "small numbers quality play". You are free to have a different preference for the game, but be warned ... you can not have everything in such a game ... large armies AND super micro with few units is impossible, because there are just too many units.
You say it yourself ... the fights are "fast and volatile" ... and I see the risk of introducing a kind of randomness into the game which should not be there. Games should be decided by skill and not being lucky in one deciding split-second. "Skill" in this case should be "skill at using units" and not "skill at building lots of stuff".
Everyone has their preferences and these are mine ...
----
On June 14 2013 09:46 iky43210 wrote: Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers,
A part of the reason for the difficulty of SC2 is the unlimited unit selection IMO, because newbies can become overwhelmed by sheer numbers (kinda like a shark faced with a swarm of fish) AND if they play against some other newbie who just happens to have a slightly better grasp of that concept he will lose. Limiting it to 12 units is a nice small amount and balances both sides ... oh and we could do it "back in the days", so why are you kiddies unable to do it? Pure laziness IMO.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo.
It is a lot harder IF you change the movement system to make flying units drift apart rather fast like they did in BW. Then you have to click A LOT and that requires skill.
After the changes I propose air units will be the only ones which can actually reach a critical number, because they can still stack on top of each other. As long as you agree with me that critical numbers are bad and should be removed you will have to agree with me on those changes (forced unit spreading while moving + limited unit selection + redcuced economy and production) being an improvement.
Part of the solution is also to limit the production and getting to 24 Void Rays on a lower economy without Chronoboost will be tricky at least, because you still have to defend your bases with other stuff. Only Zerg would be reasonable able to do such a "nearly instant" production of a critical number (of Mutalisks) due to the larva based nature of the production ... but I think that is ok without larva inject since the Mutalisk isnt as powerful as a Void Ray IMO (lower range - compared to the VR - means they have to get into dangerous terrain much more).
Yes, please change the entire game to make a point.
Why do you keep posting about something that just won't happen. Just make your own damn game. At least try and keep it relatively possible
he just wishes we were still playing Brood war unfortunately we have moved on and this is the SC2 forum
No I dont ... and for you the same task as for the other people who dont try to understand my intention: Give me a reason why CRITICAL NUMBER (and the resulting increase of efficiency) is a good thing to have in the game ... (Are units still "balanced" after they reach a critical number?)
On June 14 2013 08:37 Markwerf wrote: David Kim is just talking to back his own game, PvT I feel is in a worse state than WoL. Before there was actually more action going on from the protoss side, protoss is even more forced into a defend drops and win when the ball is complete type of play. Stargate is a failure in the matchup, it's completely gimmicky and the mothership core is never used for timings/harassment with recall, literally haven't seen it once in progame.. It's not going to get fixed in HotS though, maybe some small stargate / drop buffs for P and slight drop nerfs for T but the matchup will remain the worst of the non-mirrors.
I do agree voidrays are in an excellent spot, not overpowered and seeing the right amount of use making stargate a nice alternative in both PvP and PvZ. If only it could work in PvT and actually see protoss using meaningfull air plays except the '2 oracles and hope i surprise you' gimmickness. Widow mines are fine too on a balance level but I don't think them replacing siege tanks in TvZ is better for the game. I had rather seen them be complimentary in some way.
All in all balance is pretty much fine now and most matchups are ok but there are definately improvements to be made. PvT needs to be more dynamic especially from the P side, ZvT could see some more strat diversity and TvT needs some hellbat drop change. Just a small general drop nerf for T is probably the best move, they are showing signs of slightly being too strong and it just benefits the game if drop defense wouldn't be the only focus when playing against terran.
This is true. David Kim still has a very unrefined design philosphy. His philosphy is this; Offense must be better than defense so stalemales don't occur (he said something like this in a SOTG episode).
However, that philosphy is only partly true. The thing is; Offense must be efficient, but if the strenght of offense is based on mobility (such as drops), then its potential damage must be limited. The problem in TvP is that if the protoss is slightly caught out of position, a couple of medivacs in the base can end the game. This is poor "match-up"-design as it incentivies the protoss to stay in the base and "defend".
So a buff to offense (buff of speed medivacs) is actually counterproductivty in TvP as it rewards passive play from the protoss side. We are seing the same thing in TvT with hellbats where it a player opening bio-tank needs to have a bunker with a tank in each mineral line to defend against a mech'ing terrans potential hellbat drops.
This is terrible "match-up"deisgn as the bio heavy player (if he plays well) neutralizies the hellbat drop play, but at the expense of letting the mech'ing terran get an economy of similar strenght (or perhaps even slightly better). When that occurs the bio heavy player can't army trade efficiently anymore, which incenntivies passive play.
Instead, great "match-up design" decreases the potential damage that a drop/nydus play/runbuy's can do --> The punishment of being caught out of position is reduced.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
Oh rabiator always talks about wanting to go back to fewer unit selection...It isn't particularily exactly new. The stuff he writes.. some stuff intelligent whilest the rest is just plain beside the point.
I also don't agree with making the fights slower. The fact that the fights are so fast and volatile made me interested in sc2. If you compare it to wc 3 it's a nice different set of pace. If you ask me this is a ton more exciting. It's not unwatchable currently, it just requires some heightened perception and awareness and it causes for exciting action packed games. As for players.. it takes a ton of time to be able to keep getting better, still i don't think it's a problem yet/ever.
I will continue to "crusade" for limited unit selection until it isnt necessary anymore, because of the reasons I have explained many times. Unlimited unit selection allows for critical numbers, which will shift the efficiency of some units (or unit combinations) to a super efficient amount and it is the core reason for thepower (compared to the user-friendliness) of the deathball. So far no one seems to try and argue that I am wrong and all people say is "it will never happen" or "boohoo I am too lazy to use several control groups and technology has advanced, boohoo".
The questions you have to ask yourself: Does "more action" and "more deaths" limit the gameplay in some way? Do those things have drawbacks? Personally I think they do, because more units mean you - as a player - have to spend a lot of attention on macro instead of your army and as a consequence of having soo many units it is easier to rebuild them instead of trying to save them. I dont like that, because I believe it is the wrong focus for the game. The example which I always bring is "2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings" fighting each other and one player winning with both his Zerglings alive. That is what I would love to see more, but the current focus on production and economy directly counters the "small numbers quality play". You are free to have a different preference for the game, but be warned ... you can not have everything in such a game ... large armies AND super micro with few units is impossible, because there are just too many units.
You say it yourself ... the fights are "fast and volatile" ... and I see the risk of introducing a kind of randomness into the game which should not be there. Games should be decided by skill and not being lucky in one deciding split-second. "Skill" in this case should be "skill at using units" and not "skill at building lots of stuff".
Everyone has their preferences and these are mine ...
----
On June 14 2013 09:46 iky43210 wrote: Biggest problem with sc2 right now is that it is still too difficult to get into for your average gamers,
A part of the reason for the difficulty of SC2 is the unlimited unit selection IMO, because newbies can become overwhelmed by sheer numbers (kinda like a shark faced with a swarm of fish) AND if they play against some other newbie who just happens to have a slightly better grasp of that concept he will lose. Limiting it to 12 units is a nice small amount and balances both sides ... oh and we could do it "back in the days", so why are you kiddies unable to do it? Pure laziness IMO.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Your post is just some wishful thinking, they aren't going to completely rebalance the game.
You talk about removing mules etc. that's not going to happen.
1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care.
OR they don't think that unit's critical mass needs to be fixed.
The idea of lots of small engagements is a good one, not sure why you're against it.
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
Just no, unit selection limit will never be removed and with good reason, why would we want to go backwards technology wise, if you want that, go play BW.
That "technology limitation" argument is sooooo stupid that I could cry, because there are technological advances which are NOT in the game, but which have been in strategy games for years. Stuff like formations (WCIII had it) or a bigger build queue than 5 (TA had that back in the days) for example. Thus it is entirely possible that some limitations are NECESSARY to make the game playable, because they didnt add those old features of RTS games as well. Why add one and not the other? The 12 unit selection limit is also somewhat of a TRADITION in Blizzard RTS games. You just dont want to think about the reasoning I give for adding the limitation ...
Critical mass is a PROBLEM - whether Dustin Browder and David Kim see it or not - because the efficiency of a unit increases by a lot once you reach that number. This changes the balancing of the unit ... stuff like 25 Void Rays which are charged up ... they *should be* nerfed, but they cant be, because that would make them totally useless in smaller numbers.
So instead of going 1a you have to 1a 2a to control 24 voidrays? that does not sound so much harder imo.
It is a lot harder IF you change the movement system to make flying units drift apart rather fast like they did in BW. Then you have to click A LOT and that requires skill.
After the changes I propose air units will be the only ones which can actually reach a critical number, because they can still stack on top of each other. As long as you agree with me that critical numbers are bad and should be removed you will have to agree with me on those changes (forced unit spreading while moving + limited unit selection + redcuced economy and production) being an improvement.
Part of the solution is also to limit the production and getting to 24 Void Rays on a lower economy without Chronoboost will be tricky at least, because you still have to defend your bases with other stuff. Only Zerg would be reasonable able to do such a "nearly instant" production of a critical number (of Mutalisks) due to the larva based nature of the production ... but I think that is ok without larva inject since the Mutalisk isnt as powerful as a Void Ray IMO (lower range - compared to the VR - means they have to get into dangerous terrain much more).
Yes, please change the entire game to make a point.
Why do you keep posting about something that just won't happen. Just make your own damn game. At least try and keep it relatively possible
Also it is worth nothing that most types of "critical-mass" problem are actually relatively easy to solve by increasing the supply of the unit.
If 25 VR's are unbeatable, then increase the supply of the VR's so the protoss player can only have 15-20.
The first part about the need to balance speed and damage is brilliant.
The second part isnt, because "nerfing" a unit that is powerful when it appears in critical numbers will make it undesriable when you have only very few of them. Only Zerg have the production method to "live with this", because only they can fully switch in one round of production, while the other two races have to suffer a window where they are somewhat vulnerable and badly able to defend themselves.
I don't understand why people think the roach/bane play is some desperate move because zerg can't win. Soulkey did it because the current terran builds were so greedy. Fast cc into factory, into double Ebay and four raxs' all at once, followed by a third CC. All on the back of 6 hellions.
It was a build that way beyond greedy and got punished for being so. its how the meta works out.
Not according to what I've seen. Often times, T will stick to 4Ms and expand as they trade Z will have to improve the unit composition in order to beat the same (but more) army. As Z dries out or fails to secure more bases Z seem to fighting against the clock.
I don't think the match up is off-balance statistically. All in or not, I expect better players win in TvZs. But having one race as an attacker and the other as a defender/receiver throughout the game seems a bit too much. Example: I miss mutalisks wrecking havoc in terran bases. Haven't seen those for so long.
Do you think mutas would come back in aggressive ZvT more if widow mines were changed to do single target damage to air, only splash on ground units.
Your answer to the "how do we do this" is OVERBUFF HARRASS units ... and that is plainly silly, because we see the consequences right now for the Hellbats. If you make harrass units too efficient you could do up to three things: a. The person who harrasses first wins the game, because he still has economy while his opponent does not. This has nothing to do with player skill and everything with "stupid movie directors and spectators wanting to see more colorful explosions". That isnt what a strategy game should be about. b. The deathball is made up of the newly overbuffed units instead of the "old unbuffed junk". c. Games get pretty short.
Please be aware that this isn't my "answer". That is just one approach a game-designer could take to promote action, and no it isn't silly at all if done correctly. Instead of the "hellbat-apparoch", a game-designer could opt for a lower potential damage output and instead reduce the efficiency of static defenses as "harass-killers".
I would characterize vultures as an example of an approach-1 unit. Think about it: For 75 minerals you get 3 spider mines and an unit which 2-shot probes....... Seems pretty cost-efficient to me.
But overall I do agree that we shouldn't rely too heavily on this approach, but I still think that combining this approach (too a small extent) with the incentive-based approach is optimal.
Your second option for "how do we do this" includes trading armies ... which is really a bad thing, because it puts too much focus on the ability to rebuild your stuff. Zerg has a distinct advantage here and Terrans are the most limited and these racial differences should be kept out of the gameplay equasion as much as possible for this exact reason. They should be flavor, but the fact is that they are deciding games ... every time a commentator says something about "he can not lose that mech army" you know it affects the outcome of the game.
First of all, why do you think players actually attack each other? Do you just think its out of boredom?
If your answer is no, then it either needs to be because they believe they can take a cost-effective trade (approach 1) or because they have such a strong incentivie to army trade that they are willing to take a cost-ineffective trade (approach 2).
Thus in order to promote action you have to adopt at least one of these approaches (or some kind of variation). In BW the anti-mech army was incentivized to army-trade against tanks as tanks scale really well. On the other hand the terran was incentivized to attack before the protoss got a critical mass of carriers. So every time an attack occurs there is a reason for it, and my theory is that you can define the reason as either belonging to approach 1 or approach 2.
While it is true that production mechanics have an impact on incentivies, its not the only variable that matters. Just look at a typical macro-oriented TvZ game; which race is constantly attacking and trying to army trade?
If you haven't watched HOTS, I can reveal that the answer to the above question is terran. Thus we can conclude that there are other factors than the production mechanicsm which game-designers can vary to obtain the desired incentivie.
Blink is NOT a substitute for kiting, because with kiting you are running away while still attacking. Yes you take a few shots, but the end result is that your kiting units are alive while the enemy units are dead ... that is what kiting is ... killing stuff without losses by outmaneuvering (= having longer range and greater speed).
I think you have misunderstood the definition of substitute. Substitute = Another way to get the same outcome (which is micro in this case). No one is talking about the same type of micro (in fact I specifically pointed out in my first post that it was a different type of micro). Personally i actually enjoy watching blink micro more than kiting micro, so I don't buy your argument.
The second part isnt, because "nerfing" a unit that is powerful when it appears in critical numbers will make it undesriable when you have only very few of them. Only Zerg have the production method to "live with this", because only they can fully switch in one round of production, while the other two races have to suffer a window where they are somewhat vulnerable and badly able to defend themselves.
In most cases that can be fixed by decreasing the cost of the of the unit (or another type of buff) to make it more efficient in smaller numbers.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AJpljSs.jpg)
my poor tanks 
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/b/ba/Shakuras_Plateau_2.0.jpg/688px-Shakuras_Plateau_2.0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/hot_shots_body_count.jpg)
