David Kim's balance talk with Chinese Casual Players (Not the same interview with the progamer) [simplified translation]
Q: SC2 is faster than Warcraft3, have you thought about changing game speed?
David Kim: It's hard to weight between causal and pro gamers. We have a speed option, but it seems like no one is using it, even the casual players. Maybe the fast speed like a progamer is why it is attractive to play SC2.
Q: Have you thought about free race every week? Like LoL's free heroes every week.
David Kim: Interesting thought. I can't guarantee anything. I will feedback this advice to the team. We hope that more players support our game. But changing from a singleplayer game to a multiplayer game is not easy.
Q: SC2 is hard for players of other games. How to improve the fun of the game?
David Kim: Our emphasis of fun is on arcade mode and 2v2/3v3/4v4. Not everyone likes 1v1, and not everything players 1v1.
Q: Shouldn't there be some limits of KR players in WCS NA/EU?
David Kim: This is first year of this system, so we don't want too many limitations. We will mostly not make change this year. Next year there may be some changes.
Q: Will SC2 get a ingame stream system like Dota2?
David Kim: We have been improving our observing system. Ingame stream system is great. But it's not the core of our development at the moment.
Q: As a girl, I am thinking whether there will be more female units?
David Kim: ...... this is the area of our art team. In fact, we want more female units.
Q: Will the campaign be about all three races in LotV?
David Kim: Good idea. We may do so in LotV.
Q: Have you thought about putting campaign units into 3v3 and 4v4?
David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker.
Q: Will there be some rewards for mapmakers?
David Kim: In fact, we are discussing this. But I can't reveal the details.
Update: Balance talk between David Kim and Chinese progamer Jim and XY.
The balance talk is not very well done by the players and it is quite biased. So I summarize a few important points from David Kim:
1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
This balance interview is done by Chinese media, S.163.com in IEM. I translated the interview while omitting a few useless information.
It is important to note that this is a translation of an oral translation. The interview is done in a media meeting in which David Kim talks in English and the translator translates it into Chinese and the journalist posts it online and now I am translating it into English. So the true meaning can be distorted during the process.
Enjoy.
Q: Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment?
David Kim: I don't think there is balance problem right now, and I don't think Zerg is weak at the moment. For example, the recent Dreamhack had a ZvZ finals. Also, WCS S1 Korea Regional Final had a ZvT finals and the Zerg won (Soulkey vs Innovation). In terms of ladder's data, Zerg actually has a little advantage right now.
If I need to rate the balance right now, I will give it a high score----of course, this is not to say that the balance has no problem. We will keep listening to the community's feedback.
Q: I said that Zerg is not strong because widow mine is quite strong and its damage to Zerg units is the most prominent. How about the medivac boost? Now the game is all about medivac boost and drop and has no other strategies.
David Kim: Based on the data in ladder, the winrate between Zerg and Terran are very close. The medivac boost is to give Terran more harassment options. And it produces more entertaining games to some degree.
We don't want to nerf the widow mine and medivac. Rather, it is better to change the Zerg, for example, we can buff some abilities of Zerg.
Q: Have you considered buffing Terran mech?
David Kim: About mech, we are thinking to make it easier to use. In fact, in WOL, TvT had a lot of mech, but in TvP and TvZ mech didn't get used much.
Overall, we are focusing on the strength and weakness of certain units. We don't have a clear plan for mech right now, but it depends on the situation in the future.
Q: Since the launch of SC2 WOL, Protoss hasn't gotten a lot of championships. How do you see this? Is this because of balance?
David Kim: Overall, Protoss's performance is not weak. In a lot of tournament's Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in recent Dreamhack, Stardust won the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
Q: In my opinion, Protoss is not a stable race. Although it has high damage, it relies heavily on high-tier units and the high costs of them limit the versatility of Protoss in competitive games. Have you considered changing this situation?
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy choice was too narrow. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment to improve the harassment ability of Protoss. We also change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
If we find that these aspects of Protoss don't change in the future, then we may make alterations again. But now there is no need to do that.
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
David Kim: If we make this change right now, then it is too big of a change. Players have gotten used to the current mode. But we can improve the length of the game. Especially in TvZ, there are a lot of back and forth. This is because the healing ability of medivac and the production capacity of Zerg. So the game lasts longer.
Q: What is the most successful units in HOTS so far?
David Kim: Hydra now has speed upgrade. Ultra is a great threat to enemy right now. Muta makes harassment more effective.
About new units, Swarm host now has two diverse strategies. One is offensive strategy that utilizes its siege capability to contain the opponent. The other is the turtle strategy which uses swarm host to hold until 200 supply and then push out. Now we are looking. If the latter strategy becomes the norm, we will make changes accordingly. About viper, our original intention is to give Zerg players more choices, but now many players know how to counter it, so we are thinking how to do something about it.
The following is another article in which David Kim talks about all the new units (because HOTS just releases in China). There are some valuable information in it.
Widow mine
David Kim: This units is made for players with good micro. It a micro unit for both sides. Now it seems like it is a good unit and its damage [pattern] makes the game more entertaining.
At first when we designed the unit, it is a unit that can shoot a missile to any place in the map!
Hellbat
David Kim: The original purpose of hellbat is to counter zealot. Later, we buff its capability and make it more useful in other situations, for example to provide a support to siege tank.
Viper
David Kim: When designing Viper, because Protoss and Terran got some strong siege units, so we don't want to give Zerg another siege unit beside swarm host. So we designed viper to break the siege. But currently, Viper is not strong, we are planning to make some changes to it.
When talking about the Chinese players, David Kim said he likes Jim
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
Yes i dunno what he is talking about, thats excaclty how protoss play now Its their COREplay I dunno man
David Kim till date still don't address the low cost of Roaches which dealt so much damage in mass.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck? All his comments doesn't make sense. And buffing VIPER which already so strong against P which makes making colos pretty useless.
On July 26 2013 13:05 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim till date still don't address the low cost of Roaches which dealt so much damage in mass.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck? All his comments doesn't make sense. And buffing VIPER which already so strong against P which makes making colos pretty useless.
Err you realize the counter to viper is templar right? Like it's not that hard to feedback a viper before it abducts colossi .
I am curious how they will buff the viper without making it broken as shit lol.
I'm assuming that buff to the viper is never going to happen? I thought the general consensus in the community was that vipers were TOO strong. Maybe I'm wrong though. (Btw I play Zerg and not balance whining.)
Q: I said that Zerg is not strong because widow mine is quite strong and its damage to Zerg units is the most prominent. How about the medivac boost? Now the game is all about medivac boost and drop and has no other strategies.
This reporter's race is Zerg and he got owned hard on ladder in ZvT ?
On July 26 2013 12:53 larse wrote: This balance interview is done by Chinese media, S.163.com in IEM. I am translating this very fast right now. I will edit the grammar and such later on. Enjoy.
.
About new units, Swarm host. About viper, we are considering to buff it.
what. why? He just started the interview off saying zerg has an advantage statistically already.
I find it strange and dissapointing they have no clear plans for mech... all the units in this expansion for Terran were mech units and hes like...yeah whatever we don't really care about mech...wtf?
On July 26 2013 13:05 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim till date still don't address the low cost of Roaches which dealt so much damage in mass.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck? All his comments doesn't make sense. And buffing VIPER which already so strong against P which makes making colos pretty useless.
Err you realize the counter to viper is templar right? Like it's not that hard to feedback a viper before it abducts colossi .
I am curious how they will buff the viper without making it broken as shit lol.
Perhaps a change to Blinding Cloud? I think Abduct and the rest of the unit is fine. I don't see as much good use of Blinding Cloud as I do of Abduct.
But I really want to see more Tank use overall. Vipers and buffed Mutas discourage them a lot in TvZ.
On July 26 2013 13:13 captainwaffles wrote: I find it strange and dissapointing they have no clear plans for mech... all the units in this expansion for Terran were mech units and hes like...yeah whatever we don't really care about mech...wtf?
he didn't say ' don't care ' word, but " have no idea what to do with mech ' lmao. No hope for mech
David Kim: If we make this change right now, then it is too big of change. And players have used to the current mode. But we can improve the length of the game. Especially in TvZ, there are a lot of back and forth. This is because the healing ability of medivac and the production capacity of Zerg. So the game lasts longer.
To someone with good knowledge/intelligence, is this acttually right what he says? Or has it not more to do with zergs and terrans units? Or in other words, the races designs compared to protoss??
Interesting but light interview. I wonder why he feels that Zerg has an advantage on ladder, especially with the current ladder map pool.
There is no doubt that Zerg is currently in one of the biggest slumps in tournament play that any race has seen in Starcraft 2 history. There are few ways that Zerg could have performed worse in this current season of WCS 2. It is disheartening to hear the lead balance designer give such bogus results such as Dreamhack ending in a ZvZ finals (basically only Zergs entered...) or WCS KR 1 being won by a Zerg (He did the exact same all-in 5 times, and now its been so figured out that Innovation easily crushes Soulkey). Kim's judgment has always been far from stellar and this is no exception.
Most Blizzard balance discussions rarely amount to more than Kim, et al sticking their fingers in their ears and singing LA LA LA LA.
On July 26 2013 13:08 JJH777 wrote: Proleague is either the highest skilled tournament or a very close second to WCS KR currently and it is heavily dominated by Protoss. They are fine.
Serious? How can you compared BO1 in PL and claimed that Protoss heavily dominated? We are talking about individual league. How long have we seen a Protoss winning an individual league in KR?
He is just a retard since ever you just cant like him. Terran is pretty Winning everything on High Tier Level like Gsl/Starleague And yeah Proleague Toss is dominating but in the High Skill Players Like Innovation,Soulkey, Fantasy doesnt win Tosses that much or am i Wrong? Proleague is btw a PVP Fest
Pretty bad questions honestly, especially the one about the pace of the game. Do they really think Blizz is just going to change the entire speed of the game right now when almost nobody complains about it?
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
Yeah, the fact people think because someone wins a foreigner event that protoss across the board is then stable somehow does not compute for me... Like, do they even look at the brackets, who is playing who, race distribution, the tournament itself or do they just look at the race...? As you noted, I'm not quite sure who he expects to be better than Rain and Parting... they're more or less the two best protoss right now, baring a few others, and they're on the same team working their asses off together. If they still cannot come up with anything other than 1 off strats for proleague then the issue still stands that Protoss cannot win a prolonged series in any major korean tournament. I'd argue that this is evident in lower skill levels as well. Protoss just has issues due to the way it's played in a series.
I hope they start getting serious about this though... It seems like a lot of blunders one after another with the recent WCS announcements so hopefully they can keep up with the players expectations.
also edit: Abturn: The reason Proleague has so many protoss is because, as I noted, it is a very good race to do new random builds with. They're great in prepared 1 off matches, however, you don't need to look past Partings recent performance where he needed to only practice vs 1 race to see that there might be something to look into. You of course can't measure all of this on one player's performance but looking at history, and his top performances over time it really makes you wonder...
On July 26 2013 13:33 Abturn wrote: He is just a retard since ever you just cant like him. Terran is pretty Winning everything on High Tier Level like Gsl/Starleague And yeah Proleague Toss is dominating but in the High Skill Players Like Innovation,Soulkey, Fantasy doesnt win Tosses that much or am i Wrong? Proleague is btw a PVP Fest
If you watched yesterday's game SuperNova vs Rain G1. It's retard as hell.
3 base all in with SCV pull/Clocked Ghost/Medivac/Vikings against colo, chargelots, archons and Rain still lose when SuperNova was way way behind.
David Kim: About mech, we are thinking to make it easier to use. In fact, in WOL, TvT had a lot of mech, but in TvP and TvZ mech didn't get used much.
No. Please no David Kim. If you want to do anything to it then please buff it but make it harder to use. Let there be something that really rewards tip top players.
Seriously, why does every single interviewer of David Kim is so unprepared and scared to confront him and instead they give us stupid and meaningless answers with which 95% of TL users here will disagree with backed up stats of recent tourneys.
Why can't they do follow up questions but instead let Kim say what he wants and get away easy.
These interview questions are so bad. The first question is literally "ZERG UP WAAAAAAH BOOF NAO?!?!"
I feel bad David Kim has to answer these whining-disguised-as-a-question all the time. I don't know how a man could keep composure when assaulted with such idiocy.
On July 26 2013 13:39 Lokerek wrote: Seriously, why does every single interviewer of David Kim is so unprepared and scared to confront him and instead they give us stupid and meaningless answers with which 95% of TL users here will disagree with backed up stats of recent tourneys.
95% of TL don't know a damn thing about balance. If Blizzard let 95% of TL balance their game, it would be an absolute disaster.
On July 26 2013 13:33 Abturn wrote: He is just a retard since ever you just cant like him. Terran is pretty Winning everything on High Tier Level like Gsl/Starleague And yeah Proleague Toss is dominating but in the High Skill Players Like Innovation,Soulkey, Fantasy doesnt win Tosses that much or am i Wrong? Proleague is btw a PVP Fest
If you watched yesterday's game SuperNova vs Rain G1. It's retard as hell.
3 base all in with SCV pull/Clocked Ghost/Medivac/Vikings against colo, chargelots, archons and Rain still lose when SuperNova was way way behind.
Rain BARELY lost, and he lost because Supernova out micro'd him ridiculously well with his Ghosts. Listen to Artosis' post game analysis on that one he explains all of the "what ifs" better than I can.
On July 26 2013 13:33 Abturn wrote: He is just a retard since ever you just cant like him. Terran is pretty Winning everything on High Tier Level like Gsl/Starleague And yeah Proleague Toss is dominating but in the High Skill Players Like Innovation,Soulkey, Fantasy doesnt win Tosses that much or am i Wrong? Proleague is btw a PVP Fest
If you watched yesterday's game SuperNova vs Rain G1. It's retard as hell.
3 base all in with SCV pull/Clocked Ghost/Medivac/Vikings against colo, chargelots, archons and Rain still lose when SuperNova was way way behind.
Rain BARELY lost, and he lost because Supernova out micro'd him ridiculously well with his Ghosts. Listen to Artosis' post game analysis on that one he explains all of the "what ifs" better than I can.
Because of the fucking stim and step. As long as my medivac has energy and FREE MULE on my last mining base. EZ.
David Kim: About mech, we are thinking to make it easier to use. In fact, in WOL, TvT had a lot of mech, but in TvP and TvZ mech didn't get used much.
Overall, we are focusing on the strength and weakness of certain units. We don't have a clear plan for mech right now, but it depends on the situation in the future.
Yes, please buff mech so I can stop playing bio already (or at least you know, have the choice not to)
Mech as terran would be great if the immortal would be nerfed seriously that harden shields has got to go.... then tvp mech would be sick cool to watch!
On July 26 2013 13:33 Abturn wrote: He is just a retard since ever you just cant like him. Terran is pretty Winning everything on High Tier Level like Gsl/Starleague And yeah Proleague Toss is dominating but in the High Skill Players Like Innovation,Soulkey, Fantasy doesnt win Tosses that much or am i Wrong? Proleague is btw a PVP Fest
If you watched yesterday's game SuperNova vs Rain G1. It's retard as hell.
3 base all in with SCV pull/Clocked Ghost/Medivac/Vikings against colo, chargelots, archons and Rain still lose when SuperNova was way way behind.
Rain BARELY lost, and he lost because Supernova out micro'd him ridiculously well with his Ghosts. Listen to Artosis' post game analysis on that one he explains all of the "what ifs" better than I can.
Because of the fucking stim and step. As long as my medivac has energy and FREE MULE on my last mining base. EZ.
Are you forgetting that rain somehow managed to amass an army capable of beating supernovas despite losing 18 scvs super early? Quit being so biased, tvp is so in favor of protoss its unreal.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
wow dawg, you need to calm down and rethink your opinion...... Watch protoss players play plz. All of the games that "Parting, Rain, First, MC, etc top Protoss players" lose, tend to be retarded losses. Parting is not a top player anymore like he used to be. Not because he plays Protoss, but just because he plays MUCH worse than he did before. He's still a solid player, still Code S material, but he's not a champion.
What David Kim is saying is that Protoss players need to get better. It's very possible... You can see it in nearly every game you watch that Protoss has the potential. The top Protoss players just aren't playing as good as the top Terran and Zerg players.
Watching Innovation play doesn't make you say "damn, terran is IMBA!!!!" instead, it makes you say "damn, that guys brain and fingers are sooooo good!!!!" Watching the top Zerg players makes you say the same thing. They make excellent, skill based decisions, and WIN games with their own ability.
Protoss players have done that in the past, but they don't have anyone good enough to properly represent them. Rain is probably the best Protoss player right now, but he's very stylistic and predictable. He's very skilled, but skill is not everything you need to win SC2.
Everything David Kim said was pretty spot on, and it's the same opinion that I've had, and the only standpoint that has been overly apparent in all Protoss games played in major tournaments. You seem to be a sc2 fan, but you don't seem to closely watch Protoss games.... Please calm down and pay attention to how Protoss plays when they win, and how they play when they lose.
This interview is so bad (from the interviewer standpoint) that it's a magnet for all balance donkeys of the universe. The first question is so terrible "Zerg just won 50 starleagues one after another, but zerg UP, please buff" Yeah ok. My impression is that the guy interviewing DK is a guy paid by Riot or something to do a troll interview.
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
wow dawg, you need to calm down and rethink your opinion...... Watch protoss players play plz. All of the games that "Parting, Rain, First, MC, etc top Protoss players" lose, tend to be retarded losses. Parting is not a top player anymore like he used to be. Not because he plays Protoss, but just because he plays MUCH worse than he did before. He's still a solid player, still Code S material, but he's not a champion.
What David Kim is saying is that Protoss players need to get better. It's very possible... You can see it in nearly every game you watch that Protoss has the potential. The top Protoss players just aren't playing as good as the top Terran and Zerg players.
Watching Innovation play doesn't make you say "damn, terran is IMBA!!!!" instead, it makes you say "damn, that guys brain and fingers are sooooo good!!!!" Watching the top Zerg players makes you say the same thing. They make excellent, skill based decisions, and WIN games with their own ability.
Protoss players have done that in the past, but they don't have anyone good enough to properly represent them. Rain is probably the best Protoss player right now, but he's very stylistic and predictable. He's very skilled, but skill is not everything you need to win SC2.
Everything David Kim said was pretty spot on, and it's the same opinion that I've had, and the only standpoint that has been overly apparent in all Protoss games played in major tournaments. You seem to be a sc2 fan, but you don't seem to closely watch Protoss games.... Please calm down and pay attention to how Protoss plays when they win, and how they play when they lose.
I do pay attention but I think the race forces a really "gimmicky" play style that make people say "oh that loss is stupid" when they lose. I don't even know what this "really good" play would look like. I think it just may not be possible within the current race mechanics.
I'm not saying they can't win but when everything looks like a gimmick it could be that the race is silly.
On July 26 2013 13:50 EGLzGaMeR wrote: Mech as terran would be great if the immortal would be nerfed seriously that harden shields has got to go.... then tvp mech would be sick cool to watch!
On July 26 2013 12:57 Pheon wrote: I don't know if making 'matter of fact' statements in the questions are so appropriate, but good interview nonetheless.
Yea this is what I was thinking the entire time I was reading.
LOL at people hanging on every word of an interview that was translated three separate times. You might as well add some more by Google Translating it to Korean and back before you start pulling out quotes about how much Davvie hates your race for all the use you're going to get out of this.
On July 26 2013 13:50 EGLzGaMeR wrote: Mech as terran would be great if the immortal would be nerfed seriously that harden shields has got to go.... then tvp mech would be sick cool to watch!
and I'm totally ok with viper being buffed ; )
That's ironic, you want to buff Mech so it can fight Protoss yet you want to buff the unit that's probably most responsible for never seeing it vs Zerg.
I hope your saying you were ok with a Viper buff is just you being snarky.
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
wow dawg, you need to calm down and rethink your opinion...... Watch protoss players play plz. All of the games that "Parting, Rain, First, MC, etc top Protoss players" lose, tend to be retarded losses. Parting is not a top player anymore like he used to be. Not because he plays Protoss, but just because he plays MUCH worse than he did before. He's still a solid player, still Code S material, but he's not a champion.
What David Kim is saying is that Protoss players need to get better. It's very possible... You can see it in nearly every game you watch that Protoss has the potential. The top Protoss players just aren't playing as good as the top Terran and Zerg players.
Watching Innovation play doesn't make you say "damn, terran is IMBA!!!!" instead, it makes you say "damn, that guys brain and fingers are sooooo good!!!!" Watching the top Zerg players makes you say the same thing. They make excellent, skill based decisions, and WIN games with their own ability.
Protoss players have done that in the past, but they don't have anyone good enough to properly represent them. Rain is probably the best Protoss player right now, but he's very stylistic and predictable. He's very skilled, but skill is not everything you need to win SC2.
Everything David Kim said was pretty spot on, and it's the same opinion that I've had, and the only standpoint that has been overly apparent in all Protoss games played in major tournaments. You seem to be a sc2 fan, but you don't seem to closely watch Protoss games.... Please calm down and pay attention to how Protoss plays when they win, and how they play when they lose.
I'm already very clam since WOL days. I don't get it when people says "Protoss tends to throw games away or isn't playing as top Z/T players". Protoss is pretty crap in early/mid games because it requires higher tech and resources to get to the critical mass.
When Protoss goes for "Gimmick" plays with speed WP people called it damn "Protoss EZ race, A move and win" or "EZ, just two base all in to win".
Protoss has not been producing results NOT because of skill wise or not using their brain to think but it's the current metagame that makes Protoss not getting wins at major tournament especially here in KR.
Protoss are generally very predictable and is running out of ideas. When David said Oracle, good unit, it's bullshit. It got shutdown completely if it got scout.
And to answer you, yes i watched tons of Protoss matches.
On July 26 2013 13:33 Abturn wrote: He is just a retard since ever you just cant like him. Terran is pretty Winning everything on High Tier Level like Gsl/Starleague And yeah Proleague Toss is dominating but in the High Skill Players Like Innovation,Soulkey, Fantasy doesnt win Tosses that much or am i Wrong? Proleague is btw a PVP Fest
If you watched yesterday's game SuperNova vs Rain G1. It's retard as hell.
3 base all in with SCV pull/Clocked Ghost/Medivac/Vikings against colo, chargelots, archons and Rain still lose when SuperNova was way way behind.
Rain BARELY lost, and he lost because Supernova out micro'd him ridiculously well with his Ghosts. Listen to Artosis' post game analysis on that one he explains all of the "what ifs" better than I can.
Because of the fucking stim and step. As long as my medivac has energy and FREE MULE on my last mining base. EZ.
Quit being so biased, tvp is so in favor of protoss its unreal.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck?
any buff to stalker would cause having insane pvt winrates
Please explain.
Is it because you always got blink stalkers all in? Cos i always do that on ladder if they failed to scout. If scouted, it's very easy to defend.
Buff is just an word. It could be reduce resource, etc. Not damage output in any sense.
Stalkers aren't only used for blink all in you know, but zealot stalker msc push or drop defense, they are doing well against vikings and roaches aswell. I don't see a reason protoss buff it besides you having bad times in your matchups
On July 26 2013 13:33 Abturn wrote: He is just a retard since ever you just cant like him. Terran is pretty Winning everything on High Tier Level like Gsl/Starleague And yeah Proleague Toss is dominating but in the High Skill Players Like Innovation,Soulkey, Fantasy doesnt win Tosses that much or am i Wrong? Proleague is btw a PVP Fest
If you watched yesterday's game SuperNova vs Rain G1. It's retard as hell.
3 base all in with SCV pull/Clocked Ghost/Medivac/Vikings against colo, chargelots, archons and Rain still lose when SuperNova was way way behind.
Rain BARELY lost, and he lost because Supernova out micro'd him ridiculously well with his Ghosts. Listen to Artosis' post game analysis on that one he explains all of the "what ifs" better than I can.
Because of the fucking stim and step. As long as my medivac has energy and FREE MULE on my last mining base. EZ.
Quit being so biased, tvp is so in favor of protoss its unreal.
Has protoss ever had a sustained period of Korean dominance? Unless I missed something they really haven't been winning GSLs left and right. No protoss has dominated Korea since the early days of the GSL when MC reigned. Can people really say protoss players just aren't as good as terrans and zergs?
It seems pretty obvious to me it's the way the race is designed that's the problem, not the players.
ZvT has become really stale, I wrote about this many times ago Buffing mech won't help because bio mine is much more viable on lots of maps and less risk high reward. Every zvt is about: Whether terran can defend roach ling baneling all in or If Zerg can defend all the bio mine push and drops And not to fall top behind in base count and tech before terran has too much macro advantage and tech switch for raven.
I don't really understand the logic behind 'The are just fewer Top Protoss players'
What does that mean exactly? There's not less actual Protoss players, but there's less ones at the top.. So wouldn't that mean they are in fact underperforming?
I think though more fundamentally, there's a bit of a disconnect between what they think is 'interesting' or 'entertaining' in a match up, and what many of us think is.
Some very good strategic drops are interesting....but having a game dominated by 30+ drops harassing and picking up over and over starts to feel more like 'Well, that's just kind of bullshit' There's kind of a diminishing returns on it. People like some cool gimmicks, but when the gimmicks just become the standard it can be obnoxious after a while. It's kind of hard to see constant hellbat drops or simultaneous widow mine drops take out 25 workers and have the audience think 'Oh well deserved, excellent'
I'm picking on Terran there, Oracle is similar, though it can be shut down colder. I think there's a problem with Protoss being too conventional, Protoss 98% of the time just wants to engage their full army vs yours. While it feels Terran relies all on unconventional tactics...they very rarely would want their whole army fighting yours, if they could micro it, they'd be happier dropping 12 different spots at once. Too conventional and too unconventional are both bad, there's got to be a better mix of viable options in all 3 races and there's just not.
Despite his typical answers, I am glad he was asked the question about Protoss being an unstable race and the question about "high damage and low defense". Huge issues with the game.
On July 26 2013 14:13 EnderSword wrote: I don't really understand the logic behind 'The are just fewer Top Protoss players'
What does that mean exactly? There's not less actual Protoss players, but there's less ones at the top.. So wouldn't that mean they are in fact underperforming?
I think though more fundamentally, there's a bit of a disconnect between what they think is 'interesting' or 'entertaining' in a match up, and what many of us think is.
Some very good strategic drops are interesting....but having a game dominated by 30+ drops harassing and picking up over and over starts to feel more like 'Well, that's just kind of bullshit' There's kind of a diminishing returns on it. People like some cool gimmicks, but when the gimmicks just become the standard it can be obnoxious after a while. It's kind of hard to see constant hellbat drops or simultaneous widow mine drops take out 25 workers and have the audience think 'Oh well deserved, excellent'
I'm picking on Terran there, Oracle is similar, though it can be shut down colder. I think there's a problem with Protoss being too conventional, Protoss 98% of the time just wants to engage their full army vs yours. While it feels Terran relies all on unconventional tactics...they very rarely would want their whole army fighting yours, if they could micro it, they'd be happier dropping 12 different spots at once. Too conventional and too unconventional are both bad, there's got to be a better mix of viable options in all 3 races and there's just not.
That's my point.
When i got drop constantly in different location i normally just type "GG". Canon's pretty good i heard. But when medivac, units don't seems to die. So i leave a templar in base hoping to FB his medivac but his medivac don't die and i pick my units off and ZOOOOM run away with BOOST back to base for repair and come back for more.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
First and Rain are both relatively new to the top end scene (of SC2), and First still appears to have nerve issues. A lot of the Kespa protoss look great, which is why they are so strong in pro league. eSF protoss generally seem weak for some reason. You seem heavily biased in favor of protoss buffs.
I really have to say, those questions were terribly biased. Seriously, you have the opportunity to pick kim's mind, and you ask him stupid "zerg too weak medivac boost imba" silver league questions?
Not trying to offend the OP, just reprimand him a bit for really shooting the pooch with asking bad questions that will get obvious answers.
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
First and Rain are both relatively new to the top end scene (of SC2), and First still appears to have nerve issues. A lot of the Kespa protoss look great, which is why they are so strong in pro league. eSF protoss generally seem weak for some reason. You seem heavily biased in favor of protoss buffs.
I am very biased in favor of protoss buffs. I have been saying Protoss need to be redesign or needs a major buff since WOL days. Overall results doesn't favor Protoss. Doesn't mean a protoss winning in foreigner tournament means protoss is fine.
We have to look at major KR scene where the real top players came from and our local results. And this whining shit has gotten banned for a few times tho.
Great questions. I like things straight forward. I kind of feel like David Kim gave somewhat shallow answers to a some of the questions.
Anyway, as a terran player in HOTS, this is my opinion on protoss..... + Show Spoiler +
I think an issue with protoss, is the race just doesn't really have any "safe standard play". If the opponent figures out what the protoss players strategy is early, the protoss dies, on the other side, if it goes unscouted or unpredicted, the protoss player has a very good chance at success. Protoss doesn't really seem to have builds that hold up versus anything and allow for adjustments as the game progresses, aka standard play.
This differs from the other races in that when you scout a tech building from zerg or terran, they almost always have the option to alter their plans or what you scouted can indicate a number of strategies. Where with protoss, you can't just back out on a tech path you invested in. It's very easy to scout a protoss and know EXACTLY what he will be doing 3 minutes from now. Also, protoss has issues with 3rd bases on several maps. If the map doesn't give them a very easy 3rd, protoss almost always executes a 2 base all in. At least from the matches I've seen. Which is predictable, thus the odds of holding it increase.
Protoss has more issues, that I think lowers it's odds of getting through tourneys. When a protoss loses an expansion, it almost never recovers. I see zergs and terrans come back from this MUCH more often then protoss. The zerg can afford to replace it or already have another base started, and terrans can fly the OC away. Protoss just loses the game. Not to mention when a protoss loses workers they can't get their economy back on track fast enough. Zerg makes many drones at once, and terrans can get by on mules while remaking scv's. Protoss just runs out of money and dies. Protoss also has the issue of ever losing 1 army is game ending.
I'd love to see some statistics of all 3 races and see how often P/Z/T comes back to win after A. Losing almost entire army B. Losing an expansion C. Losing a good % of workers.
I'd be willing to bet protoss has the lowest come back rates by far for any of these scenarios.
On July 26 2013 14:21 Honeybadger wrote: I really have to say, those questions were terribly biased. Seriously, you have the opportunity to pick kim's mind, and you ask him stupid "zerg too weak medivac boost imba" silver league questions?
Not trying to offend the OP, just reprimand him a bit for really shooting the pooch with asking bad questions that will get obvious answers.
The op is translating, he didn't do the interview.
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
First and Rain are both relatively new to the top end scene (of SC2), and First still appears to have nerve issues. A lot of the Kespa protoss look great, which is why they are so strong in pro league. eSF protoss generally seem weak for some reason. You seem heavily biased in favor of protoss buffs.
I am very biased in favor of protoss buffs. I have been saying Protoss need to be redesign or needs a major buff since WOL days. Overall results doesn't favor Protoss. Doesn't mean a protoss winning in foreigner tournament means protoss is fine.
We have to look at major KR scene where the real top players came from and our local results.
Is pro league not a major KR scene? How about that there is always a protoss in the RO4? Season 1 kr: sOs made it to the RO4 Season 1 world finals: sOs made it to the finals Season 2 kr: + Show Spoiler +
Rain makes it to RO4
2012: Season 3 code S: 2 protoss in RO4, both make it to finals Season 4 code S: Rain makes it to RO4
On July 26 2013 14:27 Reborn8u wrote: Great questions. I like things straight forward. I kind of feel like David Kim gave somewhat shallow answers to a some of the questions.
Anyway, as a terran player in HOTS, this is my opinion on protoss..... + Show Spoiler +
I think an issue with protoss, is the race just doesn't really have any "safe standard play". If the opponent figures out what the protoss players strategy is early, the protoss dies, on the other side, if it goes unscouted or unpredicted, the protoss player has a very good chance at success. Protoss doesn't really seem to have builds that hold up versus anything and allow for adjustments as the game progresses, aka standard play.
This differs from the other races in that when you scout a tech building from zerg or terran, they almost always have the option to alter their plans or what you scouted can indicate a number of strategies. Where with protoss, you can't just back out on a tech path you invested in. It's very easy to scout a protoss and know EXACTLY what he will be doing 3 minutes from now. Also, protoss has issues with 3rd bases on several maps. If the map doesn't give them a very easy 3rd, protoss almost always executes a 2 base all in. At least from the matches I've seen. Which is predictable, thus the odds of holding it increase.
Protoss has more issues, that I think lowers it's odds of getting through tourneys. When a protoss loses an expansion, it almost never recovers. I see zergs and terrans come back from this MUCH more often then protoss. The zerg can afford to replace it or already have another base started, and terrans can fly the OC away. Protoss just loses the game. Not to mention when a protoss loses workers they can't get their economy back on track fast enough. Zerg makes many drones at once, and terrans can get by on mules while remaking scv's. Protoss just runs out of money and dies. Protoss also has the issue of ever losing 1 army is game ending.
I'd love to see some statistics of all 3 races and see how often P/Z/T comes back to win after A. Losing almost entire army B. Losing an expansion C. Losing a good % of workers.
I'd be willing to bet protoss has the lowest come back rates by far for any of these scenarios.
Spot on! That's what i wanted to say but sorry my english so bad.
The tech path we protoss invested is straight to kill. It's almost impossible to tech switch unlike Zerg who can tech switch easily after holding one major push. I'm talking about tech switch from ground to mass muta. How many games you see protoss can recover after losing from muta switch and losing major unpowered gateways and tons of probes.
It's stupid. And speaking of Viper, of cos i know templar is the tech path to counter it. But come on, it could be either Viper or swarm. It's unpredictable. If it's Mass swarm, colo is a need and a tech switch from colo to templar is so hard if 3rd is so hard to secure with tons of swarm place near your 3rd and constant production of colo is required to defend swarm host.
I was happy to see the interviewer asked him serious questions about the games flaws(high damage/low defense, lack of mech viability, Protoss not being "stable") but like always the answers are disappointing. As a Terran player I think the window mine is somewhat of a gimmick unit that is really just luck based for the vast majority of players. On another note, it kills me that he mentioned no changes to mech. It is now only viable in TvT, back in WoL you could use it against Zerg too but now with vipers + swarm hosts it becomes basically hard countered once the swarm hosts start to reach critical mass.
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
First and Rain are both relatively new to the top end scene (of SC2), and First still appears to have nerve issues. A lot of the Kespa protoss look great, which is why they are so strong in pro league. eSF protoss generally seem weak for some reason. You seem heavily biased in favor of protoss buffs.
I am very biased in favor of protoss buffs. I have been saying Protoss need to be redesign or needs a major buff since WOL days. Overall results doesn't favor Protoss. Doesn't mean a protoss winning in foreigner tournament means protoss is fine.
We have to look at major KR scene where the real top players came from and our local results.
Is pro league not a major KR scene? How about that there is always a protoss in the RO4? Season 1 kr: sOs made it to the RO4 Season 1 world finals: sOs made it to the finals Season 2 kr: + Show Spoiler +
Rain makes it to RO4
2012: Season 3 code S: 2 protoss in RO4, both make it to finals Season 4 code S: Rain makes it to RO4
Dude, STOP looking at pro league, Team play cannot justify the race is FINE because it is a BO1 and pro league is basically a PvP battle ground.
And overall #1 has NOT been a Protoss for the longest time. Being in RO4 doesn't mean this race is FINE again as i said. If the race is FINE, we should be seeing a Protoss in final and not always a TvZ final EVERYTIME.
because by the time Protoss reaches FINAL, it has already gotten figure OUT how to beat them in Ro4.
Mothership core: Denies any all ins from terran or zerg , think about the last time you saw a 2 rax win or proxy stuff vs protoss
Ultralisk: Think back in WOL when zergs couldn't make mass ultralisks because siege tanks and marauders countered them really well, so zergs had to make broodlords. Now you see more mass ultra and rarely broodlords
Tanks: Tanks are underused in tvz, I really liked marine tank in WoL, however in TvT I feel like bio vs mech is a bit too hard to playout compared to mech vs bio, this might be only me but I'm having a hard time dealing with it.
For last, I didn't check it, so I might be wrong but I think spore crawlers do more damage then turrets do to mutalisks, mutalisks are afraid to attack into spores but not into turrets. I don't understand why you don't need evolution chamber for spores but still need engi bay and forge for the other races
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
First and Rain are both relatively new to the top end scene (of SC2), and First still appears to have nerve issues. A lot of the Kespa protoss look great, which is why they are so strong in pro league. eSF protoss generally seem weak for some reason. You seem heavily biased in favor of protoss buffs.
I am very biased in favor of protoss buffs. I have been saying Protoss need to be redesign or needs a major buff since WOL days. Overall results doesn't favor Protoss. Doesn't mean a protoss winning in foreigner tournament means protoss is fine.
We have to look at major KR scene where the real top players came from and our local results.
Is pro league not a major KR scene? How about that there is always a protoss in the RO4? Season 1 kr: sOs made it to the RO4 Season 1 world finals: sOs made it to the finals Season 2 kr: + Show Spoiler +
Rain makes it to RO4
2012: Season 3 code S: 2 protoss in RO4, both make it to finals Season 4 code S: Rain makes it to RO4
Dude, STOP looking at pro league, Team play cannot justify the race is FINE because it is a BO1 and pro league is basically a PvP battle ground.
And overall #1 has NOT been a Protoss for the longest time. Being in RO4 doesn't mean this race is FINE again as i said. If the race is FINE, we should be seeing a Protoss in final and not always a TvZ final EVERYTIME.
We literally had a protoss in the world finals like this very last season. We may have a protoss in the finals again this season. There are 3 races, and only 2 can go to the finals. I am sorry that it isnt a protoss EVERY time.
On July 26 2013 14:36 MVK wrote: My thoughts on the current state of the game:
Mothership core: Denies any all ins from terran or zerg , think about the last time you saw a 2 rax win or proxy stuff vs protoss
Ultralisk: Think back in WOL when zergs couldn't make mass ultralisks because siege tanks and marauders countered them really well, so zergs had to make broodlords. Now you see more mass ultra and rarely broodlords
Tanks: Tanks are underused in tvz, I really liked marine tank in WoL, however in TvT I feel like bio vs mech is a bit too hard to playout compared to mech vs bio, this might be only me but I'm having a hard time dealing with it.
For last, I didn't check it, so I might be wrong but I think spore crawlers do more damage then turrets do to mutalisks, mutalisks are afraid to attack into spores but not into turrets. I don't understand why you don't need evolution chamber for spores but still need engi bay and forge for the other races
And it kills off DT rush (one of the protoss arsenal to win) to punish greedy zerg because EC is not required. Seriously?
David Kim: About mech, we are thinking to make it easier to use.
I view video games as instruments, the more complex and harder to play, the more beautiful a sound that can come from it. I want this game to be the hardest game on the market. Am I the only one who thinks making it easier isnt what the majority of sc2 players want? I don't care if its not the most popular game, I just want some uniqueness in every game like broodwar that cant be easily replicated by just any GM.. this is supposed to be the sequel of Broodwars so why doesnt it feel like that to me?
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
First and Rain are both relatively new to the top end scene (of SC2), and First still appears to have nerve issues. A lot of the Kespa protoss look great, which is why they are so strong in pro league. eSF protoss generally seem weak for some reason. You seem heavily biased in favor of protoss buffs.
I am very biased in favor of protoss buffs. I have been saying Protoss need to be redesign or needs a major buff since WOL days. Overall results doesn't favor Protoss. Doesn't mean a protoss winning in foreigner tournament means protoss is fine.
We have to look at major KR scene where the real top players came from and our local results.
Is pro league not a major KR scene? How about that there is always a protoss in the RO4? Season 1 kr: sOs made it to the RO4 Season 1 world finals: sOs made it to the finals Season 2 kr: + Show Spoiler +
Rain makes it to RO4
2012: Season 3 code S: 2 protoss in RO4, both make it to finals Season 4 code S: Rain makes it to RO4
Dude, STOP looking at pro league, Team play cannot justify the race is FINE because it is a BO1 and pro league is basically a PvP battle ground.
And overall #1 has NOT been a Protoss for the longest time. Being in RO4 doesn't mean this race is FINE again as i said. If the race is FINE, we should be seeing a Protoss in final and not always a TvZ final EVERYTIME.
We literally had a protoss in the world finals like this very last season. We may have a protoss in the finals again this season. There are 3 races, and only 2 can go to the finals. I am sorry that it isnt a protoss EVERY time.
Dreamhack had a ZvZ finals. lol there wasn't high level terran/protosses such Innovation/Rain/Flash and so on. It is like take 2 pro korean zergs and 100 foreign low-mid level, other race players in a tournament. After say it was ZvZ. So it is ok.
David Kim: About mech, we are thinking to make it easier to use.
I view video games as instruments, the more complex and harder to play, the more beautiful a sound that can come from it. I want this game to be the hardest game on the market. Am I the only one who thinks making it easier isnt what the majority of sc2 players want? I don't care if its not the most popular game, I just want some uniqueness in every game like broodwar that cant be easily replicated by just any GM.. this is supposed to be the sequel of Broodwars so why doesnt it feel like that to me?
Within the context of mech viability, surely by "easier to use" he meant make it more viable, not "easier" as in less mechanically demanding.
It's a bit alarming that HOTS is the Terran mech expansion and that Dkim says he has no idea what to do with mech...there are some very obvious things they could tweak it, considering mech received even more counters in HOTS than it has in WOL (4 supply tempest, viper abduct/cloud, new void rays, faster warp prisms, easier access to DT/archon, etc.)
David Kim: About mech, we are thinking to make it easier to use. In fact, in WOL, TvT had a lot of mech, but in TvP and TvZ mech didn't get used much.
Overall, we are focusing on the strength and weakness of certain units. We don't have a clear plan for mech right now, but it depends on the situation in the future.
Yep ... they have no intentions of "fixing mech to make it viable" and since there is no way to make the Siege Tank easier to use - except for making Siege/Unsiege instant (which would be totally terrible) - they are probably only looking at their Hellbat and Widow Mine. "Easy to use" isnt a problem of the Siege Tank, because the "problem" of using it is deciding where to put it and everything else is its power level ...
Disappointing and rather disgusting to see a bunch of game designers be so absolutely biased in their opinion against parts of their own game.
Cool, thanks for the interview. Not a lot of information shed but it's nice to see how the lead dev is feeling about balance and I agree with everything he said. I think a lot of you are being way too harsh on ol' Dayvie, he isn't the only one balancing the game, and he said nothing I think anyone should feel outraged about
thank goodness david kim has backbone with tournament evidence, this interviewer is asking some direct questions about balance that are opinion based and little reasoning behind his thoughts o _ o
On July 26 2013 13:53 MrCon wrote: This interview is so bad (from the interviewer standpoint) that it's a magnet for all balance donkeys of the universe. The first question is so terrible "Zerg just won 50 starleagues one after another, but zerg UP, please buff" Yeah ok. My impression is that the guy interviewing DK is a guy paid by Riot or something to do a troll interview.
On July 26 2013 13:53 MrCon wrote: This interview is so bad (from the interviewer standpoint) that it's a magnet for all balance donkeys of the universe. The first question is so terrible "Zerg just won 50 starleagues one after another, but zerg UP, please buff" Yeah ok. My impression is that the guy interviewing DK is a guy paid by Riot or something to do a troll interview.
a lot of sc2 problems are "if that gets buffed (like the stalker) the rest will be imba"
the hydra 100 percent is seeing more use in HOTS then in WOL and the viper is really weak. TvZ is more interesting atm though sometimes imbalanced when one side has more micro then the other and everything he says up to this point is great except one thing, medivac boost is stupid. making medivacs have better base speed is imo preferable but waht can u do
On July 26 2013 15:00 Confuse wrote: thank goodness david kim has backbone with tournament evidence, this interviewer is asking some direct questions about balance that are opinion based and little reasoning behind his thoughts o _ o
That depends entirely on the point you are "defending" and on the topic of mech viability and Siege Tank buffing it looks more like they are "stubborn and stupid" instead.
What is this threads actual problem? Questions like up front like "Would you consider changing gateway units b/c Protoss is too weak and never wins" "What are your plans for Terran Mech" and "what were successful units" were all good questions, and its not the interviewers fault that David Kim considers everything peachy and doesn't want to change much.
Zerg: If they buffed Vipers you will dominate all remaining 2013-201X tournaments so hold tight. Protoss: Learn to play? No seriously, I am so sorry, Blizzard doesn't want to admit it fucked up and redesign Protoss until at least LotV. Terran: Enjoy MMM and 1/1/1 and Banshees with some Mech, pure mech is never happening I'm afraid.
On July 26 2013 15:12 Gr33n wrote: a lot of sc2 problems are "if that gets buffed (like the stalker) the rest will be imba"
the hydra 100 percent is seeing more use in HOTS then in WOL and the viper is really weak. TvZ is more interesting atm though sometimes imbalanced when one side has more micro then the other and everything he says up to this point is great except one thing, medivac boost is stupid. making medivacs have better base speed is imo preferable but waht can u do
I really think the speedboost is required. In WoL harrasment became less and less because zerg/toss figured out how to counter it. If you now remove speedboost and do higher speedboost then mutas will always kill them. If you want to nerf it better look at cooldown time or duration.
And viper weak? I don't see it that often in my own games, but in ZvP pro games it is used alot, and to me it doesn't really seem it needs to be even stronger. Maybe a bit more HP, but then one less range for abduct for example. And boosting it nerfs mech for TvZ further, so forcing people to go 4M.
There is no doubt that Zerg is currently in one of the biggest slumps in tournament play that any race has seen in Starcraft 2 history.
HAHAHA you gotta be kidding. Seriously this has to be a troll. Zerg and Terran are splitting pretty much every major tournament win, while Protoss has won about 3 tournaments overall throughout the entire duration of the Heart of the Swarm. David Kim responds to this by saying Protoss players have to get better, which is insulting to say the least, considering guys like Rain and Parting play the race. Personally I don't care (everyone can always change the race they play) but they should just admit the Protoss design has failed if they cannot make the race competitive without it becoming instantly overpowered.
I like the question about Protoss design, I don't think a buff or nerf for a few units is enough. I've seen so many deathballs and allins since WOL release that I feel bored even if this buid is entirely new and was never played before.
This game has so much to improve if it want to be a worthy successor for Broodwar. The balance is not the problem, it seems fine.
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
wow dawg, you need to calm down and rethink your opinion...... Watch protoss players play plz. All of the games that "Parting, Rain, First, MC, etc top Protoss players" lose, tend to be retarded losses. Parting is not a top player anymore like he used to be. Not because he plays Protoss, but just because he plays MUCH worse than he did before. He's still a solid player, still Code S material, but he's not a champion.
What David Kim is saying is that Protoss players need to get better. It's very possible... You can see it in nearly every game you watch that Protoss has the potential. The top Protoss players just aren't playing as good as the top Terran and Zerg players.
Watching Innovation play doesn't make you say "damn, terran is IMBA!!!!" instead, it makes you say "damn, that guys brain and fingers are sooooo good!!!!" Watching the top Zerg players makes you say the same thing. They make excellent, skill based decisions, and WIN games with their own ability.
Protoss players have done that in the past, but they don't have anyone good enough to properly represent them. Rain is probably the best Protoss player right now, but he's very stylistic and predictable. He's very skilled, but skill is not everything you need to win SC2.
Everything David Kim said was pretty spot on, and it's the same opinion that I've had, and the only standpoint that has been overly apparent in all Protoss games played in major tournaments. You seem to be a sc2 fan, but you don't seem to closely watch Protoss games.... Please calm down and pay attention to how Protoss plays when they win, and how they play when they lose.
I'm already very clam since WOL days. I don't get it when people says "Protoss tends to throw games away or isn't playing as top Z/T players". Protoss is pretty crap in early/mid games because it requires higher tech and resources to get to the critical mass.
When Protoss goes for "Gimmick" plays with speed WP people called it damn "Protoss EZ race, A move and win" or "EZ, just two base all in to win".
Protoss has not been producing results NOT because of skill wise or not using their brain to think but it's the current metagame that makes Protoss not getting wins at major tournament especially here in KR.
Protoss are generally very predictable and is running out of ideas. When David said Oracle, good unit, it's bullshit. It got shutdown completely if it got scout.
And to answer you, yes i watched tons of Protoss matches.
Nothing you say is correct man. Nobody cares about people who cry "imba gimmick play" or "protoss ez".... People say that about every race. Even if Terran had a 20% win rate, you'd see people say "terran imba" when they lose to a hellbat drop that they should have defended if they didn't screw up.
Protoss DO throw games away. They are in awesome positions or winning positions, then they make a terrible decision (their brains tell them to do the wrong thing) and thus they lose games that they should have won. That is the main story of modern day Protoss players. That's why they don't win.
When Protoss players are up to date with the meta instead of trying to play cheap and/or super safe, and are making all of the right in game decisions, they are unstoppable, just like innovation soulkey etc seem right now.
If you try to argue that the former top Protoss players are playing as well as they were before, but are losing instead of winning like they were before, then your way too wrong to even talk to.
When Protoss players are up to date with the meta instead of trying to play cheap and/or super safe, and are making all of the right in game decisions, they are unstoppable, just like innovation soulkey etc seem right now.
I'm sure this sounded cool inside your own head but the truth is there won't ever be a Protoss player dominating tournaments in HotS like the best Terran and Zerg players have because the race design simply doesn't allow it.
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
wow dawg, you need to calm down and rethink your opinion...... Watch protoss players play plz. All of the games that "Parting, Rain, First, MC, etc top Protoss players" lose, tend to be retarded losses. Parting is not a top player anymore like he used to be. Not because he plays Protoss, but just because he plays MUCH worse than he did before. He's still a solid player, still Code S material, but he's not a champion.
What David Kim is saying is that Protoss players need to get better. It's very possible... You can see it in nearly every game you watch that Protoss has the potential. The top Protoss players just aren't playing as good as the top Terran and Zerg players.
Watching Innovation play doesn't make you say "damn, terran is IMBA!!!!" instead, it makes you say "damn, that guys brain and fingers are sooooo good!!!!" Watching the top Zerg players makes you say the same thing. They make excellent, skill based decisions, and WIN games with their own ability.
Protoss players have done that in the past, but they don't have anyone good enough to properly represent them. Rain is probably the best Protoss player right now, but he's very stylistic and predictable. He's very skilled, but skill is not everything you need to win SC2.
Everything David Kim said was pretty spot on, and it's the same opinion that I've had, and the only standpoint that has been overly apparent in all Protoss games played in major tournaments. You seem to be a sc2 fan, but you don't seem to closely watch Protoss games.... Please calm down and pay attention to how Protoss plays when they win, and how they play when they lose.
I'm already very clam since WOL days. I don't get it when people says "Protoss tends to throw games away or isn't playing as top Z/T players". Protoss is pretty crap in early/mid games because it requires higher tech and resources to get to the critical mass.
When Protoss goes for "Gimmick" plays with speed WP people called it damn "Protoss EZ race, A move and win" or "EZ, just two base all in to win".
Protoss has not been producing results NOT because of skill wise or not using their brain to think but it's the current metagame that makes Protoss not getting wins at major tournament especially here in KR.
Protoss are generally very predictable and is running out of ideas. When David said Oracle, good unit, it's bullshit. It got shutdown completely if it got scout.
And to answer you, yes i watched tons of Protoss matches.
Protoss DO throw games away. They are in awesome positions or winning positions, then they make a terrible decision (their brains tell them to do the wrong thing) and thus they lose games that they should have won. That is the main story of modern day Protoss players. That's why they don't win.
Isn't this part of the problem though? The comeback factor for protoss is pretty much zero.
On July 26 2013 15:21 Musicus wrote: Viper buff? Haha well I won't complain as a zerg player.
I don't see what could be /buffed/ towards the viper. o.o...
The overall questions in this interview are rather stagnant. Should have been a little more persistent towards their ideas on mech and where protoss stand as a whole. (Protoss get no love)
I don't see what could be /buffed/ towards the viper. o.o...
Many options to just make it better. Faster build time, cheaper cost, faster energy regeneration via the siphon for less damage to the structure than before, more HP, more total energy, longer abduct range, larger blinding cloud area of effect, etc. Pretty much any aspect of it can be buffed.
He obviously meant without making the thing OP is hell, mech really non-existent in TvZ, and protoss all all-inning every zerg like it is WoL because late game is an instant loss.
Most Protoss do that already because late game is an uphill climb unless you're twice as skilled as the Zerg player.
I'm very far from a great player myself, but I'm high masters on Europe, and I rather do a 2 base all in build that you can practise to perfection than take a late game match where I need to have perfect micro with storms, feedbacks, forcefields and timewarps while in the same time guessing the right unit composition because Zerg is making tech switches, dealing with Muta switches, all the while doing Warp Prism & proxy pylon two pronged zealot / dt runbys to expansions JUST to be able to have a chance to win.
On July 26 2013 15:21 Musicus wrote: Viper buff? Haha well I won't complain as a zerg player.
I don't see what could be /buffed/ towards the viper. o.o...
The overall questions in this interview are rather stagnant. Should have been a little more persistent towards their ideas on mech and where protoss stand as a whole. (Protoss get no love)
Well I think the spells are strong enough, sometimes they seem OP, so if anything it would be something like health or building time I think.
About Protoss, it's complicated. The race seems flawed. TLO also said in his AMA he would like to redesign the whole race, since it just works around forcefields and warpgates until it reaches a deathball. But even if Blizzard realises this and they don't like Protoss themselves, they can't just do a huge patch that changes the whole race and how it works or is played, since players are trying to make a living. It would basically put Protoss players back in the beta.
The game has so many glaring problems. But DK - "Ladder is balanced so its cool". I'm not sure if he is the right guy to design sc2. He did a good job but we need someone new.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss's performance is not weak. In a lot of tournament's Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in recent Dreamhack, Stardust won the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.l
[/B]
He's incompetent. I mean I knew this from the shit job they did throughout the lifespan of WoL and the miserable ideas that had for new units ( and a lack of more ideas than the ones they had) but this interview.
Idra really shouldn't have been censured about the tire iron comment. The sooner David Kim loses his job the sooner someone competent assumes the reigns.
Since he does have ladder data and he is GM with 3 races in korea i'll give him benefit of doubt. I do want to ask why he feels vipers are UP and why he thinks swarm host are fine as well as widow mines.
not sure if there's some kind of language barrier/ bad translation but this seems like a pretty shitty interview. This "reporter" is throwing his personal balance opinions in there way too much for this to have been a productive conversation. If he is asking on behalf of something the community/progamers have been pushing then that's one thing, but these are just vague rants about why this guy thinks the game is shit.
The sooner David Kim loses his job the sooner someone competent assumes the reigns.
It's funny when he says Protoss is fine as a race and the pros just have to l2p, but when asked what new hots units & abilities had the most succesful design, there's not a single Protoss unit / ability mentioned (because they all suck).
On July 26 2013 15:36 saddaromma wrote: The game has so many glaring problems. But DK - "Ladder is balanced so its cool". I'm not sure if he is the right guy to design sc2. He did a good job but we need someone new.
The pro scene is pretty balanced also at the moment. Aside from a lack of Protoss "champions" they've had very reasonable representation in HoTS pretty much across the board, foreign tournaments and Korean. (If you want an example of "not reasonable" look at foreign Terran winrates in WoL.)
You can easily blame there not being a Protoss champion on the simple fact that they don't have anyone has good as Innovation or Soulkey, I think that's where David Kim's "Protoss players need to get better" comment comes from, I don't think it's a stab at the players that play the race so much as it's an acknowledgement that there isn't a true ELITE Protoss player the way there's elite Zergs and Terrans like Innovation and Soulkey who are recognized as just being heads and shoulders above their peers.
On July 26 2013 15:36 saddaromma wrote: The game has so many glaring problems. But DK - "Ladder is balanced so its cool". I'm not sure if he is the right guy to design sc2. He did a good job but we need someone new.
The pro scene is pretty balanced also at the moment. Aside from a lack of Protoss "champions" they've had very reasonable representation in HoTS pretty much across the board, foreign tournaments and Korean.
You can easily blame there not being a Protoss champion on the simple fact that they don't have anyone has good as Innovation or Soulkey, I think that's where David Kim's "Protoss players need to get better" comment comes from, I don't think it's a stab at the players that play the race so much as it's an acknowledgement that there isn't a true ELITE Protoss player the way there's elite Zergs and Terrans like Innovation and Soulkey who are recognized as just being heads and shoulders above their peers.
MC was better than his peers in terms of sheer control and multitasking during his peak. Limited because the race was just simply did not have the same potential and power as terran. [Puma's career might be entirely evidence of that]
Rain- I don't know in what world we pretend Rain isn't at least on the level with Innovation and Soulkey/Roro/someother champion over the last 4 months. Incredible planning and multitasking.
It's a cop out answer and it's not going to be much comfort to be vindicated when in a year HoTS looks like the last year of WoL.
That's just being a David Kim apologist. How would you be able to identify that Innovation is a better Starcraft 2 player than Rain or Parting? You'd have to be able to spot something in the non race-specific RTS skills that Rain and Parting and MC do much worse considering their results are so much worse. You'd then have to be able to be absolutely sure that the difference comes from exactly those non-race specific FLAWS that the players supposedly have, instead of actually the fact that Innovation is a wonderful player who ALSO happens to play Terran which is very strong in capable hands. David Kim is just talking out of his ass.
Rain- I don't know in what world we pretend Rain isn't at least on the level with Innovation and Soulkey/Roro/someother champion over the last 4 months. Incredible planning and multitasking.
Exactly. Noone can come here and say this guy isn't just as good or better RTS player than everyone in the world. His control, decision making, multi-tasking, speed, imagination, etc are out of this world. His weakness is that his race is limiting his capabilities, while a stronger race wouldn't.
The interview is nice overall but the questions were somehow agressive and biased, without any backup in number. I did not like that. Other then that was ok... i guess the game is pretty balanced atm, if you take WCS then the best race varies from region to region... T in korea, P in NA and Z in EU.. also each champion in each region was diff race.. keep calm and see whats to come.
On July 26 2013 15:39 Erik.TheRed wrote: not sure if there's some kind of language barrier/ bad translation but this seems like a pretty shitty interview. This "reporter" is throwing his personal balance opinions in there way too much for this to have been a productive conversation. If he is asking on behalf of something the community/progamers have been pushing then that's one thing, but these are just vague rants about why this guy thinks the game is shit.
I just assumed it is a rough translation, there is no way the interviewer phrased his questions like that or he isn't a pro. But then he wouldn't be interviewing David Kim.
Btw IEM said they will also have an interview with him, I think it will be on stream with Apollo again.
Will ignore the balance whining but i will say one thing.
Justifying that protoss's position is strong in relation to terran and Zerg based on dreamhack and wcs na (participants not performance) is something that would come out the mouth of a bad project leader, an ignorant project leader or a mentally retarded project leader. Take your pick.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
On July 26 2013 15:36 saddaromma wrote: The game has so many glaring problems. But DK - "Ladder is balanced so its cool". I'm not sure if he is the right guy to design sc2. He did a good job but we need someone new.
The pro scene is pretty balanced also at the moment. Aside from a lack of Protoss "champions" they've had very reasonable representation in HoTS pretty much across the board, foreign tournaments and Korean.
You can easily blame there not being a Protoss champion on the simple fact that they don't have anyone has good as Innovation or Soulkey, I think that's where David Kim's "Protoss players need to get better" comment comes from, I don't think it's a stab at the players that play the race so much as it's an acknowledgement that there isn't a true ELITE Protoss player the way there's elite Zergs and Terrans like Innovation and Soulkey who are recognized as just being heads and shoulders above their peers.
MC was better than his peers in terms of sheer control and multitasking during his peak. Limited because the race was just simply did not have the same potential and power as terran. [Puma's career might be entirely evidence of that]
Rain- I don't know in what world we pretend Rain isn't at least on the level with Innovation and Soulkey/Roro/someother champion over the last 4 months. Incredible planning and multitasking.
It's a cop out answer and it's not going to be much comfort to be vindicated when in a year HoTS looks like the last year of WoL.
I like Rain, I think he's one of the best Protoss players in the world but I really think he's overrated and that is hard for me to say because I do know how good he is, but he isn't on the level of Innovation. I'm sorry but he just isn't.
Here's a good example of the kind of Elite status I'm talking about with Innovation. You EXPECT him to win, and he dominates, his series vs Soulkey in the OSL RO8 was a textbook example of domination over an opponent and Soulkey played some of the best ZvT (in game one at least) I've ever seen except from perhaps Startale Life at his peak.
Rain? Went 3-2 in a tough crazy series with Supernova who isn't even usually considered when we talk about world's top Terran players (perhaps we should?) That kind of thing you just don't see from Innovation and Soulkey, when they get paired against anyone that isn't each other the outcome is predictably one sided affairs.
You can't just decide to put Rain on their level of excellence just for parity's sake, just so we can point to 3 individual players and say "oh yea those are the best at their respective races at the moment, they're the new Bisu/Flash/Jaedong" the reality just isn't consistent with that.
Rain is good, but he doesn't have that Elite untouchable status right now the way Innovation does, or the way Life used to. Perhaps during his first OSL win when he dominated WCS Asia and looked unbeatable in PvT (even then MVP found a way to beat him.) he had it, and maybe he'll get back there, but he isn't there right now and hasn't been for all of HoTS.
Again this is all my opinion, but that's how I interpreted what David Kim said. It isn't so much that Protoss players aren't good, but when you look at the players winning championships, and compare those guys amongst each other, it's the top Terrans and Zergs that stand out as consistently dominant. We haven't had a Protoss in that company since MC.
Hmm his response that there are fewer "top" protoss' go against the whole notion of empirical, data-driven balancing. Its the first time Blizzard has commented on balance in a way that disturbs and disappoints me. It does not inspire confidence for the future of the game.
On July 26 2013 15:45 xyzz wrote: That's just being a David Kim apologist. How would you be able to identify that Innovation is a better Starcraft 2 player than Rain or Parting? You'd have to be able to spot something in the non race-specific RTS skills that Rain and Parting and MC do much worse considering their results are so much worse. You'd then have to be able to be absolutely sure that the difference comes from exactly those non-race specific FLAWS that the players supposedly have, instead of actually the fact that Innovation is a wonderful player who ALSO happens to play Terran which is very strong in capable hands. David Kim is just talking out of his ass.
Rain- I don't know in what world we pretend Rain isn't at least on the level with Innovation and Soulkey/Roro/someother champion over the last 4 months. Incredible planning and multitasking.
Exactly. Noone can come here and say this guy isn't just as good or better RTS player than everyone in the world. His control, decision making, multi-tasking, speed, imagination, etc are out of this world. His weakness is that his race is limiting his capabilities, while a stronger race wouldn't.
Well, if for every single level from bronze to top GM (which is already pro level by the way), the game is balanced, you can reasonably suppose that, if there is a lack of balance at the top pro level, it's because of the players, not the game.
On July 26 2013 15:36 saddaromma wrote: The game has so many glaring problems. But DK - "Ladder is balanced so its cool". I'm not sure if he is the right guy to design sc2. He did a good job but we need someone new.
The pro scene is pretty balanced also at the moment. Aside from a lack of Protoss "champions" they've had very reasonable representation in HoTS pretty much across the board, foreign tournaments and Korean.
You can easily blame there not being a Protoss champion on the simple fact that they don't have anyone has good as Innovation or Soulkey, I think that's where David Kim's "Protoss players need to get better" comment comes from, I don't think it's a stab at the players that play the race so much as it's an acknowledgement that there isn't a true ELITE Protoss player the way there's elite Zergs and Terrans like Innovation and Soulkey who are recognized as just being heads and shoulders above their peers.
MC was better than his peers in terms of sheer control and multitasking during his peak. Limited because the race was just simply did not have the same potential and power as terran. [Puma's career might be entirely evidence of that]
Rain- I don't know in what world we pretend Rain isn't at least on the level with Innovation and Soulkey/Roro/someother champion over the last 4 months. Incredible planning and multitasking.
It's a cop out answer and it's not going to be much comfort to be vindicated when in a year HoTS looks like the last year of WoL.
I like Rain, I think he's one of the best Protoss players in the world but I really think he's overrated and that is hard for me to say because I do know how good he is, but he isn't on the level of Innovation. I'm sorry but he just isn't.
Here's a good example of the kind of Elite status I'm talking about with Innovation. You EXPECT him to win, and he dominates, his series vs Soulkey in the OSL RO8 was a textbook example of domination over an opponent and Soulkey played some of the best ZvT (in game one at least) I've ever seen except from perhaps Startale Life at his peak.
Rain? Went 3-2 in a tough crazy series with Supernova who isn't even usually considered when we talk about world's top Terran players (perhaps we should?) That kind of thing you just don't see from Innovation and Soulkey, when they get paired against anyone that isn't each other the outcome is predictably one sided affairs.
You can't just decide to put Rain on their level of excellence just for parity's sake, just so we can point to 3 individual players and say "oh yea those are the best at their respective races at the moment, they're the new Bisu/Flash/Jaedong" the reality just isn't consistent with that.
Rain is good, but he doesn't have that Elite untouchable status right now the way Innovation does, or the way Life used to. Perhaps during his first OSL win when he dominated WCS Asia and looked unbeatable in PvT (even then MVP found a way to beat him.) he had it, and maybe he'll get back there, but he isn't there right now and hasn't been for all of HoTS.
Again this is all my opinion, but that's how I interpreted what David Kim said. It isn't so much that Protoss players aren't good, but when you look at the players winning championships, and compare those guys amongst each other, it's the top Terrans and Zergs that stand out as consistently dominant. We haven't had a Protoss in that company since MC.
Season 1 - Roro WCS Season 1 - Soulkey WCS Season Finals - Innovation WCS Season 2 - Innovation, Maru, Bomber, Rain IEM WCS - YoDa 2013 MLG Winter Championships - Life DH Open Stockhelm - Leenock DH Open Summer - StarDust HSC VII - Taeja 2013 MLG Spring Championships - Polt DH Open Valencia - HyuN
So despite not having a lot of individual crowns, there is still a good representation of Protoss players in the later stages of most tournaments OVERALL.
Please remember this is a translation of an oral translation. The interview is done in a media meeting in which David Kim talks in English and the translator translates it into Chinese and the journalist posts it online and now I am translating it into English. So the true meaning can be distorted during the process
This thread is just zerg not admitting they are fine, toss complaining they are not winning tournaments and that david kim doesn't react, and terran crying for mech.
This interview's question were quite bad (pace of the game?? Zerg is weak?). An interview shouldn't be all about nerf and buff and crying...
On July 26 2013 15:36 saddaromma wrote: The game has so many glaring problems. But DK - "Ladder is balanced so its cool". I'm not sure if he is the right guy to design sc2. He did a good job but we need someone new.
The pro scene is pretty balanced also at the moment. Aside from a lack of Protoss "champions" they've had very reasonable representation in HoTS pretty much across the board, foreign tournaments and Korean.
You can easily blame there not being a Protoss champion on the simple fact that they don't have anyone has good as Innovation or Soulkey, I think that's where David Kim's "Protoss players need to get better" comment comes from, I don't think it's a stab at the players that play the race so much as it's an acknowledgement that there isn't a true ELITE Protoss player the way there's elite Zergs and Terrans like Innovation and Soulkey who are recognized as just being heads and shoulders above their peers.
MC was better than his peers in terms of sheer control and multitasking during his peak. Limited because the race was just simply did not have the same potential and power as terran. [Puma's career might be entirely evidence of that]
Rain- I don't know in what world we pretend Rain isn't at least on the level with Innovation and Soulkey/Roro/someother champion over the last 4 months. Incredible planning and multitasking.
It's a cop out answer and it's not going to be much comfort to be vindicated when in a year HoTS looks like the last year of WoL.
I like Rain, I think he's one of the best Protoss players in the world but I really think he's overrated and that is hard for me to say because I do know how good he is, but he isn't on the level of Innovation. I'm sorry but he just isn't.
Here's a good example of the kind of Elite status I'm talking about with Innovation. You EXPECT him to win, and he dominates, his series vs Soulkey in the OSL RO8 was a textbook example of domination over an opponent and Soulkey played some of the best ZvT (in game one at least) I've ever seen except from perhaps Startale Life at his peak.
Rain? Went 3-2 in a tough crazy series with Supernova who isn't even usually considered when we talk about world's top Terran players (perhaps we should?) That kind of thing you just don't see from Innovation and Soulkey, when they get paired against anyone that isn't each other the outcome is predictably one sided affairs.
You can't just decide to put Rain on their level of excellence just for parity's sake, just so we can point to 3 individual players and say "oh yea those are the best at their respective races at the moment, they're the new Bisu/Flash/Jaedong" the reality just isn't consistent with that.
Rain is good, but he doesn't have that Elite untouchable status right now the way Innovation does, or the way Life used to. Perhaps during his first OSL win when he dominated WCS Asia and looked unbeatable in PvT (even then MVP found a way to beat him.) he had it, and maybe he'll get back there, but he isn't there right now and hasn't been for all of HoTS.
Again this is all my opinion, but that's how I interpreted what David Kim said. It isn't so much that Protoss players aren't good, but when you look at the players winning championships, and compare those guys amongst each other, it's the top Terrans and Zergs that stand out as consistently dominant. We haven't had a Protoss in that company since MC.
Wait, what Terrans and Zergs have been "consistently dominant" Or at least, define what you mean... Are you referring to individual champions? Because so far in GSL there hasn't been a back-to-back champion in 2013.
People are going to have their own definitions for what it takes to be a "dominant player" but here's a few examples.
MVP in 2011, DRG in early to mid 2012, the Summer of Taeja, Nestea's back to back titles, Stephano in 2012 in the foreigner scene etc.
How many times can you think of a period of time where any one Protoss player has emerged as the "current best in the world." There are only three that come to mind for me (and I watch a LOT of Starcraft.) MC in early 2011, Seed for like one GSL/GSTL season and maybe a month after that, and Rain during the period of time where he won OSL and WCS Asia.
If you fast forward to present. There aren't any Protoss players that are currently dominating the scene the way Innovation is now. The previous best in the world before Innovation assumed that mantle was Life, a Zerg. That's the kind of dominant I'm talking about. Players that are so good, we as a community accept them as the current best in the world.
Well, if for every single level from bronze to top GM (which is already pro level by the way), the game is balanced, you can reasonably suppose that, if there is a lack of balance at the top pro level, it's because of the players, not the game.
And posts like this show how little the average joes of the world know about game design. I could write an essay to this subject but since I've stayed up all night watching IEM I'll just tell you that the reason there is a lack of balance at the top pro level isn't because of the players, it's because the skill cap & skill requirement for each race is different. It's the most common problem in any game where people fight against eachother with different types of toons/characters/races/factions. They might all have the required functions that the standard players will end up playing fairly even games against eachother, but some simply do not allow for you go that extra mile and put all your skill into effect in order to win. I probably don't need to explain to you how different Protoss armies are from for example Terran armies and how much it affects what you can do with multitasking/harass and how hard it is to recover from a setback.
On July 26 2013 15:36 saddaromma wrote: The game has so many glaring problems. But DK - "Ladder is balanced so its cool". I'm not sure if he is the right guy to design sc2. He did a good job but we need someone new.
The pro scene is pretty balanced also at the moment. Aside from a lack of Protoss "champions" they've had very reasonable representation in HoTS pretty much across the board, foreign tournaments and Korean.
You can easily blame there not being a Protoss champion on the simple fact that they don't have anyone has good as Innovation or Soulkey, I think that's where David Kim's "Protoss players need to get better" comment comes from, I don't think it's a stab at the players that play the race so much as it's an acknowledgement that there isn't a true ELITE Protoss player the way there's elite Zergs and Terrans like Innovation and Soulkey who are recognized as just being heads and shoulders above their peers.
MC was better than his peers in terms of sheer control and multitasking during his peak. Limited because the race was just simply did not have the same potential and power as terran. [Puma's career might be entirely evidence of that]
Rain- I don't know in what world we pretend Rain isn't at least on the level with Innovation and Soulkey/Roro/someother champion over the last 4 months. Incredible planning and multitasking.
It's a cop out answer and it's not going to be much comfort to be vindicated when in a year HoTS looks like the last year of WoL.
I like Rain, I think he's one of the best Protoss players in the world but I really think he's overrated and that is hard for me to say because I do know how good he is, but he isn't on the level of Innovation. I'm sorry but he just isn't.
Here's a good example of the kind of Elite status I'm talking about with Innovation. You EXPECT him to win, and he dominates, his series vs Soulkey in the OSL RO8 was a textbook example of domination over an opponent and Soulkey played some of the best ZvT (in game one at least) I've ever seen except from perhaps Startale Life at his peak.
Rain? Went 3-2 in a tough crazy series with Supernova who isn't even usually considered when we talk about world's top Terran players (perhaps we should?) That kind of thing you just don't see from Innovation and Soulkey, when they get paired against anyone that isn't each other the outcome is predictably one sided affairs.
You can't just decide to put Rain on their level of excellence just for parity's sake, just so we can point to 3 individual players and say "oh yea those are the best at their respective races at the moment, they're the new Bisu/Flash/Jaedong" the reality just isn't consistent with that.
Rain is good, but he doesn't have that Elite untouchable status right now the way Innovation does, or the way Life used to. Perhaps during his first OSL win when he dominated WCS Asia and looked unbeatable in PvT (even then MVP found a way to beat him.) he had it, and maybe he'll get back there, but he isn't there right now and hasn't been for all of HoTS.
Again this is all my opinion, but that's how I interpreted what David Kim said. It isn't so much that Protoss players aren't good, but when you look at the players winning championships, and compare those guys amongst each other, it's the top Terrans and Zergs that stand out as consistently dominant. We haven't had a Protoss in that company since MC.
Season 1 - Roro WCS Season 1 - Soulkey WCS Season Finals - Innovation WCS Season 2 - Innovation, Maru, Bomber, Rain IEM WCS - YoDa 2013 MLG Winter Championships - Life DH Open Stockhelm - Leenock DH Open Summer - StarDust HSC VII - Taeja 2013 MLG Spring Championships - Polt DH Open Valencia - HyuN
So despite not having a lot of individual crowns, there is still a good representation of Protoss players in the later stages of most tournaments OVERALL.
Your bringing up of top finishes goes back to my first point, if you read the post I typed before the one you quoted.
I'm agreeing with David Kim's assertion that the pro scene looks relatively well balanced. Protoss has had good showings in the Ro4-8 of pretty much every HOTS tournament thus far as your tournament listing states.
What there's been a general lack of is actual champions and that is where I think David Kim's comment about "protoss playing better" is coming from. There's a jump up between the kinds of players in the current game that are winning championships and the kind of players simply placing in the top 16. There are players of Zerg and Terran that are consistently top placing or are considered favored champions in most of the tournaments they play in but the same can't be said of Protoss players for the most part.
This is where I am interpreting the comment to mean, we have a lot of good Protoss players but what we don't have are a lot of ELITE Protoss players, elite players that are favored to win titles. By and large for a while now most of those players that have achieved that kind of elite status have been Terrans and Zergs, when we HAVE had a Protoss champion (Stardust) it was a complete surprise because no one expected him to win.
This is where I am interpreting the comment to mean, we have a lot of good Protoss players but what we don't have are a lot of ELITE Protoss players, elite players that are favored to win titles.
I'm sorry but that's just a perception you have because Protoss haven't won tournaments. You feel Zerg and Terran have the best playersbecause they have won tournaments, not because you're looking at the non-race specific RTS skills of the players. Don't fool yourself and think that if Innovation and Soulkey played Protoss they would be known as dominating and feared players who are expected to win every tournament.
Any mech talk gives me hope that they haven't given up mech specially for TvP. Honestly isn't everyone sick of only seeing variations of bio in both TvP and TvZ?
Protoss is just fucked up by design, the core of the problem lies, as a dozen hundred times mentioned, within the warpgate mechanic and the force fields. In order to compensate for this powerful features, tier 1 and 1,5 units are generally weak in raw comparison. I Quit sc2 long time ago for this bullshit.
Blizzard wants a game, that is fun to watch for casuals, not fun to play at the top level.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck?
any buff to stalker would cause having insane pvt winrates
Please explain.
Is it because you always got blink stalkers all in? Cos i always do that on ladder if they failed to scout. If scouted, it's very easy to defend.
Buff is just an word. It could be reduce resource, etc. Not damage output in any sense.
so u could buf the stalkers in more than 1 way, for example u could give some more damage, more speed or even some kind of upgrade (like blink). in any case a simple 4 gate push would kill terrans, because stalkers already faster than marines and stalkers are much better than marines in same numbers, even without micro. so the only way for terran players to stop 4 gate or 3 gate early pushes would be at least 2-3 bunkers in the front.
This is where I am interpreting the comment to mean, we have a lot of good Protoss players but what we don't have are a lot of ELITE Protoss players, elite players that are favored to win titles.
I'm sorry but that's just a perception you have because Protoss haven't won tournaments. You feel Zerg and Terran have the best playersbecause they have won tournaments, not because you're looking at the non-race specific RTS skills of the players. Don't fool yourself and think that if Innovation and Soulkey played Protoss they would be known as dominating and feared players who are expected to win every tournament.
It isn't just that they are or aren't winning tournaments. It's how they're playing before they get there.
Rain hasn't looked dominant at all in HoTS. He's been putting up decent results but he just hasn't looked dominant the way Innovation does or the way Life used to.
In WCS Korea season 1, he lost in his group to Innovation and Gumiho. Granted he DID take one of the series off of Innovation, but then he turns right around and loses to Gumiho.
Innovation meanwhile, went to the finals of that tournament and then won the global finals. Soulkey similarly won WCS Korea and then made Ro4 at the tournament after that before being beat by sOs (who btw got 4-0'd by Innovation)
Even the BEST Protoss players just aren't consistently good. This pattern has stuck for a long time now. Rain is widely considered the best or one of the best but even he hasn't been anywhere near as good as Innovation or Soulkey have lately.
In fact if we look at overall WCS Results, sOs has actually had superior results to Ran in season 1 altogether but he's been a complete non-factor in Season 2.
This is what I'm talking about. The best Terrans and the best Zergs stay relevant in every tournament they play in, if they don't win they place highly. We don't have that consistent pattern from Protoss players in HoTS and the only time we REALLY had it in WoL was when MC was dominating.
On July 26 2013 15:36 saddaromma wrote: The game has so many glaring problems. But DK - "Ladder is balanced so its cool". I'm not sure if he is the right guy to design sc2. He did a good job but we need someone new.
The pro scene is pretty balanced also at the moment. Aside from a lack of Protoss "champions" they've had very reasonable representation in HoTS pretty much across the board, foreign tournaments and Korean. (If you want an example of "not reasonable" look at foreign Terran winrates in WoL.)
You can easily blame there not being a Protoss champion on the simple fact that they don't have anyone has good as Innovation or Soulkey, I think that's where David Kim's "Protoss players need to get better" comment comes from, I don't think it's a stab at the players that play the race so much as it's an acknowledgement that there isn't a true ELITE Protoss player the way there's elite Zergs and Terrans like Innovation and Soulkey who are recognized as just being heads and shoulders above their peers.
You guys are too carried away with balance-mania. I'm not talking about balance, the game itslef has many flaws.
On July 26 2013 15:36 saddaromma wrote: The game has so many glaring problems. But DK - "Ladder is balanced so its cool". I'm not sure if he is the right guy to design sc2. He did a good job but we need someone new.
The pro scene is pretty balanced also at the moment. Aside from a lack of Protoss "champions" they've had very reasonable representation in HoTS pretty much across the board, foreign tournaments and Korean. (If you want an example of "not reasonable" look at foreign Terran winrates in WoL.)
You can easily blame there not being a Protoss champion on the simple fact that they don't have anyone has good as Innovation or Soulkey, I think that's where David Kim's "Protoss players need to get better" comment comes from, I don't think it's a stab at the players that play the race so much as it's an acknowledgement that there isn't a true ELITE Protoss player the way there's elite Zergs and Terrans like Innovation and Soulkey who are recognized as just being heads and shoulders above their peers.
You guys are too carried away with balance-mania. I'm not talking about balance, the game itslef has many flaws.
Then write a more detailed post talking about your problems with the game. When you post a simple post like the one you just posted I'm assuming you're just jumping in with the rest of the people in this thread arguing that David Kim's comments about balance are somehow wrong, even though the stats say they aren't.
I'm not totally happy with Starcraft 2's current design either, I think a lot of improvements can be made, but you're being completely unrealistic to expect any kind of major overhaul before LOTV.
WOW. Those questions were so bad. Buffles me that people really expect useful answers when the questions feature sentences like: I said that Zerg is not strong because widow mine is quite strong and its damage to Zerg units is the most prominent. In my opinion, Protoss is not a stable race. Although it has high damage, it relies heavily on high-tier units and the high costs of them limit the versatility of Protoss in competitive games SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds.
wtf? I don't care about some interviewers personal opinion, those questions really don't let DK room to say anything meaningful, what the actual fuck?
On July 26 2013 13:05 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim till date still don't address the low cost of Roaches which dealt so much damage in mass.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck? All his comments doesn't make sense. And buffing VIPER which already so strong against P which makes making colos pretty useless.
No need to buff Stalkers. The weakness of protoss is not the strength/weakness of single units but the complete set-up of the race, forcing it to be predictable and one-way'ly played. Protoss either cheese, 2-base allin or go 200/200 deathball. Only in late midgame/lategame, protoss gets to start serious harassing (mass zealot warpins, DT warpins on a regular basis, and - oh wait, that's it already. Maybe some fancy storm drops). Though I agree that there are not too many huge protoss players, it basically comes down to Rain. sOs appears to be a bit overrated and not top of the crop (hate me for this. He dropped in the ro32 of OSL (I think.)). Parting starts to do P(arting)vZ as J(aedong)vP (stellar mechanics, but no more stellar allins). Ofc we have PvProleague, but those top protosses are not really doing individual leagues. MC's times are over, Stardust winning Dreamhack was kind of an accident (hate me again, that guy is seriously hyped).
I could continue that player list. But at the time, for each race, we have at least one player trying to give that race the look of imbalance. That is Innovation(T) and Soulkey(Z). For Protoss? Didn't find any. But what if Rain wins OSL on the back of his completely, according to most people here, underbalanced standard(!!!) play? I can imagine though what happens if he loses to Bomber or Maru(/Innovation). Lots of balance cries. If he loses in the final against Innovation.. oh well. Losing vs. Innovation is not that hard. Still, nerd tears and balance cries incoming.
Edit: I'm not that good at protoss meta. So forgive me if I oversimplified that ways of harass and/or the basic ways of playing protoss. That's my understanding at this point in time.
Edit2: Long story short, what I'm saying is: Protoss is not underbalanced (maybe in a slight margin of 0.5% or so, but that's more a personal feeling). But, in the last months, there was no protoss player using the race to its full I-can-win-a-GSL/OSL potential. Remember Zerg BW days before Savior...
Not a very enlightening interview, I feel this is mostly due to the horrible questions. I'm looking forward to what they will do to the Viper, but am surprised nothing is happening to the Oracle.
On July 26 2013 15:36 saddaromma wrote: The game has so many glaring problems. But DK - "Ladder is balanced so its cool". I'm not sure if he is the right guy to design sc2. He did a good job but we need someone new.
The pro scene is pretty balanced also at the moment. Aside from a lack of Protoss "champions" they've had very reasonable representation in HoTS pretty much across the board, foreign tournaments and Korean.
You can easily blame there not being a Protoss champion on the simple fact that they don't have anyone has good as Innovation or Soulkey, I think that's where David Kim's "Protoss players need to get better" comment comes from, I don't think it's a stab at the players that play the race so much as it's an acknowledgement that there isn't a true ELITE Protoss player the way there's elite Zergs and Terrans like Innovation and Soulkey who are recognized as just being heads and shoulders above their peers.
MC was better than his peers in terms of sheer control and multitasking during his peak. Limited because the race was just simply did not have the same potential and power as terran. [Puma's career might be entirely evidence of that]
Rain- I don't know in what world we pretend Rain isn't at least on the level with Innovation and Soulkey/Roro/someother champion over the last 4 months. Incredible planning and multitasking.
It's a cop out answer and it's not going to be much comfort to be vindicated when in a year HoTS looks like the last year of WoL.
I like Rain, I think he's one of the best Protoss players in the world but I really think he's overrated and that is hard for me to say because I do know how good he is, but he isn't on the level of Innovation. I'm sorry but he just isn't.
Here's a good example of the kind of Elite status I'm talking about with Innovation. You EXPECT him to win, and he dominates, his series vs Soulkey in the OSL RO8 was a textbook example of domination over an opponent and Soulkey played some of the best ZvT (in game one at least) I've ever seen except from perhaps Startale Life at his peak.
Rain? Went 3-2 in a tough crazy series with Supernova who isn't even usually considered when we talk about world's top Terran players (perhaps we should?) That kind of thing you just don't see from Innovation and Soulkey, when they get paired against anyone that isn't each other the outcome is predictably one sided affairs.
You can't just decide to put Rain on their level of excellence just for parity's sake, just so we can point to 3 individual players and say "oh yea those are the best at their respective races at the moment, they're the new Bisu/Flash/Jaedong" the reality just isn't consistent with that.
Rain is good, but he doesn't have that Elite untouchable status right now the way Innovation does, or the way Life used to. Perhaps during his first OSL win when he dominated WCS Asia and looked unbeatable in PvT (even then MVP found a way to beat him.) he had it, and maybe he'll get back there, but he isn't there right now and hasn't been for all of HoTS.
Again this is all my opinion, but that's how I interpreted what David Kim said. It isn't so much that Protoss players aren't good, but when you look at the players winning championships, and compare those guys amongst each other, it's the top Terrans and Zergs that stand out as consistently dominant. We haven't had a Protoss in that company since MC.
Season 1 - Roro WCS Season 1 - Soulkey WCS Season Finals - Innovation WCS Season 2 - Innovation, Maru, Bomber, Rain IEM WCS - YoDa 2013 MLG Winter Championships - Life DH Open Stockhelm - Leenock DH Open Summer - StarDust HSC VII - Taeja 2013 MLG Spring Championships - Polt DH Open Valencia - HyuN
So despite not having a lot of individual crowns, there is still a good representation of Protoss players in the later stages of most tournaments OVERALL.
You are thinking exaclty like blizzard.
Most of top protoss' finishers heavily utilized strategies like 4gate, dt, voidray, 2gate rush or 2 base colossi (Inca, Seed, Naniwa, Genious). Of course sometimes luck is on their side and they make it to the top, but eventually get crushed in standard game. Even the most successful protoss, MC, mostly relies on ballzy strategies with high risks.
roach/bane all-in has the same tendency, it messes up statistics enough to make it look like TvZ is balanced. Whereas more prepared players like Innovation, Flash or Bomber find no problem at holding it.
David Kim: About mech, we are thinking to make it easier to use. In fact, in WOL, TvT had a lot of mech, but in TvP and TvZ mech didn't get used much.
Overall, we are focusing on the strength and weakness of certain units. We don't have a clear plan for mech right now, but it depends on the situation in the future.
Yep ... they have no intentions of "fixing mech to make it viable" and since there is no way to make the Siege Tank easier to use - except for making Siege/Unsiege instant (which would be totally terrible) - they are probably only looking at their Hellbat and Widow Mine. "Easy to use" isnt a problem of the Siege Tank, because the "problem" of using it is deciding where to put it and everything else is its power level ...
Disappointing and rather disgusting to see a bunch of game designers be so absolutely biased in their opinion against parts of their own game.
Agree with this. And the last time they tried to make mech easier they gave us the Marauder 2.0
Blizzard hating mech and hiding behind never ending promises and explanations. Years of development and 4-5 months of play and they "don't have a clear plan"
In my opionion the best way as someone said is to buff stalkers. It will make the race more stable. If its to big buff ofcourse they can make something else weaker
This philosophy of "if it seems boring, change it" seems like a poor objective choice for a balance team. A balance team is supposed to balance stuff, not make things shooty-blowy-flashy-fun. That's Riot's job. If everybody's using a certain strategy/combination because it's just too damn good to pass up in comparison to others, that's a balance issue that the balance team should fix that also helps make the game more varied and fun. However, if the game becomes "boring" because of certain popular trends in playstyles, absolutely no changes should be made. That's not a balance issue, that's a contextual issue and forcing changes in a deceptively well-off setting will only harm the game and provoke the community.
On July 26 2013 17:23 Walperin wrote: In my opionion the best way as someone said is to buff stalkers. It will make the race more stable. If its to big buff ofcourse they can make something else weaker
Yeah they would have to nerf blink lol. Blink stalkers are already really good, buff stalker and don't remove/nerf blink and blink stalkers will be even more powerful.
On July 26 2013 17:23 Walperin wrote: In my opionion the best way as someone said is to buff stalkers. It will make the race more stable. If its to big buff ofcourse they can make something else weaker
Stalkers are very good in several toss all-ins. Meanwhile late game they are useful for certain roles, but outside of that you generally don't want to make too many of them.
Now what do you think the result is when you buff stalkers?
This interviewer makes the Chinese scene sound like a bunch of insatiable balance whiners. Such terrible questions...
Still, pretty interesting how Kim believes that vipers are weak. They're such finicky, gimmick units... I thought that's how they were meant to be: useless without an army to support. I guess Kim won't be happy until people mass them like infestors in WoL.
I think what I find disturbing about almost all of David Kim's interviews is the apparent disconnect between players and designers. Balance and win rates, while related, are not synonymous.
I wholeheartedly agree with a metrics driven approach to identifying balance issues. However, these interviews leave me thinking they look at win rates and, assuming it's close to 50/50, call it a day. What about other factors like average game time for each win? Variety of build orders/strategies? Would we seriously argue that a matchup was balanced if one race had to win within 15 minutes even if the overall winrate was 50/50? Would we consider a race balanced if it only had one viable strategy?
I feel that when players talk about balance, these are the types of issues they are discussing. Specifically, lack of viable strategies and unacceptably small margins for error seem to come up often. Quoting win rates as an argument completely misses the point and speaks to a huge understanding gap between player and designer.
To be fair, this interview is pretty bad but the entire line of thinking around mech speaks volumes. DK as much as admitted that mech is underpowered but has no clear plans to look at it and apparently feels no urgency to do so. This is a huge problem and it starts with the "50/50, everything must be great" outlook.
On July 26 2013 17:37 dUTtrOACh wrote: This interviewer makes the Chinese scene sound like a bunch of insatiable balance whiners. Such terrible questions...
He literally rates balance by using his matchmaking system that forces people to be 50/50 (though I understand that doesn't mean each matchup is 50/50 it is still kinda fucked up to use that for balance) and the top two of a major tournament? That does explain why the game is as wierd as it is in some regards.
Also I love when more drops = more entertaining in his eyes, when to me personally terran droping when going bio has become as normal and boring as terran moving to the watch tower... In BW when you actually invested in something that gave you nothing else besides the ability to drop, so you had to consciously be like "I will drop" rather than just using the healers you build anyways, it had soooo much more excitement connected to it.
On July 26 2013 17:50 supernovice007 wrote: I think what I find disturbing about almost all of David Kim's interviews is the apparent disconnect between players and designers. Balance and win rates, while related, are not synonymous.
I wholeheartedly agree with a metrics driven approach to identifying balance issues. However, these interviews leave me thinking they look at win rates and, assuming it's close to 50/50, call it a day. What about other factors like average game time for each win? Variety of build orders/strategies? Would we seriously argue that a matchup was balanced if one race had to win within 15 minutes even if the overall winrate was 50/50? Would we consider a race balanced if it only had one viable strategy?
I feel that when players talk about balance, these are the types of issues they are discussing. Specifically, lack of viable strategies and unacceptably small margins for error seem to come up often. Quoting win rates as an argument completely misses the point and speaks to a huge understanding gap between player and designer.
To be fair, this interview is pretty bad but the entire line of thinking around mech speaks volumes. DK as much as admitted that mech is underpowered but has no clear plans to look at it and apparently feels no urgency to do so. This is a huge problem and it starts with the "50/50, everything must be great" outlook.
Excellent post. An example of what you said would be, if Protoss can get a 50% win rate vs Zerg by doing an Immortal/Sentry all in variation every game, the entire matchup clearly is balanced and no late game issues or any other issues and discrepancies between skill caps and skill requirements exist. Likewise, they think that if Terran can win 50% or more games by using bio units, then the matchup is balanced, and mech and whatever else sucking is completely irrelevant.
On July 26 2013 17:50 supernovice007 wrote: I think what I find disturbing about almost all of David Kim's interviews is the apparent disconnect between players and designers. Balance and win rates, while related, are not synonymous.
I wholeheartedly agree with a metrics driven approach to identifying balance issues. However, these interviews leave me thinking they look at win rates and, assuming it's close to 50/50, call it a day. What about other factors like average game time for each win? Variety of build orders/strategies? Would we seriously argue that a matchup was balanced if one race had to win within 15 minutes even if the overall winrate was 50/50? Would we consider a race balanced if it only had one viable strategy?
I feel that when players talk about balance, these are the types of issues they are discussing. Specifically, lack of viable strategies and unacceptably small margins for error seem to come up often. Quoting win rates as an argument completely misses the point and speaks to a huge understanding gap between player and designer.
To be fair, this interview is pretty bad but the entire line of thinking around mech speaks volumes. DK as much as admitted that mech is underpowered but has no clear plans to look at it and apparently feels no urgency to do so. This is a huge problem and it starts with the "50/50, everything must be great" outlook.
Well stated. I can't tell if the designers are aware of the fundamental problems with the game, or they're just too egotistical to admit that their approach isn't the greatest.
The heavy emphasis on unit counters and lack of microability in a lot of units is definitely something they could take a better look at.
wtf that reporter is so bias! talking like T is OP.... should atleast watch the tournament in front of him where only 4 terrans were in RO16... i guess he is not used to WMs since the game was released 1 week ago in china
On July 26 2013 17:50 supernovice007 wrote: I think what I find disturbing about almost all of David Kim's interviews is the apparent disconnect between players and designers. Balance and win rates, while related, are not synonymous.
I wholeheartedly agree with a metrics driven approach to identifying balance issues. However, these interviews leave me thinking they look at win rates and, assuming it's close to 50/50, call it a day. What about other factors like average game time for each win? Variety of build orders/strategies? Would we seriously argue that a matchup was balanced if one race had to win within 15 minutes even if the overall winrate was 50/50? Would we consider a race balanced if it only had one viable strategy?
I feel that when players talk about balance, these are the types of issues they are discussing. Specifically, lack of viable strategies and unacceptably small margins for error seem to come up often. Quoting win rates as an argument completely misses the point and speaks to a huge understanding gap between player and designer.
To be fair, this interview is pretty bad but the entire line of thinking around mech speaks volumes. DK as much as admitted that mech is underpowered but has no clear plans to look at it and apparently feels no urgency to do so. This is a huge problem and it starts with the "50/50, everything must be great" outlook.
Well stated. I can't tell if the designers are aware of the fundamental problems with the game, or they're just too egotistical to admit that their approach isn't the greatest.
The heavy emphasis on unit counters and lack of microability in a lot of units is definitely something they could take a better look at.
Or I think they know from experience with WoL (since they clearly didn't learn with BW) that the metagame itself fixes a lot of perceived balance problems on its own.
You can't just put out a balance patch every 2 months to force the metagame to shift (unless it's to fix something specific that's broken like Helbats in TvT or Mutalisks in ZvZ), you have to let it happen on its own or else you end up with what we had in WoL.
The players can't just petition Blizzard every time they think a match up isn't how they want it to be played, there's a responsibility of the players also to push the metagame in new directions, to discover new strategies and ways to approach every match up.
There's a responsibility on tournaments to adopt new maps that ALLOW for new strategies to be played.
There's a whole slew of things that come into play before you start tweaking the balance on units if you want to shift how the metagame plays out. Blizzard is doing the responsible thing and in my mind the correct thing by leaving the metagame alone so it can evolve on its own.
In other words. The game's balance is good, don't fuck with it. Let the players figure out new strategies on their own.
It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg.
Haha, this sounds a little funny: "At least fewer than the only other races that exist."
I would guess it's meant to be It seems like there are few top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg, hence the second part of the statement in order to point out it's more of a comparison, rather than saying there are simply very few of them.
He seems to completely fail to understand that there is a huge difference between the effects of "longer battles" and "longer games".
On July 26 2013 15:36 saddaromma wrote: The game has so many glaring problems. But DK - "Ladder is balanced so its cool". I'm not sure if he is the right guy to design sc2. He did a good job but we need someone new.
The pro scene is pretty balanced also at the moment. Aside from a lack of Protoss "champions" they've had very reasonable representation in HoTS pretty much across the board, foreign tournaments and Korean.
You can easily blame there not being a Protoss champion on the simple fact that they don't have anyone has good as Innovation or Soulkey, I think that's where David Kim's "Protoss players need to get better" comment comes from, I don't think it's a stab at the players that play the race so much as it's an acknowledgement that there isn't a true ELITE Protoss player the way there's elite Zergs and Terrans like Innovation and Soulkey who are recognized as just being heads and shoulders above their peers.
MC was better than his peers in terms of sheer control and multitasking during his peak. Limited because the race was just simply did not have the same potential and power as terran. [Puma's career might be entirely evidence of that]
Rain- I don't know in what world we pretend Rain isn't at least on the level with Innovation and Soulkey/Roro/someother champion over the last 4 months. Incredible planning and multitasking.
It's a cop out answer and it's not going to be much comfort to be vindicated when in a year HoTS looks like the last year of WoL.
I like Rain, I think he's one of the best Protoss players in the world but I really think he's overrated and that is hard for me to say because I do know how good he is, but he isn't on the level of Innovation. I'm sorry but he just isn't.
Here's a good example of the kind of Elite status I'm talking about with Innovation. You EXPECT him to win, and he dominates, his series vs Soulkey in the OSL RO8 was a textbook example of domination over an opponent and Soulkey played some of the best ZvT (in game one at least) I've ever seen except from perhaps Startale Life at his peak.
Rain? Went 3-2 in a tough crazy series with Supernova who isn't even usually considered when we talk about world's top Terran players (perhaps we should?) That kind of thing you just don't see from Innovation and Soulkey, when they get paired against anyone that isn't each other the outcome is predictably one sided affairs.
You can't just decide to put Rain on their level of excellence just for parity's sake, just so we can point to 3 individual players and say "oh yea those are the best at their respective races at the moment, they're the new Bisu/Flash/Jaedong" the reality just isn't consistent with that.
Rain is good, but he doesn't have that Elite untouchable status right now the way Innovation does, or the way Life used to. Perhaps during his first OSL win when he dominated WCS Asia and looked unbeatable in PvT (even then MVP found a way to beat him.) he had it, and maybe he'll get back there, but he isn't there right now and hasn't been for all of HoTS.
Again this is all my opinion, but that's how I interpreted what David Kim said. It isn't so much that Protoss players aren't good, but when you look at the players winning championships, and compare those guys amongst each other, it's the top Terrans and Zergs that stand out as consistently dominant. We haven't had a Protoss in that company since MC.
Season 1 - Roro WCS Season 1 - Soulkey WCS Season Finals - Innovation WCS Season 2 - Innovation, Maru, Bomber, Rain IEM WCS - YoDa 2013 MLG Winter Championships - Life DH Open Stockhelm - Leenock DH Open Summer - StarDust HSC VII - Taeja 2013 MLG Spring Championships - Polt DH Open Valencia - HyuN
So despite not having a lot of individual crowns, there is still a good representation of Protoss players in the later stages of most tournaments OVERALL.
You are thinking exaclty like blizzard.
Most of top protoss' finishers heavily utilized strategies like 4gate, dt, voidray, 2gate rush or 2 base colossi (Inca, Seed, Naniwa, Genious). Of course sometimes luck is on their side and they make it to the top, but eventually get crushed in standard game. Even the most successful protoss, MC, mostly relies on ballzy strategies with high risks.
roach/bane all-in has the same tendency, it messes up statistics enough to make it look like TvZ is balanced. Whereas more prepared players like Innovation, Flash or Bomber find no problem at holding it.
Statistics are big liars.
you are saying P and Z cheeses and rely alot on allins in order to win while terrans always play standard macro and never cheeses/allin(3base scv allin vs P, proxy raxes,2 base mass blueflamehellion, anyone?)?? i think its almost the same ratio, so u cant say it messes up the statistic...
There's something i have been wondering since HoTS launch.
Why protoss do go Skytoss PvZ OR GW units? Why they don't add one by one and slowly some voids in their comp like Terran did in TvZ with Banshee/mech? No a whine or criticizm. I'm just thinking it could be really cool.
For the toss part, i really think something like reintroducing the building who bring shield back and increases shield regeneration could lead to muuuuuuuuuch more harrassement-based toss play. Some litlle tweaks like that. And for oracle bringing a big spell that could stop one building from working during X sec (static D) and combining revelation and the other detection spell.
On July 26 2013 18:36 MTAC wrote: There's something i have been wondering since HoTS launch.
Why protoss do go Skytoss PvZ OR GW units? Why they don't add one by one and slowly some voids in their comp like Terran did in TvZ with Banshee/mech? No a whine or criticizm. I'm just thinking it could be really cool.
For the toss part, i really think something like reintroducing the building who bring shield back and increases shield regeneration could lead to muuuuuuuuuch more harrassement-based toss play. Some litlle tweaks like that. And for oracle bringing a big spell that could stop one building from working during X sec (static D) and combining revelation and the other detection spell.
I'm pretty sure they removed that anti-static defense spell because it made Void Ray all ins too strong.
On July 26 2013 17:50 supernovice007 wrote: I think what I find disturbing about almost all of David Kim's interviews is the apparent disconnect between players and designers. Balance and win rates, while related, are not synonymous.
I wholeheartedly agree with a metrics driven approach to identifying balance issues. However, these interviews leave me thinking they look at win rates and, assuming it's close to 50/50, call it a day. What about other factors like average game time for each win? Variety of build orders/strategies? Would we seriously argue that a matchup was balanced if one race had to win within 15 minutes even if the overall winrate was 50/50? Would we consider a race balanced if it only had one viable strategy?
I feel that when players talk about balance, these are the types of issues they are discussing. Specifically, lack of viable strategies and unacceptably small margins for error seem to come up often. Quoting win rates as an argument completely misses the point and speaks to a huge understanding gap between player and designer.
To be fair, this interview is pretty bad but the entire line of thinking around mech speaks volumes. DK as much as admitted that mech is underpowered but has no clear plans to look at it and apparently feels no urgency to do so. This is a huge problem and it starts with the "50/50, everything must be great" outlook.
Well stated. I can't tell if the designers are aware of the fundamental problems with the game, or they're just too egotistical to admit that their approach isn't the greatest.
The heavy emphasis on unit counters and lack of microability in a lot of units is definitely something they could take a better look at.
Or I think they know from experience with WoL (since they clearly didn't learn with BW) that the metagame itself fixes a lot of perceived balance problems on its own.
You can't just put out a balance patch every 2 months to force the metagame to shift (unless it's to fix something specific that's broken like Helbats in TvT or Mutalisks in ZvZ), you have to let it happen on its own or else you end up with what we had in WoL.
The players can't just petition Blizzard every time they think a match up isn't how they want it to be played, there's a responsibility of the players also to push the metagame in new directions, to discover new strategies and ways to approach every match up.
There's a responsibility on tournaments to adopt new maps that ALLOW for new strategies to be played.
There's a whole slew of things that come into play before you start tweaking the balance on units if you want to shift how the metagame plays out. Blizzard is doing the responsible thing and in my mind the correct thing by leaving the metagame alone so it can evolve on its own.
In other words. The game's balance is good, don't fuck with it. Let the players figure out new strategies on their own.
Balance isn't as important as unit design and mechanics. BW was only able to have huge meta game shifts because of how much mileage you could get out of units through micro. SC2's engine doesn't allow for that high degree of control between units, and is more focused on unit counters.
For that reason alone, you can't just wait for the game to solve itself. Your logic of "let players figure it out" only works if you put SC2 in a vacuum.
The problem with Protoss is that you have to be so DAMN innovative with your builds, look at Naniwa for example, everytime he goes to an event he has some nice new builds prepared (talking especially about his pvz), but once you get figured out as a Toss, well it just goes downhill. Terran and Zerg are much better because you can play standard all games with going MMM and whatever comp you want as zerg, and rely on your harass and multitask since your units are cheap and good.
My problem with balance right now is the lack of diversity. If you let the meta fix itself it will be stuck forever and there wont be any variation in builds/play.
TvP is always bio, never mech. It is interesting to watch and there is a lot of micro going on in highlevel play, but it always comes down to SCV pulls or storm/emp battles. We never see one base play, we never see mech, we never see skytoss. It would be so much better if all of that was somewhat viable.
Look at Tvt: bio, mech, marinetank, tank viking, skyterran, there are many ways to play the matchup and that makes it great to wtch and never boring (unless it is tankchess )
On July 26 2013 14:27 Reborn8u wrote: Great questions. I like things straight forward. I kind of feel like David Kim gave somewhat shallow answers to a some of the questions.
Anyway, as a terran player in HOTS, this is my opinion on protoss.....
I think an issue with protoss, is the race just doesn't really have any "safe standard play". If the opponent figures out what the protoss players strategy is early, the protoss dies, on the other side, if it goes unscouted or unpredicted, the protoss player has a very good chance at success. Protoss doesn't really seem to have builds that hold up versus anything and allow for adjustments as the game progresses, aka standard play.
On July 26 2013 17:50 supernovice007 wrote: I think what I find disturbing about almost all of David Kim's interviews is the apparent disconnect between players and designers. Balance and win rates, while related, are not synonymous.
I wholeheartedly agree with a metrics driven approach to identifying balance issues. However, these interviews leave me thinking they look at win rates and, assuming it's close to 50/50, call it a day. What about other factors like average game time for each win? Variety of build orders/strategies? Would we seriously argue that a matchup was balanced if one race had to win within 15 minutes even if the overall winrate was 50/50? Would we consider a race balanced if it only had one viable strategy?
I feel that when players talk about balance, these are the types of issues they are discussing. Specifically, lack of viable strategies and unacceptably small margins for error seem to come up often. Quoting win rates as an argument completely misses the point and speaks to a huge understanding gap between player and designer.
To be fair, this interview is pretty bad but the entire line of thinking around mech speaks volumes. DK as much as admitted that mech is underpowered but has no clear plans to look at it and apparently feels no urgency to do so. This is a huge problem and it starts with the "50/50, everything must be great" outlook.
Well stated. I can't tell if the designers are aware of the fundamental problems with the game, or they're just too egotistical to admit that their approach isn't the greatest.
The heavy emphasis on unit counters and lack of microability in a lot of units is definitely something they could take a better look at.
Or I think they know from experience with WoL (since they clearly didn't learn with BW) that the metagame itself fixes a lot of perceived balance problems on its own.
You can't just put out a balance patch every 2 months to force the metagame to shift (unless it's to fix something specific that's broken like Helbats in TvT or Mutalisks in ZvZ), you have to let it happen on its own or else you end up with what we had in WoL.
The players can't just petition Blizzard every time they think a match up isn't how they want it to be played, there's a responsibility of the players also to push the metagame in new directions, to discover new strategies and ways to approach every match up.
There's a responsibility on tournaments to adopt new maps that ALLOW for new strategies to be played.
There's a whole slew of things that come into play before you start tweaking the balance on units if you want to shift how the metagame plays out. Blizzard is doing the responsible thing and in my mind the correct thing by leaving the metagame alone so it can evolve on its own.
In other words. The game's balance is good, don't fuck with it. Let the players figure out new strategies on their own.
Balance isn't as important as unit design and mechanics. BW was only able to have huge meta game shifts because of how much mileage you could get out of units through micro. SC2's engine doesn't allow for that high degree of control between units, and is more focused on unit counters.
For that reason alone, you can't just wait for the game to solve itself. Your logic of "let players figure it out" only works if you put SC2 in a vacuum.
If that's how you feel then you should just quit arguing about balance now because what you want is a full on fucking game rework.
How likely do you think that is that we're going to have one of those in the middle of a WCS season? It isn't going to happen and you're being totally unreasonable if you think otherwise.
If you want to argue core mechanic debates I'm actually on your side, I think there's a lot of things that can be improved on SC2's core mechanics. But you're not in the right place trashing David Kim in this thread for not saying something like "yea I think in the next patch we're going to go back and take a look at Warp Gate tech" because it ISN'T freaking happening.
Let's look at what we do know. SC2 for all of its flaws DOES have an ever evolving metagame, stuff can emerge that no one sees coming that radically changes how the game is played. Perfect example? MVP's Double Armory Hellion/Banshee Mech build.
When it came onto the field it completely revamped for quite a while the way the match up played and won him an IEM and almost a GSL before Zerg could figure out how best to handle it.
Same core game mechanics, completely different metagame. Zerg had a brand new standard meta they had to prepare for and Terrans had a whole slew of additional openings and timings to work with.
You can't look at me and tell me that the same won't happen in the next 2 months with SC2. You aren't a pro player, and you can't see into the future.
Rather than run the risk of Blizzard screwing something up or giving us another Infestor or Queen patch, I'm happy letting them keep everything where it is. The game is exciting to watch, it's fun to play and the tournament results are some of the most balanced they've ever been. If the core game mechanics aren't where you and I want them well then that's on us to talk about it for LOTV, but not for a balance patch.
I'm pretty sure they removed that anti-static defense spell because it made Void Ray all ins too strong.
That could be tweaked easily. Ovi speedbuff in hatch-tech have been implemented after the removal of this spell. Queens and spores should suffice for defense if played well. And why not a buff in Queen AA. (and/or hydra, and/or make the SH a weak-scourge-splash launcher).
To be fair the SC2 team have done a great job balancing SC2. Imagine how hard it is to balance, and think how great they've made it. All races have a few means to harass (some are stronger than others, sure) and all classes can relatively open, in a relaxing manner, macro orientated. Does anyone truly think there is a balance issue with SC2? Sure it sucks to see some Zergs lose to a lucky widow mine shot, but that's just RNG. You could arguably say that RNG influences a lot of SC2 games.
I'm pretty sure they removed that anti-static defense spell because it made Void Ray all ins too strong.
That could be tweaked easily. Ovi speedbuff in hatch-tech have been implemented after the removal of this spell. Queens and spores should suffice for defense if played well. And why not a buff in Queen AA. (and/or hydra, and/or make the SH a weak-scourge-splash launcher).
Do you even realize what you're saying here? You're now proposing we make 3-4 potentially completely imbalanced changes just so you can see something cool with the Oracle?
Ever stop to consider what giving queens better AA does to TvZ where the terran is entirely dependent upon Medivacs and drop play? How about SH scourge splash launchers completely fucking destroying the current Void Ray/Collosus comp where Void rays being one of the few units Protoss actually uses to COUNTER Swarm Host heavy play right now.
It isn't a simple thing, you have 9 match ups to consider and you have to see every possible way a change could be abused before you implement it.
As TLO said in his AMA, Protoss needs a complete redesign of the race. If they were to do that, most other problems would go away as well. We wouldn't see swarm hosts or overpowered hellbats, they're all stupid units to counter protoss units. Forcefields/inability to lose units or you lose the game/the snowball effect of protoss makes sc2 so much worse than brood war
I really hope they do something really drastic to protoss in LotV
On July 26 2013 19:19 sd_andeh wrote: As TLO said in his AMA, Protoss needs a complete redesign of the race. If they were to do that, most other problems would go away as well. We wouldn't see swarm hosts or overpowered hellbats, they're all stupid units to counter protoss units. Forcefields/inability to lose units or you lose the game/the snowball effect of protoss makes sc2 so much worse than brood war
I really hope they do something really drastic to protoss in LotV
There was a major post back in the day, about re-design of Protoss for HotS[swap sentries with immortals, remove colossi, make citadel of... uhm, twilight be the pre-req for stalkers], but then they gave up since the change would be too big for this expansion.
On July 26 2013 19:34 mechengineer123 wrote: So much hate here, but I think he answered okay considering how fucking bad the questions really were.
Questions were ok. Translation was bad.
In fact, most of questions were completely relevant to what we were discussing for a long time. Balance, terrible damage syndrome and overall protoss performance.
What was fucking bad is David Kim's attitude, which is mostly neutral. He is like "winrates are 50/50, so my job is done". Its fucking terrible news for me. So many problems with the game, and DK is perfectly fine with its state. I fucking bought HoTS after watching MLG (Flash vs Life). It was so promising, then after a while all problems come onto surface. Blizzard doesn't care, since initial sales are over. lost all my hope after this interview.
On July 26 2013 19:34 mechengineer123 wrote: So much hate here, but I think he answered okay considering how fucking bad the questions really were.
Questions were ok. Translation was bad.
In fact, most of questions were completely relevant to what we were discussing for a long time. Balance, terrible damage syndrome and overall protoss performance.
What was fucking bad is David Kim's attitude, which is mostly neutral. He is like "winrates are 50/50, so my job is done". Its fucking terrible news for me. So many problems with the game, and DK is perfectly fine with its state. I fucking bought HoTS after watching MLG (Flash vs Life). It was so promising, then after a while all problems come onto surface. Blizzard doesn't care, since initial sales are over. lost all my hope after this interview.
Blizzard is past the point of ever wanting to change the design or fundamental playstyle of the game. They are at a place where they will only change a couple numbers around to ensure statistical balance. Massive change to really alter how races act will never happen, even with an expansion. Their vision is already set in stone and they're happy with it, it seems. DK had some awkward questions thrown at him, but his view of the game is completely sterile. As in, the feel and personality of the game is completely irrelevant to him, which is fine if you have someone to offset that attitude. I wonder if such a person exists in the upper echelon of the dev team.
the problem is that protoss has design issues. Protoss is very strong in some respects and weaker in others so buffing wouldnt do much good for the game and david kim knows this. The design problem is so huge that it wont happen anything until the next expansion, and maybe not even then.
Do you think zerg busted? Do think its because of the widow mine? Isn't it kinda bullshit?
How about protoss? You think they are fine? Well I don't? You disagree? Fine then.
Why can't I mech yet? Ok, what about the high damage values? Have you considered remaking the game from the ground up? No. Ok, well what about these units I think are bullshit.
Well that was a funny read right before work. Maybe I will do a count later on of how many times people use the word design in this thread after this.
On July 26 2013 19:34 mechengineer123 wrote: So much hate here, but I think he answered okay considering how fucking bad the questions really were.
Questions were ok. Translation was bad.
In fact, most of questions were completely relevant to what we were discussing for a long time. Balance, terrible damage syndrome and overall protoss performance.
What was fucking bad is David Kim's attitude, which is mostly neutral. He is like "winrates are 50/50, so my job is done". Its fucking terrible news for me. So many problems with the game, and DK is perfectly fine with its state. I fucking bought HoTS after watching MLG (Flash vs Life). It was so promising, then after a while all problems come onto surface. Blizzard doesn't care, since initial sales are over. lost all my hope after this interview.
Blizzard is past the point of ever wanting to change the design or fundamental playstyle of the game. They are at a place where they will only change a couple numbers around to ensure statistical balance. Massive change to really alter how races act will never happen, even with an expansion. Their vision is already set in stone and they're happy with it, it seems. DK had some awkward questions thrown at him, but his view of the game is completely sterile. As in, the feel and personality of the game is completely irrelevant to him, which is fine if you have someone to offset that attitude. I wonder if such a person exists in the upper echelon of the dev team.
You can check how Riot overturned whole game between Season 2 and Season 3. It was huge risk, since LoL was already big, but they did it because the clearly saw that there was room for improvement. Whats horrible is that blizzard even don't wanna attempt to see that room. They could do it when transitioning from WoL to HoTS, it'd totally acceptable, they had beta for it, ffs.
EDIT: if they don't have the balls to make the best game maybe they don't deserve to make the best game? (referring to DB and DK)
On July 26 2013 19:34 mechengineer123 wrote: So much hate here, but I think he answered okay considering how fucking bad the questions really were.
Questions were ok. Translation was bad.
In fact, most of questions were completely relevant to what we were discussing for a long time. Balance, terrible damage syndrome and overall protoss performance.
What was fucking bad is David Kim's attitude, which is mostly neutral. He is like "winrates are 50/50, so my job is done". Its fucking terrible news for me. So many problems with the game, and DK is perfectly fine with its state. I fucking bought HoTS after watching MLG (Flash vs Life). It was so promising, then after a while all problems come onto surface. Blizzard doesn't care, since initial sales are over. lost all my hope after this interview.
Totally agree here. That first MLG rekindled all my lost interest for SC2 but it's quickly faded again.
Why are people blaming DK on the state of Protoss, mech, design etc? Isn't he responsible mostly for balance? It's Dustin Terrible Terrible Go Play BW Browder that should get that sort of hate.
On July 26 2013 20:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Why are people blaming DK on the state of Protoss, mech, design etc? Isn't he responsible mostly for balance? It's Dustin Terrible Terrible Go Play BW Browder that should get that sort of hate.
Why do blame them for anything? They make themselves available. Thats why I like Valve and Icefrog. You can't yell at them, they don't ever take an interview. They just patch stuff and you deal with it.
Oh man you got good with those heroes. Well fuck that, you will learn these guys now and like it. Don't like the changes, what? I can't hear you, to busy counting money
On July 26 2013 20:16 Qikz wrote: I hope by making "mech easier" it might finally get some usage at the pro level and maybe a buff to tanks or something.
That's the whole reason they're making it easier instead of "better."
Dayvie and Dustin don't WANT Mech played at the pro level because they think it's boring to watch. But having it easier to play makes it so that we'll see it more at the lower levels.
On July 26 2013 20:16 Qikz wrote: I hope by making "mech easier" it might finally get some usage at the pro level and maybe a buff to tanks or something.
That's the whole reason they're making it easier instead of "better."
Dayvie and Dustin don't WANT Mech played at the pro level because they think it's boring to watch. But having it easier to play makes it so that we'll see it more at the lower levels.
Well easier to me, means better in a way as the reason why it's not used at high levels is it's so much harder to play than bio. It's completely unforgiving and if you don't react perfectly you just straight up die.
On July 26 2013 20:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Why are people blaming DK on the state of Protoss, mech, design etc? Isn't he responsible mostly for balance? It's Dustin Terrible Terrible Go Play BW Browder that should get that sort of hate.
Why do blame them for anything? They make themselves available. Thats why I like Valve and Icefrog. You can't yell at them, they don't ever take an interview. They just patch stuff and you deal with it.
Oh man you got good with those heroes. Well fuck that, you will learn these guys now and like it. Don't like the changes, what? I can't hear you, to busy counting money
I'm not a moba fan but from what i understand Valve made Dota 2 just a better version of Dota 1, without unnecessary changes or trying to reinvent the wheal, so people that loved Dota 1 for the most part love Dota 2. SC2 is a far cry from BW from most points of view save game engine. I mean, even on the accesability aspect Dota 2 is far better then Dota 1 while SC2 is miles behind BW (battlenet2.0, 3 expansions, etc).
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
On July 26 2013 20:16 Qikz wrote: I hope by making "mech easier" it might finally get some usage at the pro level and maybe a buff to tanks or something.
That's the whole reason they're making it easier instead of "better."
Dayvie and Dustin don't WANT Mech played at the pro level because they think it's boring to watch. But having it easier to play makes it so that we'll see it more at the lower levels.
Well easier to me, means better in a way as the reason why it's not used at high levels is it's so much harder to play than bio. It's completely unforgiving and if you don't react perfectly you just straight up die.
It's pretty boring in SC2 to watch, which seems to be why they haven't truly sorted it out yet
Senior Game Designer... um give me Flash unimpressed meme.
I think taking it as a quantitative study - ladder statistics of winnings etc. is a bad approach in general.
Balance + good unit design + interesting to play + interesting to watch is more of a qualitative study. You need to watch and play thousands of games and after that take a certail aspect of the game feel it. Graphs, numbers and tables do little good...
On July 26 2013 20:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Why are people blaming DK on the state of Protoss, mech, design etc? Isn't he responsible mostly for balance? It's Dustin Terrible Terrible Go Play BW Browder that should get that sort of hate.
Why do blame them for anything? They make themselves available. Thats why I like Valve and Icefrog. You can't yell at them, they don't ever take an interview. They just patch stuff and you deal with it.
Oh man you got good with those heroes. Well fuck that, you will learn these guys now and like it. Don't like the changes, what? I can't hear you, to busy counting money
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
They don't look arrogant at all. I think they're more of CoD or Mass Effect type of developers, who are good for feeding average gamers but not good for true starcraft fans.
On July 26 2013 13:05 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim till date still don't address the low cost of Roaches which dealt so much damage in mass.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck? All his comments doesn't make sense. And buffing VIPER which already so strong against P which makes making colos pretty useless.
Getting a game likt this to work on the highest elvel is really fucking hard but thinking its good to just look at numbers is halarious to think, and i know he knows that.
All I can hear from this interview is "winrates are ok --> balance is ok" which is complete bullshit. Players want the game to be balanced all around and not have moments in the game where certain things are uncounterable. An example is hellbat drops before the patch which killed everything and nobody payed attention to the fact they were very strong until winrates natrually shifted in favour of terran. Players want to see all units being used, the fact that protoss late game in every matchup is so stale annoys not only their opponents but the protoss themselves... The case is similar with the game still being a deathball fest for every race but terran where multi-pronged harassment is not actually all that useful (see WCS NA Ro32 DeMuslim vs. Crank g1) and you are encouraged to make an expensive army and attack, rather than make 3 warp prisms and try harassing. The game has so many problems and I'm baffled that David Kim fails to see the fact that "balance" is just the tip of the iceberg.
On July 26 2013 20:34 Sapphire.lux wrote: I'm not a moba fan but from what i understand Valve made Dota 2 just a better version of Dota 1, without unnecessary changes or trying to reinvent the wheal, so people that loved Dota 1 for the most part love Dota 2. SC2 is a far cry from BW from most points of view save game engine. I mean, even on the accesability aspect Dota 2 is far better then Dota 1 while SC2 is miles behind BW (battlenet2.0, 3 expansions, etc).
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
If I ever write an article about consumers narrow perspective, I'm going to quote you.
What Valve did is : Take free game and monetize it. Nothing more, nothing less.
BroodWar never got any kind of traction in EU and NA - contrary to DotA - so it would have been foolish to take BroodWar, admittedly a good game, and try to monetize it because the main consumer base was too limited. Instead Blizzard made a new game, a good game despite some flaws - something BW was exempt either - and tried to promote it on a bigger scale. And they succeeded that's why the population of TL got much bigger.
PS : The rest of your ramblings about BW being a superior game would be best if it was kept in the appropriate forum.
On July 26 2013 20:34 Sapphire.lux wrote: I'm not a moba fan but from what i understand Valve made Dota 2 just a better version of Dota 1, without unnecessary changes or trying to reinvent the wheal, so people that loved Dota 1 for the most part love Dota 2. SC2 is a far cry from BW from most points of view save game engine. I mean, even on the accesability aspect Dota 2 is far better then Dota 1 while SC2 is miles behind BW (battlenet2.0, 3 expansions, etc).
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
If I ever write an article about consumers narrow perspective, I'm going to quote you.
What Valve did is : Take free game and monetize it. Nothing more, nothing less.
BroodWar never got any kind of traction in EU and NA - contrary to DotA - so it would have been foolish to take BroodWar, admittedly a good game, and try to monetize it because the main consumer base was too limited. Instead Blizzard made a new game, a good game despite some flaws - something BW was exempt either - and tried to promote it on a bigger scale. And they succeeded that's why the population of TL got much bigger.
PS : The rest of your ramblings about BW being a superior game would be best if it was kept in the appropriate forum.
The population got bigger because it was a new starcraft game. It would have to be Diablo 3 level underwhelming to not add people to the community.
On July 26 2013 20:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Why are people blaming DK on the state of Protoss, mech, design etc? Isn't he responsible mostly for balance? It's Dustin Terrible Terrible Go Play BW Browder that should get that sort of hate.
Why do blame them for anything? They make themselves available. Thats why I like Valve and Icefrog. You can't yell at them, they don't ever take an interview. They just patch stuff and you deal with it.
Oh man you got good with those heroes. Well fuck that, you will learn these guys now and like it. Don't like the changes, what? I can't hear you, to busy counting money
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
They don't look arrogant at all. I think they're more of CoD or Mass Effect type of developers, who are good for feeding average gamers but not good for true starcraft fans.
Or Command & Conquer :p
By arrogant i meant that they refused to learn from BW and listen to player and fan feedback.
On July 26 2013 20:34 Sapphire.lux wrote: I'm not a moba fan but from what i understand Valve made Dota 2 just a better version of Dota 1, without unnecessary changes or trying to reinvent the wheal, so people that loved Dota 1 for the most part love Dota 2. SC2 is a far cry from BW from most points of view save game engine. I mean, even on the accesability aspect Dota 2 is far better then Dota 1 while SC2 is miles behind BW (battlenet2.0, 3 expansions, etc).
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
If I ever write an article about consumers narrow perspective, I'm going to quote you.
What Valve did is : Take free game and monetize it. Nothing more, nothing less.
BroodWar never got any kind of traction in EU and NA - contrary to DotA - so it would have been foolish to take BroodWar, admittedly a good game, and try to monetize it because the main consumer base was too limited. Instead Blizzard made a new game, a good game despite some flaws - something BW was exempt either - and tried to promote it on a bigger scale. And they succeeded that's why the population of TL got much bigger.
PS : The rest of your ramblings about BW being a superior game would be best if it was kept in the appropriate forum.
I think TL grew partly due to general Internet and online gaming growth.
also, I think TL would be much much bigger if sc2 was a better game.
On July 26 2013 20:34 Sapphire.lux wrote: I'm not a moba fan but from what i understand Valve made Dota 2 just a better version of Dota 1, without unnecessary changes or trying to reinvent the wheal, so people that loved Dota 1 for the most part love Dota 2. SC2 is a far cry from BW from most points of view save game engine. I mean, even on the accesability aspect Dota 2 is far better then Dota 1 while SC2 is miles behind BW (battlenet2.0, 3 expansions, etc).
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
If I ever write an article about consumers narrow perspective, I'm going to quote you.
What Valve did is : Take free game and monetize it. Nothing more, nothing less.
BroodWar never got any kind of traction in EU and NA - contrary to DotA - so it would have been foolish to take BroodWar, admittedly a good game, and try to monetize it because the main consumer base was too limited. Instead Blizzard made a new game, a good game despite some flaws - something BW was exempt either - and tried to promote it on a bigger scale. And they succeeded that's why the population of TL got much bigger.
PS : The rest of your ramblings about BW being a superior game would be best if it was kept in the appropriate forum.
Who cares about the size of the community in comparison to the quality of the game?
Q: Since the launch of SC2 WOL, Protoss hasn't gotten a lot of championships. How do you see this? Is this because of balance?
David Kim: Overall, Protoss's performance is not weak. In a lot of tournament's Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change.
I found this part funny. It's like he obviously thinks the reason of why there aren't as many protoss champions is because they are fewer.
If I ever write an article about consumers narrow perspective, I'm going to quote you.
Ahh...thank you
What Valve did is : Take free game and monetize it. Nothing more, nothing less.
You had to have WC3 to play the original Dota no? So it wasn't free. What Valve did was take a game and add, improve and make more accessible (free to play). The developers of the platform, Blizzard, were just to "narrow minded" to do this themselves.
BroodWar never got any kind of traction in EU and NA
The game that soled over 11 mil copies didn't get any traction? That's like double what WOL sold. People are still buying BW ffs.
BroodWar, admittedly a good game, and try to monetize it because the main consumer base was too limited.
Why make such comments if you can't be bothered to look at the figures? SC2 fanboy i know, but it's not an excuse.
Instead Blizzard made a new game, a good game despite some flaws - something BW was exempt either - and tried to promote it on a bigger scale.
They could have and should have build upon what BW did right instead of throwing most of it away and reinventing everything. Funny actually, after WOL they sort of understood that banelings were not really a replacement for lurkers, que in the SH; that mines did have a role, que in WM; takes them years to understand what their own game already did 10 years before.
And they succeeded that's why the population of TL got much bigger.
More people buy games now then 10, 15 years before. Diablo 3 outsold Diablo 2 even though it's much worse. Makes the BW selling numbers even more impressive.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
On July 26 2013 13:33 Abturn wrote: He is just a retard since ever you just cant like him. Terran is pretty Winning everything on High Tier Level like Gsl/Starleague And yeah Proleague Toss is dominating but in the High Skill Players Like Innovation,Soulkey, Fantasy doesnt win Tosses that much or am i Wrong? Proleague is btw a PVP Fest
If you watched yesterday's game SuperNova vs Rain G1. It's retard as hell.
3 base all in with SCV pull/Clocked Ghost/Medivac/Vikings against colo, chargelots, archons and Rain still lose when SuperNova was way way behind.
Rain BARELY lost, and he lost because Supernova out micro'd him ridiculously well with his Ghosts. Listen to Artosis' post game analysis on that one he explains all of the "what ifs" better than I can.
Because of the fucking stim and step. As long as my medivac has energy and FREE MULE on my last mining base. EZ.
On July 26 2013 19:34 mechengineer123 wrote: So much hate here, but I think he answered okay considering how fucking bad the questions really were.
Questions were ok. Translation was bad.
In fact, most of questions were completely relevant to what we were discussing for a long time. Balance, terrible damage syndrome and overall protoss performance.
What was fucking bad is David Kim's attitude, which is mostly neutral. He is like "winrates are 50/50, so my job is done". Its fucking terrible news for me. So many problems with the game, and DK is perfectly fine with its state. I fucking bought HoTS after watching MLG (Flash vs Life). It was so promising, then after a while all problems come onto surface. Blizzard doesn't care, since initial sales are over. lost all my hope after this interview.
Blizzard is past the point of ever wanting to change the design or fundamental playstyle of the game. They are at a place where they will only change a couple numbers around to ensure statistical balance. Massive change to really alter how races act will never happen, even with an expansion. Their vision is already set in stone and they're happy with it, it seems. DK had some awkward questions thrown at him, but his view of the game is completely sterile. As in, the feel and personality of the game is completely irrelevant to him, which is fine if you have someone to offset that attitude. I wonder if such a person exists in the upper echelon of the dev team.
Well, why wouldn't big changes happen with expansion? They did that for Frozen Throne, and then rebalanced game again. It is totally feasible if they take their time with LotV beta . Question is do they want to do it.
On July 26 2013 20:34 Sapphire.lux wrote: I'm not a moba fan but from what i understand Valve made Dota 2 just a better version of Dota 1, without unnecessary changes or trying to reinvent the wheal, so people that loved Dota 1 for the most part love Dota 2. SC2 is a far cry from BW from most points of view save game engine. I mean, even on the accesability aspect Dota 2 is far better then Dota 1 while SC2 is miles behind BW (battlenet2.0, 3 expansions, etc).
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
If I ever write an article about consumers narrow perspective, I'm going to quote you.
What Valve did is : Take free game and monetize it. Nothing more, nothing less.
BroodWar never got any kind of traction in EU and NA - contrary to DotA - so it would have been foolish to take BroodWar, admittedly a good game, and try to monetize it because the main consumer base was too limited. Instead Blizzard made a new game, a good game despite some flaws - something BW was exempt either - and tried to promote it on a bigger scale. And they succeeded that's why the population of TL got much bigger.
PS : The rest of your ramblings about BW being a superior game would be best if it was kept in the appropriate forum.
I think it's absolutly normal that people compare SC2 with SC:BW because it's the successor. If Blizzard wanted to avoid this, they should have give the game another name and other units. Today I watched IEM with Liquid'Hero, he should get an extra salary only for the way he plays Protoss. BW allows players really to shine and this is what SC2 should do also.
On July 26 2013 13:33 Abturn wrote: He is just a retard since ever you just cant like him. Terran is pretty Winning everything on High Tier Level like Gsl/Starleague And yeah Proleague Toss is dominating but in the High Skill Players Like Innovation,Soulkey, Fantasy doesnt win Tosses that much or am i Wrong? Proleague is btw a PVP Fest
If you watched yesterday's game SuperNova vs Rain G1. It's retard as hell.
3 base all in with SCV pull/Clocked Ghost/Medivac/Vikings against colo, chargelots, archons and Rain still lose when SuperNova was way way behind.
Rain BARELY lost, and he lost because Supernova out micro'd him ridiculously well with his Ghosts. Listen to Artosis' post game analysis on that one he explains all of the "what ifs" better than I can.
Because of the fucking stim and step. As long as my medivac has energy and FREE MULE on my last mining base. EZ.
Why do you not get temp banned for balance whine?
He already go temp banned. That's what the lockdown icon is there for.
On July 26 2013 19:34 mechengineer123 wrote: So much hate here, but I think he answered okay considering how fucking bad the questions really were.
Questions were ok. Translation was bad.
In fact, most of questions were completely relevant to what we were discussing for a long time. Balance, terrible damage syndrome and overall protoss performance.
What was fucking bad is David Kim's attitude, which is mostly neutral. He is like "winrates are 50/50, so my job is done". Its fucking terrible news for me. So many problems with the game, and DK is perfectly fine with its state. I fucking bought HoTS after watching MLG (Flash vs Life). It was so promising, then after a while all problems come onto surface. Blizzard doesn't care, since initial sales are over. lost all my hope after this interview.
Blizzard is past the point of ever wanting to change the design or fundamental playstyle of the game. They are at a place where they will only change a couple numbers around to ensure statistical balance. Massive change to really alter how races act will never happen, even with an expansion. Their vision is already set in stone and they're happy with it, it seems. DK had some awkward questions thrown at him, but his view of the game is completely sterile. As in, the feel and personality of the game is completely irrelevant to him, which is fine if you have someone to offset that attitude. I wonder if such a person exists in the upper echelon of the dev team.
Well, why wouldn't big changes happen with expansion? They did that for Frozen Throne, and then rebalanced game again. It is totally feasible if they take their time with LotV beta . Question is do they want to do it.
Good comparison, one I've made myself.
Frozen Throne was a massive overhaul from Reign of Chaos, I mean if you didn't play WC3 it's hard to overstate quite how much changed. It's whether the will is there like you said.
If anything I think they're too tied in to the idea of SC2 as an E-sport. David Kim mentioned for example not wanting to make changes that would throw too much in the air in terms of the pro players
On July 26 2013 19:34 mechengineer123 wrote: So much hate here, but I think he answered okay considering how fucking bad the questions really were.
Questions were ok. Translation was bad.
In fact, most of questions were completely relevant to what we were discussing for a long time. Balance, terrible damage syndrome and overall protoss performance.
What was fucking bad is David Kim's attitude, which is mostly neutral. He is like "winrates are 50/50, so my job is done". Its fucking terrible news for me. So many problems with the game, and DK is perfectly fine with its state. I fucking bought HoTS after watching MLG (Flash vs Life). It was so promising, then after a while all problems come onto surface. Blizzard doesn't care, since initial sales are over. lost all my hope after this interview.
Blizzard is past the point of ever wanting to change the design or fundamental playstyle of the game. They are at a place where they will only change a couple numbers around to ensure statistical balance. Massive change to really alter how races act will never happen, even with an expansion. Their vision is already set in stone and they're happy with it, it seems. DK had some awkward questions thrown at him, but his view of the game is completely sterile. As in, the feel and personality of the game is completely irrelevant to him, which is fine if you have someone to offset that attitude. I wonder if such a person exists in the upper echelon of the dev team.
Well, why wouldn't big changes happen with expansion? They did that for Frozen Throne, and then rebalanced game again. It is totally feasible if they take their time with LotV beta . Question is do they want to do it.
Chances are that they did experiment wtih a few changes in the HOTS alpha in the proces of trying to make mech viable. But, they realized that mech just wasn't gonna be fun with the sc2 mechancis, and since sc2 afterall is a pretty decent game, there was no realy point in trying to reinvent everything. That would have been a big gamble, and would have been really hard to make work properly.
I think they have done a lot of good stuff in HOTS, and while it isn't perfect by any means, spectator entertaiment value is improved.
On July 26 2013 12:53 larse wrote: This balance interview is done by Chinese media, S.163.com in IEM. I am translating this very fast right now. I will edit the grammar and such later on. Enjoy.
.
About new units, Swarm host. About viper, we are considering to buff it.
what. why? He just started the interview off saying zerg has an advantage statistically already.
Your missing the point. If the whole purpose of an unit is to do Action A and fail to do so, what is the point of that unit ?
This very similar to the banshee. In early HOTS, was too easy to counter, so no one made any. Now they buffed it by reducing his upgrade cost, and the banshee could serve is purpose again. And this change wasn't made because Terran were too weak early game or w/e it was just made because the banshee unit wasnt serving its purpose.
On July 26 2013 19:34 mechengineer123 wrote: So much hate here, but I think he answered okay considering how fucking bad the questions really were.
Questions were ok. Translation was bad.
In fact, most of questions were completely relevant to what we were discussing for a long time. Balance, terrible damage syndrome and overall protoss performance.
What was fucking bad is David Kim's attitude, which is mostly neutral. He is like "winrates are 50/50, so my job is done". Its fucking terrible news for me. So many problems with the game, and DK is perfectly fine with its state. I fucking bought HoTS after watching MLG (Flash vs Life). It was so promising, then after a while all problems come onto surface. Blizzard doesn't care, since initial sales are over. lost all my hope after this interview.
Blizzard is past the point of ever wanting to change the design or fundamental playstyle of the game. They are at a place where they will only change a couple numbers around to ensure statistical balance. Massive change to really alter how races act will never happen, even with an expansion. Their vision is already set in stone and they're happy with it, it seems. DK had some awkward questions thrown at him, but his view of the game is completely sterile. As in, the feel and personality of the game is completely irrelevant to him, which is fine if you have someone to offset that attitude. I wonder if such a person exists in the upper echelon of the dev team.
Well, why wouldn't big changes happen with expansion? They did that for Frozen Throne, and then rebalanced game again. It is totally feasible if they take their time with LotV beta . Question is do they want to do it.
Good comparison, one I've made myself.
Frozen Throne was a massive overhaul from Reign of Chaos, I mean if you didn't play WC3 it's hard to overstate quite how much changed. It's whether the will is there like you said.
If anything I think they're too tied in to the idea of SC2 as an E-sport. David Kim mentioned for example not wanting to make changes that would throw too much in the air in terms of the pro players
I wander about that. I mean, should they make massive changes, i doubt pros would just all quit. If anything, lots of pros seem to want big changes to happen. Unfortunately i think it's more a case of maximizing profits through low investment. I hope i'm wrong and we will see the massive changes we want in LOTV, like death balls, economy, so on.
On July 26 2013 12:53 larse wrote: This balance interview is done by Chinese media, S.163.com in IEM. I am translating this very fast right now. I will edit the grammar and such later on. Enjoy.
.
About new units, Swarm host. About viper, we are considering to buff it.
what. why? He just started the interview off saying zerg has an advantage statistically already.
Your missing the point. If the whole purpose of an unit is to do Action A and fail to do so, what is the point of that unit ?
This very similar to the banshee. In early HOTS, was too easy to counter, so no one made any. Now they buffed it by reducing his upgrade cost, and the banshee could serve is purpose again. And this change wasn't made because Terran were too weak early game or w/e it was just made because the banshee unit wasnt serving its purpose.
The beauty of well-designed strategy games is when units are used outside of their designated roles and the roles the designers had in mind.
Having that room to innovate is pretty important imo. Part of the problem in WoL for me was the over-patching that stopped interesting uses of units like Thors and Ghosts in favour of more homogenised gameplay, while other blatant problems were kept in for ages or are still there, like fungal and Collosus.
The difference, fungal functioned as it was meant to, mass ghost snipe was something of an oversight.
On July 26 2013 12:53 larse wrote: This balance interview is done by Chinese media, S.163.com in IEM. I am translating this very fast right now. I will edit the grammar and such later on. Enjoy.
.
About new units, Swarm host. About viper, we are considering to buff it.
what. why? He just started the interview off saying zerg has an advantage statistically already.
Your missing the point. If the whole purpose of an unit is to do Action A and fail to do so, what is the point of that unit ?
This very similar to the banshee. In early HOTS, was too easy to counter, so no one made any. Now they buffed it by reducing his upgrade cost, and the banshee could serve is purpose again. And this change wasn't made because Terran were too weak early game or w/e it was just made because the banshee unit wasnt serving its purpose.
The beauty of well-designed strategy games is when units are used outside of their designated roles and the roles the designers had in mind.
Having that room to innovate is pretty important imo. Part of the problem in WoL for me was the over-patching that stopped interesting uses of units like Thors and Ghosts in favour of more homogenised gameplay, while other blatant problems were kept in for ages or are still there, like fungal and Collosus.
The difference, fungal functioned as it was meant to, mass ghost snipe was something of an oversight.
I always felt snipe was going to be a problem the later the game went. If you watched the game with Demuslim last night, he had like 27 ghost by the end and they were unkillable with medivac support. With the old snipe, I don't know what zerg would have done against a mass of ghosts that big. It was a cool ability, but it was basic click for extra damage on your zerg unit of choice.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
On July 26 2013 20:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Why are people blaming DK on the state of Protoss, mech, design etc? Isn't he responsible mostly for balance? It's Dustin Terrible Terrible Go Play BW Browder that should get that sort of hate.
Why do blame them for anything? They make themselves available. Thats why I like Valve and Icefrog. You can't yell at them, they don't ever take an interview. They just patch stuff and you deal with it.
Oh man you got good with those heroes. Well fuck that, you will learn these guys now and like it. Don't like the changes, what? I can't hear you, to busy counting money
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
They don't look arrogant at all. I think they're more of CoD or Mass Effect type of developers, who are good for feeding average gamers but not good for true starcraft fans.
Designing a good "Starcraft game" isnt that hard ... really. You just have to START AT BW and then improve on that slowly and steadily. That isnt how they did it ... they just too a few core units and then built an entirely new thing around those and ended up with an ACTION FOCUSED game (emphasized by David Kim in his Interview with Apollo when he said that mech was "dull" and they didnt like the playstyle).
How can they NOT BE arrogant when they - David Kim - basically say "we will tell you how to play and because of this we wont make Siege Tank based mech viable anymore"? They should try their utmost to make EVERY unit which is in the game viable and let the players figure out the rest, but instead they "enforce" an action based playstyle and deliberately keep a more strategically focused playstyle less than viable.
How can they NOT BE arrogant when certain problems with the general game design have become obvious throughout WoL and they do add new units which make the situation even worse? The unit density is a problem, because it is the reason for the existence of critical numbers. For them that term is just another catch phrase to throw out in a discussion, but I would describe that as a huge problem instead due to the "boost in efficiency" you gain from reaching a critical number and thus "breaking the balance".
Arrogance includes the inability to admit mistakes and they made quite a lot of them which haunt the game as persistent problems and will continue to do so.
On July 26 2013 12:53 larse wrote: This balance interview is done by Chinese media, S.163.com in IEM. I am translating this very fast right now. I will edit the grammar and such later on. Enjoy.
.
About new units, Swarm host. About viper, we are considering to buff it.
what. why? He just started the interview off saying zerg has an advantage statistically already.
Your missing the point. If the whole purpose of an unit is to do Action A and fail to do so, what is the point of that unit ?
This very similar to the banshee. In early HOTS, was too easy to counter, so no one made any. Now they buffed it by reducing his upgrade cost, and the banshee could serve is purpose again. And this change wasn't made because Terran were too weak early game or w/e it was just made because the banshee unit wasnt serving its purpose.
The beauty of well-designed strategy games is when units are used outside of their designated roles and the roles the designers had in mind.
Having that room to innovate is pretty important imo. Part of the problem in WoL for me was the over-patching that stopped interesting uses of units like Thors and Ghosts in favour of more homogenised gameplay, while other blatant problems were kept in for ages or are still there, like fungal and Collosus.
The difference, fungal functioned as it was meant to, mass ghost snipe was something of an oversight.
I always felt snipe was going to be a problem the later the game went. If you watched the game with Demuslim last night, he had like 27 ghost by the end and they were unkillable with medivac support. With the old snipe, I don't know what zerg would have done against a mass of ghosts that big. It was a cool ability, but it was basic click for extra damage on your zerg unit of choice.
Ghosts vP don't really rely on snipe in the same way, they are there for carpeting EMPs and are also pretty tanky. I mean, I watched those games too, Demuslim played them out well but they were proof if more was needed that Protoss AoE is a crutch that if mitigated by the counter-units leaves them unable to do much.
I don't actually think snipe should have stayed around too long, but it was nice that Terrans could engage Infestor/BL in a straight-up manner for a bit. I enjoyed the novelty for a bit, but it was more an illustration that the Blizz team seem to patch out innovative use of abilities far and above broken abilities that work 'as intended'. I mean was ghost snipe ever more obnoxious than carpet fungals in the latter stages of WoL?
On July 26 2013 12:53 larse wrote: This balance interview is done by Chinese media, S.163.com in IEM. I am translating this very fast right now. I will edit the grammar and such later on. Enjoy.
.
About new units, Swarm host. About viper, we are considering to buff it.
what. why? He just started the interview off saying zerg has an advantage statistically already.
Your missing the point. If the whole purpose of an unit is to do Action A and fail to do so, what is the point of that unit ?
This very similar to the banshee. In early HOTS, was too easy to counter, so no one made any. Now they buffed it by reducing his upgrade cost, and the banshee could serve is purpose again. And this change wasn't made because Terran were too weak early game or w/e it was just made because the banshee unit wasnt serving its purpose.
The beauty of well-designed strategy games is when units are used outside of their designated roles and the roles the designers had in mind.
Having that room to innovate is pretty important imo. Part of the problem in WoL for me was the over-patching that stopped interesting uses of units like Thors and Ghosts in favour of more homogenised gameplay, while other blatant problems were kept in for ages or are still there, like fungal and Collosus.
The difference, fungal functioned as it was meant to, mass ghost snipe was something of an oversight.
I always felt snipe was going to be a problem the later the game went. If you watched the game with Demuslim last night, he had like 27 ghost by the end and they were unkillable with medivac support. With the old snipe, I don't know what zerg would have done against a mass of ghosts that big. It was a cool ability, but it was basic click for extra damage on your zerg unit of choice.
The same is true for Broodlords ... which arent as "flashy" as Ghosts, but they still create their own "invulnerability screen" which basically blocks any ground based units - except Blink Stalkers - from reaching them.
The point where it gets bad is the CRITICAL NUMBER ... and yet they fail to see that as the real problem and instead try to "fix it" by changing the units instead.
On July 26 2013 20:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Why are people blaming DK on the state of Protoss, mech, design etc? Isn't he responsible mostly for balance? It's Dustin Terrible Terrible Go Play BW Browder that should get that sort of hate.
Why do blame them for anything? They make themselves available. Thats why I like Valve and Icefrog. You can't yell at them, they don't ever take an interview. They just patch stuff and you deal with it.
Oh man you got good with those heroes. Well fuck that, you will learn these guys now and like it. Don't like the changes, what? I can't hear you, to busy counting money
I'm not a moba fan but from what i understand Valve made Dota 2 just a better version of Dota 1, without unnecessary changes or trying to reinvent the wheal, so people that loved Dota 1 for the most part love Dota 2. SC2 is a far cry from BW from most points of view save game engine. I mean, even on the accesability aspect Dota 2 is far better then Dota 1 while SC2 is miles behind BW (battlenet2.0, 3 expansions, etc).
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
Personally I hope Blizzard won't get the impression that making the exact same game over and over and just adding a higher number at the end is the way what people want now. Well Casuals want these safe buys and they have been getting more vocal lately. So game developers that stick to series but make a different game usual get alot more hate in the form of, "hey your 2nd part is totally different from the 1st wtf fix this"
I mean there were always complaints at the start of each new Blizzard rts titel after warcraft1. Warcraft 3 got a lot of hate because of the heroes and I still hate them, but a dumbed down version of Warcraft3 only concentrating on the Hero became a pretty successful game idea.
Of course the chance to make a game worse is higher, especially if your games usually are genre killer class. But they wouldn't be genre killer class if we had the same human vs orc game over and over. But because game development got more expensive, they can't scrap a game multiple times like the originally starcraft without anyone noticing it.
I find it sad that D3 will have the title of worst game Blizzard ever made, even beating the superman game they made and even that game was decent for a game after a movie, just because they released d3 unfinished and people didn't expect that from a Blizzard game to this extent. But as we now know it was never intended for the pc and they just wanted to milk some money while moving over to consoles.
Anyway I hope they won't start making clones of the same game over and over, even though this generation of their games aren't those genre killers they used to produce and the sell the same game 10 times is more profitable, because casuals love to throw their money away or make games f2p since people love pay 2 win even more. But thanks to D3 not having supreme reign over the hacknslay market there were some survivors this time around and they had a pretty nice try to grab the crown. Maybe Blizzard only wanted competition emerging again just to crush them the next time. So come on people make some rts games and don't try to get a piece of pie from the Moba market.
On July 26 2013 12:53 larse wrote: This balance interview is done by Chinese media, S.163.com in IEM. I am translating this very fast right now. I will edit the grammar and such later on. Enjoy.
.
About new units, Swarm host. About viper, we are considering to buff it.
what. why? He just started the interview off saying zerg has an advantage statistically already.
Your missing the point. If the whole purpose of an unit is to do Action A and fail to do so, what is the point of that unit ?
This very similar to the banshee. In early HOTS, was too easy to counter, so no one made any. Now they buffed it by reducing his upgrade cost, and the banshee could serve is purpose again. And this change wasn't made because Terran were too weak early game or w/e it was just made because the banshee unit wasnt serving its purpose.
The beauty of well-designed strategy games is when units are used outside of their designated roles and the roles the designers had in mind.
Having that room to innovate is pretty important imo. Part of the problem in WoL for me was the over-patching that stopped interesting uses of units like Thors and Ghosts in favour of more homogenised gameplay, while other blatant problems were kept in for ages or are still there, like fungal and Collosus.
The difference, fungal functioned as it was meant to, mass ghost snipe was something of an oversight.
I always felt snipe was going to be a problem the later the game went. If you watched the game with Demuslim last night, he had like 27 ghost by the end and they were unkillable with medivac support. With the old snipe, I don't know what zerg would have done against a mass of ghosts that big. It was a cool ability, but it was basic click for extra damage on your zerg unit of choice.
The same is true for Broodlords ... which arent as "flashy" as Ghosts, but they still create their own "invulnerability screen" which basically blocks any ground based units - except Blink Stalkers - from reaching them.
The point where it gets bad is the CRITICAL NUMBER ... and yet they fail to see that as the real problem and instead try to "fix it" by changing the units instead.
Your oft-repeated notions of critical numbers are actually pretty well illustrated by close PvZ games in which the P allins, doesn't have enough to straight-out kill his opponent, the Zerg can't crush the allin and there exists a period of equilibrium.
Pretty much the only time in which PvZ games have long, sustained engagements are in scenarios like this.
On July 26 2013 12:53 larse wrote: This balance interview is done by Chinese media, S.163.com in IEM. I am translating this very fast right now. I will edit the grammar and such later on. Enjoy.
.
About new units, Swarm host. About viper, we are considering to buff it.
what. why? He just started the interview off saying zerg has an advantage statistically already.
Your missing the point. If the whole purpose of an unit is to do Action A and fail to do so, what is the point of that unit ?
This very similar to the banshee. In early HOTS, was too easy to counter, so no one made any. Now they buffed it by reducing his upgrade cost, and the banshee could serve is purpose again. And this change wasn't made because Terran were too weak early game or w/e it was just made because the banshee unit wasnt serving its purpose.
The beauty of well-designed strategy games is when units are used outside of their designated roles and the roles the designers had in mind.
Having that room to innovate is pretty important imo. Part of the problem in WoL for me was the over-patching that stopped interesting uses of units like Thors and Ghosts in favour of more homogenised gameplay, while other blatant problems were kept in for ages or are still there, like fungal and Collosus.
The difference, fungal functioned as it was meant to, mass ghost snipe was something of an oversight.
I always felt snipe was going to be a problem the later the game went. If you watched the game with Demuslim last night, he had like 27 ghost by the end and they were unkillable with medivac support. With the old snipe, I don't know what zerg would have done against a mass of ghosts that big. It was a cool ability, but it was basic click for extra damage on your zerg unit of choice.
Ghosts vP don't really rely on snipe in the same way, they are there for carpeting EMPs and are also pretty tanky. I mean, I watched those games too, Demuslim played them out well but they were proof if more was needed that Protoss AoE is a crutch that if mitigated by the counter-units leaves them unable to do much.
I don't actually think snipe should have stayed around too long, but it was nice that Terrans could engage Infestor/BL in a straight-up manner for a bit. I enjoyed the novelty for a bit, but it was more an illustration that the Blizz team seem to patch out innovative use of abilities far and above broken abilities that work 'as intended'. I mean was ghost snipe ever more obnoxious than carpet fungals in the latter stages of WoL?
Maybe, I felt they needed to be nerfed, beacuse they simply did not die when zerg attacked them. Also, they were nerfed in the era where terran just figured out the ghost were a unit they could build and they had been previously untouched since beta. The time when EMP didn't do damage, it just got rid of all shields and mana on a unit and three of them could blanket the most spread out protoss army. There were some pretty dumb, busted units that came out of that first beta(oh the days of warp in storm)
I am glad Blizzard is taking a slower road when it comes to balance and trying to match nerfs with buffs. I think buffing units is a better way to balance as a whole, since it makes for more units being used, rather than less. At the end of the day, it not really about the units or if they are strong, its how hard they are to build and how fast they build. Case and point: Zerg uses all of its units. Protoss uses most of them, excpet for stargate units because stargates cost a lot. Terran uses every unit that doesn't require a tech lab, except for ghost and Marauders(which are pretty mobile and has reasonable build times). If Blizzard want more units, they need to look at making them easier to on the field, not stronger.
I really hate how people just assume the best protoss players based on if they get 3 bases and deathball it or "defend well". Guess what? Protoss is SUPER STRONG on 1 base or 2 base timings. Who have been the most successful protoss players so far? MC, Seed, SoS, Parting, Rain, Creator. Only 2 of those play a sit there and play a "MACRO STYLE" that is acceptable to what foreigners ideal of good play is, and those 2 (Rain and Creator) haven't had the same level of success as the others. Maybe you should just face the facts that the optimal way to play protoss is to use all ins or exploit their early/mid game timings (OMG MC WON ~400k like this). I know its disappointing to people that like NR15 games or whatever, or think that all races should play the same macro style, but thats just not how the race was designed. Protoss needs a complete redesign that isnt going to happen in order to play competitively on the same level of "MACRO GAMES" as zerg and terran do in a long series while still being balanced in the early/mid game. The MSC is a bandaid fix that works fairly well to this style of play, but you still are not nearly playing the optimal way if you aren't killing kids with all ins or timings when you are the strongest. Protoss has an incredibly strong end game. Its just unfortunate that the end game play is based around turtling to it, and the timing play is not to the liking of the community because it doesnt take as much skill or finesse as the other races. EMBRACE IT or stop whining that the protoss players are losing because of imbalance.
This interview was horrible. Probably bad translating, really biased questioning, and despite David Kim giving statistics and facts about the state of both ladder and pro play, we get 12 pages of people ignoring that and proclaiming DK some moron....really sad.
Think about how many Korean pros who played terran and zerg in broodwar, made the switch to sc2 and have done well. The protoss players...... they've all but disappeared. With out a doubt every top level protoss player in the history of sc2, wol or hots, got their championships on the back of 2 base all ins. Nothing against them, play to win, but there is a problem with the race when you don't even try to play the late game, if you don't go into it with a massive advantage. Parting, MC, Rain, Seed, Squirtle. They 2 base all in a LOT.
When stardust won dreamhack, iirc, every game I watched him play he executed a 2 base all in.
There is a reason the very best bw protoss macro players haven't had results in HOTS. Their skills count for almost nothing. Surprising your opponent with a variety of 2 base all in compositions and timings, seems like the only viable way to play the race at the highest level. Which doesn't work out so well in a BO5 format.
at least he recognizes that SH turtle is bad for the game, viper (think he is talking blinding cloud since abduct is fine) is bad except in small timing windows or with the mentioned SH turtle and he wants to buff zerg abilities (hello useless ovidrop, nydus, burrow movement and neural parasite, looking at you!) instead of nerfing WM and medivacs.
just hope they dont wait too long...zerg is in a horrible state right now, especially in ZvT.
On July 26 2013 22:22 Irre wrote: I really hate how people just assume the best protoss players based on if they get 3 bases and deathball it or "defend well". Guess what? Protoss is SUPER STRONG on 1 base or 2 base timings. Who have been the most successful protoss players so far? MC, Seed, SoS, Parting, Rain, Creator. Only 2 of those play a sit there and play a "MACRO STYLE" that is acceptable to what foreigners ideal of good play is, and those 2 (Rain and Creator) haven't had the same level of success as the others. Maybe you should just face the facts that the optimal way to play protoss is to use all ins or exploit their early/mid game timings (OMG MC WON ~400k like this). I know its disappointing to people that like NR15 games or whatever, or think that all races should play the same macro style, but thats just not how the race was designed. Protoss needs a complete redesign that isnt going to happen in order to play competitively on the same level of "MACRO GAMES" as zerg and terran do in a long series while still being balanced in the early/mid game. The MSC is a bandaid fix that works fairly well to this style of play, but you still are not nearly playing the optimal way if you aren't killing kids with all ins or timings when you are the strongest. Protoss has an incredibly strong end game. Its just unfortunate that the end game play is based around turtling to it, and the timing play is not to the liking of the community because it doesnt take as much skill or finesse as the other races. EMBRACE IT or stop whining that the protoss players are losing because of imbalance.
This interview was horrible. Probably bad translating, really biased questioning, and despite David Kim giving statistics and facts about the state of both ladder and pro play, we get 12 pages of people ignoring that and proclaiming DK some moron....really sad.
Who is whining that Protoss aren't winning or are weak?
Do you read these forums, the most numerous complaint coming by far from Protoss players is that they don't WANT to rely on volatile timings and all-ins. Part of the reason that Rain is such an inspirational player to many is because he shows that you can play 'straight-up' and have success.
On July 26 2013 22:22 Irre wrote: I really hate how people just assume the best protoss players based on if they get 3 bases and deathball it or "defend well". Guess what? Protoss is SUPER STRONG on 1 base or 2 base timings. Who have been the most successful protoss players so far? MC, Seed, SoS, Parting, Rain, Creator. Only 2 of those play a sit there and play a "MACRO STYLE" that is acceptable to what foreigners ideal of good play is, and those 2 (Rain and Creator) haven't had the same level of success as the others. Maybe you should just face the facts that the optimal way to play protoss is to use all ins or exploit their early/mid game timings (OMG MC WON ~400k like this). I know its disappointing to people that like NR15 games or whatever, or think that all races should play the same macro style, but thats just not how the race was designed. Protoss needs a complete redesign that isnt going to happen in order to play competitively on the same level of "MACRO GAMES" as zerg and terran do in a long series while still being balanced in the early/mid game. The MSC is a bandaid fix that works fairly well to this style of play, but you still are not nearly playing the optimal way if you aren't killing kids with all ins or timings when you are the strongest. Protoss has an incredibly strong end game. Its just unfortunate that the end game play is based around turtling to it, and the timing play is not to the liking of the community because it doesnt take as much skill or finesse as the other races. EMBRACE IT or stop whining that the protoss players are losing because of imbalance.
This interview was horrible. Probably bad translating, really biased questioning, and despite David Kim giving statistics and facts about the state of both ladder and pro play, we get 12 pages of people ignoring that and proclaiming DK some moron....really sad.
Who is whining that Protoss aren't winning or are weak?
Do you read these forums, the most numerous complaint coming by far from Protoss players is that they don't WANT to rely on volatile timings and all-ins. Part of the reason that Rain is such an inspirational player to many is because he shows that you can play 'straight-up' and have success.
Also, playing protoss straight up is always an option, but may of the protoss have builds to exploit opening they know are in their opponents play. It is very easy for a profesisonal, high level protoss to look at their opponents play and say "oh, if I scout "this", I am doing "this flavor" of 2 base all in". There is nothing wrong with that.
Buff gateways units(Stalkers too weak, Medivac = good bye stalkers), Nerf Warp gate(Cooldown) Warp gate should warp less units but the advantage is you can warp anywhere, Remove colossus(A+move units too bad) and add another unit(micro please), and remove FFS.
Terran: Buff ghost, so we can watch them in TvZ vs Vipers, and buff tank damage vs protoss, i don't like the idea you need ghost to make mech viable in TvP.
Zerg: Readd Ultralisk Burrow that was a cool idea, Buff Overlord drop, Buff nydus(So we can watch more agressive zergs, jaedong would be happy), You need to pay 50 minerals to unburrow spines/spores, Swarm hosts' locust only can be upgraded until 2/1, i don't think swarm host should be a late game unit.
General: Add High ground advantage, so we can watch more comebacks, make starcraft 2 more social, chats for your own league and like Flash said, i think we should be able to make more units, 200/200 doesn't seems to be alot of units like in BW.
All sc2 needs is more micro less a+move, so players like Jaedong, Flash can dominate again.
On July 26 2013 20:09 Plansix wrote: Oh man, this interview, what the hell?
Do you think zerg busted? Do think its because of the widow mine? Isn't it kinda bullshit?
How about protoss? You think they are fine? Well I don't? You disagree? Fine then.
Why can't I mech yet? Ok, what about the high damage values? Have you considered remaking the game from the ground up? No. Ok, well what about these units I think are bullshit.
Well that was a funny read right before work. Maybe I will do a count later on of how many times people use the word design in this thread after this.
I had the same thoughts while reading this interview. Felt like half the opinions during this interview were personal ones from the interviewer himself.
On July 26 2013 20:09 Plansix wrote: Oh man, this interview, what the hell?
Do you think zerg busted? Do think its because of the widow mine? Isn't it kinda bullshit?
How about protoss? You think they are fine? Well I don't? You disagree? Fine then.
Why can't I mech yet? Ok, what about the high damage values? Have you considered remaking the game from the ground up? No. Ok, well what about these units I think are bullshit.
Well that was a funny read right before work. Maybe I will do a count later on of how many times people use the word design in this thread after this.
I had the same thoughts while reading this interview. Felt like half the opinions during this interview were personal ones from the interviewer himself.
Yeah, I think DK gets a bad rap sometimes with the level of BS questions he gets. I remember one interview someone asked him why Muta's couldn't fight straight with any army and DK very nicely explained that they were a harass unit. The interviewer then asked "and you're ok with that, them being useless in a large battle?" Half of me wanted DK to just snap the mic out of the kid's hand an just say, "Yeah, I am, you now why? Because I'm in fucking charge of what shit does in this game and you will fucking like it!"
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
lol
protoss makes it to the finals
or 1 game from the finals
fuck it protoss UP
~logic~
Doesnt matter if they are in the finals or 1 game away from the finals when its the worst designed race of any RTS ever made.
its funny see david kim worried about making vipers "better" and mech work vs toss and zerg but thinking protoss need top players, this guy is a CLOWN, protoss need a redesign, i think everyone agree with that...protoss dont want to play straight macro games because is painful, its annoying for the protoss, and the W/L ratio is bad, u cant miss a single click or a bad engage and u are down.
they put the MSC to bandaid the "bad engage mistake" or something, but the problem with protoss is mobility, the heavy eco based, slow units, stalker crap... i feel so bad because i love units like both templars, the phoenix... but we need speed, thats it.
MECH suffer the same problem as the entire protoss race, mech is SLOW, and dont work vs other builds because u are abused by runbys, speedvacs, drops... because u are alow
First of all, I never played protoss, I have experience with terran and zerg but not protoss so I may be wrong on some of my observations but I want to comment the protoss and David Kim's response to this interviewer.
I don't understand why people complain so much about protoss. I think David Kim's answer is ok. I mean, what can they do to make protoss better except add more harassment potential like WP or oracle etc.
WP tech is very powerful.
It makes any protoss timing strong because you can completely remove the travel time and reinforcing works good on big and small maps. Add forcefields and time warp in it and buffing any gateway unit like zealot or stalker would make protoss to strong. Also, protoss is obviously very strong past mid game when you have tons of aoe damage and it makes engaging protoss army straight on very hard so any buffs to templar, archon, colosuss are also obviously not possible.
Buffing protoss air would make them imbalanced in PvZ for sure.
So again, only realistic option (they cant redesign the whole race with patches in Hots) is to work on protoss harassment. They made DTs cheaper, they buffed oracle, they buffed warp prism. Also, since protoss focuses so much on gas, late game chargelot harassment is almost free. They are actually doing something about protoss to try to make them better (unlike mech)
Protoss has good representation in torunaments and in proleague etc. They also get very high placements on tournaments. This season of OSL is no exception. Only problem is that they don't get as many 1st place results as terran or zerg. So I don't think David Kim's reasoning about protoss not having so many top level players is unreasonable.
I mean, you have guys like Hero who do these entertaining and small, guerrilla like fights all around the map, you have guys like Rain who play very strong defensive style, you have guys like Parting who excel at micro and execution and you have protoss players that are extremely good at particular matchups.
You also often hear Artosis and Tasteless talk about how each top protoss has his own distinct play style. This makes them very predictable. Rain is especially a good example of that.
But I can't really say any one of them has "the whole package" and that is what I think you need to make the difference between finishing high on tournaments and actually winning the whole thing.
I wish he would have acknowledged the almost complete lack of swarm hosts in pro games =\ Why are they still excited with their "slow, sieging" unit that has the "zerg feel" (lol.) My biggest issue with the unit is the sheer apm it requires to actually regularly burrow and unburrow and reset the rallies for these units. I feel like it was a huge oversight made by their fixating on some kind of singular entrenched 'contain' push, instead of how the SH is actually used, when it is used. Of course, there are rare instances where it looks like they thought it would.
Seriously, buffing viper is not that necessary at this moment Unless David meant "buffing" as giving another skill (which I want but most unlikely though) Current viper hold a good position in the late game, againt bio ball, mechs and collosi.
Swarm host needs some modification NOT to turtle. Turtle is a strategy but Swarm host turtle is just so bad in PvZ I saw a lot of casters fastforward replay every time they see SH
Kim has done a great job with balance over the last few months. Thought his answer were direct while trying to be nice to some of the questions which comes across as making assumptions and conflating opinion and fact.
On July 27 2013 01:00 BillGates wrote: Protoss is so boring to play and play against. Its the worst designed race and needs a complete and utter redesign.
How about removing the Colossus and adding back and reaver?
Protoss is my favorite to play against as a Zerg. Maybe you're just doing it wrong.
Everything to do with how people want to play the game and for it to function is opinion. The desire to play mech? Well there are other styles that work right? Outside of win rates and empirical data all such demands are based on opinion, even ones based in the 'fundamental rules of RTS'
On July 27 2013 01:00 BillGates wrote: Protoss is so boring to play and play against. Its the worst designed race and needs a complete and utter redesign.
How about removing the Colossus and adding back and reaver?
You see how much whine we have with widow mines?
And now imagine how much whine will have with Reavers.
On July 27 2013 01:00 BillGates wrote: Protoss is so boring to play and play against. Its the worst designed race and needs a complete and utter redesign.
How about removing the Colossus and adding back and reaver?
You see how much whine we have with widow mines?
And now imagine how much whine will have with Reavers.
I love people who ask for the Reaver. I never was super into BW, but even I saw that thing destroy a line of workers in one hit. Do people want to deal with zealots warping in and a reaver dropping down to launch a 100 damage nuke unto your mineral line? Or blobs of 15-20 marines all dying due to a single shot?
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews.
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews.
Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good
Disappointing that his only concern seems to be representations and numbers. He doesn't actually consider how it feels to play the game or to spectate it, which should be the number 1 concern. He's satisfied as long as his stats seem to suggest that all three races have an equal winning chance.
Many of these question directly focused on how the game is being played / watched and that it doesn't seem to be particularly fun. It seems like he's content about how it's being played and that's all that matters. I don't understand how he can so simply dismiss the nonexistent factor Mech or Protoss' shitty simple gameplay which can be condensed into "Gimmicky All-In" or "Turtle into 200/200 high-tech units".
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews.
Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good
It's a way of being a dick, but not a way of asking the question during the actual interview.
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews.
Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good
It is a terrible question to ask.
So do you think the game goes to fast? Have you considered changing it from the ground up to make it more fun to watch? That would be easy to do right?
If the answer to the question you are asking is going to be "Fuck, no", its a bad question.
On July 27 2013 01:24 Elefanto wrote: Disappointing that his only concern seem to be representations and numbers. He doesn't actually consider how it feels to play the game or to spectate it, which should be the number 1 concern. He's satisfied as long as his stats seem to suggest that all three races have an equal winning chance.
Many of these question directly focused on how the game is being played / watched and that it doesn't seem to be particularly fun. It seems like he's content about how it's being played and that's all that matters. I don't understand how he can so simply dismiss the nonexistent factor Mech or Protoss' shitty simple gameplay which can be condensed into "Gimmicky All-In" or "Turtle into 200/200 high-tech units".
Blizzard were planning to re-develop Protoss in future, but for it to happen during the HotS it would have to take too much time and the beta was already released. They decided to postpone it to the future expansion.
- All this based on the assumption the interview was translated correctly. -
Guy is an effing clown. Blaming the lack of results for one race on the quality of players is the cheapest cop-out ever. And mentioning both recent Dreamhack as if the quality especially of the Terran contenders there bore any resemblance to top-level play is remarkably dumb.
He is also biased as hell, not necessarily race biased but unit biased. "We don't want to nerf the widow mine and medivac." Basically guarantueeing the two most problematic terran units will remain untouched also indicates they will not make mech more viable.
Convinced now this game could be balanced significantly better if they got rid of him and just used heuristics to balance. If in the WCS ranking (top 30, top 60, top 150, whatever) race X was trailing, just buff damage output and health of all units of race X by (arbitrary amount) 0.1%. Keep doing this on a monthly basis till race X is no longer last, then freeze values and start buffing the new weakest race.
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews.
Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good
It's a way of being a dick, but not a way of asking the question during the actual interview.
On July 27 2013 01:31 Aiobhill wrote: - All this based on the assumption the interview was translated correctly. -
Guy is an effing clown. Blaming the lack of results for one race on the quality of players is the cheapest cop-out ever. And mentioning both recent Dreamhack as if the quality especially of the Terran contenders there bore any resemblance to top-level play is remarkably dumb.
He is also biased as hell, not necessarily race biased but unit biased. "We don't want to nerf the widow mine and medivac." Basically guarantueeing the two most problematic terran units will remain untouched also indicates they will not make mech more viable.
Convinced now this game could be balanced significantly better if they got rid of him and just used heuristics to balance. If in the WCS ranking (top 30, top 60, top 150, whatever) race X was trailing, just buff damage output and health of all units of race X by (arbitrary amount) 0.1%. Keep doing this on a monthly basis till race X is no longer last, then freeze values and start buffing the new weakest race.
Don't you realize how simplistic and preposterous this would be?
These questions were really rude. It wasn't even straight up or "nice, but in your face." These questions were simply really dick-ish. I can't believe Kim would allow himself to be questioned like this.
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews.
Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good
It's a way of being a dick, but not a way of asking the question during the actual interview.
But it's still a good question...
No, its a pretty shitty question. Asking "Why does your game go so fast? Have you thought about slowing it down so its easier to follow?" is not very good.
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews.
Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good
It is not only a bad question but also very rude in my opinion. To me it is basically as saying "I don't like your product, it is too fast, can you change it to suit me better".
Well don't buy it if you don't like it.
How will they slow down the pace of the game to improve spectating experience without redesigning the game? Also I as a spectator think the game pace is just fine. Who is that guy representing with those questions?
They can't just force players to play on normal speed on tournaments, that would be stupid and anything else would require complete overhaul like making all units dps way lower than it currently is.
I can understand questions that are targeted at specific things that are maybe not interesting as much to viewers but this question doesn't make any sense.
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews.
Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good
It's a way of being a dick, but not a way of asking the question during the actual interview.
But it's still a good question...
No, its a pretty shitty question. Asking "Why does your game go so fast? Have you thought about slowing it down so its easier to follow?" is not very good.
Hm no, its way different than that question What he mean is the fights ends so fast, way to fast especially deathball vs deathball, not much micro involved so its a very legit question imo
Where else to ask it if not directly to a blizzard employee
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews.
Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good
It's a way of being a dick, but not a way of asking the question during the actual interview.
But it's still a good question...
No, its a pretty shitty question. Asking "Why does your game go so fast? Have you thought about slowing it down so its easier to follow?" is not very good.
Hm no, its way different than that question What he mean is the fights ends so fast, way to fast especially deathball vs deathball, not much micro involved so its a very legit question imo
Where else to ask it if not directly to a blizzard employee
Is a shitty question because you know the answer, which is: Fuck no, we are not rebuilding the game from the ground up.
Its like asking a coach of a professional sports team who he things is going to win the game tonight: My team, you idiot.
There is plenty of micro involved in endgame fights, but sometimes it is better for the players to focus on getting more units into the fight. If you don't like it, play another game.
What a shitty interviewer. He's basically just throwing out his personal preferences in an accusatory way, then acting like David Kim is somehow obligated to agree with his interpretation.
LOL NO MIcro in endgame fights I'm guessing you are Low Level protoss player.... LOL High Diamond on up you have to micro regardless of race in endgame deathball vses deathball or you lose
On July 27 2013 02:10 Pirfiktshon wrote: LOL NO MIcro in endgame fights I'm guessing you are Low Level protoss player.... LOL High Diamond on up you have to micro regardless of race in endgame deathball vses deathball or you lose
On July 27 2013 01:00 BillGates wrote: Protoss is so boring to play and play against. Its the worst designed race and needs a complete and utter redesign.
How about removing the Colossus and adding back and reaver?
You see how much whine we have with widow mines?
And now imagine how much whine will have with Reavers.
I love people who ask for the Reaver. I never was super into BW, but even I saw that thing destroy a line of workers in one hit. Do people want to deal with zealots warping in and a reaver dropping down to launch a 100 damage nuke unto your mineral line? Or blobs of 15-20 marines all dying due to a single shot?
The concept of a Reaver-esque unit is still more potentially interesting than the Collosus. Can't do a straight port over of the BW Reaver for the reasons you outlined, but equally some kind of really slow burst-damage unit that needs shuttled around would be cool.
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
Most of Zerg ladder wins are because of all ins...and the reason we had a ZvZ FINALS is because the Zergs there were way and above the rest of the crowd...
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit.
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
haha i remember all the WOL battlereports with Browder and how proud he was with his "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE" , so yeah, the interviewer probably hurt his feelings. Rude question.
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews.
Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good
It's a way of being a dick, but not a way of asking the question during the actual interview.
But it's still a good question...
No, its a pretty shitty question. Asking "Why does your game go so fast? Have you thought about slowing it down so its easier to follow?" is not very good.
Hm no, its way different than that question What he mean is the fights ends so fast, way to fast especially deathball vs deathball, not much micro involved so its a very legit question imo
Where else to ask it if not directly to a blizzard employee
Is a shitty question because you know the answer, which is: Fuck no, we are not rebuilding the game from the ground up.
Its like asking a coach of a professional sports team who he things is going to win the game tonight: My team, you idiot.
There is plenty of micro involved in endgame fights, but sometimes it is better for the players to focus on getting more units into the fight. If you don't like it, play another game.
A big battle ends in seconds, not much improvisation going on there Building up that armee while staying passive and then ending the game in 5seconds is not very good for spectators So yes i consider it a very valid question and your question example is far off imo
Why do you use the same example as before which i disagreed with? Why do you say "if u dont like it, play another game" , is that sentence toward me?
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit.
The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess.
I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic.
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
haha i remember all the WOL battlereports with Browder and how proud he was with his "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE" , so yeah, the interviewer probably hurt his feelings. Rude question.
No its just a dumb one and has not merit. I know YOU think its super important, but asking pointless questions is dumb and alittle rude. It is a core part of the game and not something they are going to change, so why even ask the question when you could ask one about something they might change?
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit.
The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess.
I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic.
I can see that, but I have friends who don't like Dota because "everything isn't on one screen". They don't like scrolling to other parts of the map or being attacked or stunned from off screen. Or getting nuked down without a chance to respond.
Does that make Dota bad? No, just not for them. Games like this are not going to please everyone and trying to do that only makes them flat and boring. I would rather Dota be batshit crazy and SC2 being unforgiving and mean than slowing everything down so some people can catch up.
On July 26 2013 13:05 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim till date still don't address the low cost of Roaches which dealt so much damage in mass.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck? All his comments doesn't make sense. And buffing VIPER which already so strong against P which makes making colos pretty useless.
Err you realize the counter to viper is templar right? Like it's not that hard to feedback a viper before it abducts colossi .
I am curious how they will buff the viper without making it broken as shit lol.
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit.
The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess.
I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic.
I can see that, but I have friends who don't like Dota because "everything isn't on one screen". They don't like scrolling to other parts of the map or being attacked or stunned from off screen. Or getting nuked down without a chance to respond.
Does that make Dota bad? No, just not for them. Games like this are not going to please everyone and trying to do that only makes them flat and boring. I would rather Dota be batshit crazy and SC2 being unforgiving and mean than slowing everything down so some people can catch up.
See your point is fair, but equally I don't put 'terrible terrible damage' in the same kind of category as you.
If the interviewer had demanded automated macro, or something really alien to what Starcraft historically is, I would be in agreement.
As it is, discussing how deathball v deathball battles can end really quickly and in a frustrating manner for both players and spectators is a legitimate point of inquiry, to me at least.
They acknowledge the issue as well, but have skirted around core mechanical issues at trying to mitigate it through encouraging harassment all over the place.
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit.
The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess.
I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic.
I can see that, but I have friends who don't like Dota because "everything isn't on one screen". They don't like scrolling to other parts of the map or being attacked or stunned from off screen. Or getting nuked down without a chance to respond.
Does that make Dota bad? No, just not for them. Games like this are not going to please everyone and trying to do that only makes them flat and boring. I would rather Dota be batshit crazy and SC2 being unforgiving and mean than slowing everything down so some people can catch up.
See your point is fair, but equally I don't put 'terrible terrible damage' in the same kind of category as you.
If the interviewer had demanded automated macro, or something really alien to what Starcraft historically is, I would be in agreement.
As it is, discussing how deathball v deathball battles can end really quickly and in a frustrating manner for both players and spectators is a legitimate point of inquiry, to me at least.
They acknowledge the issue as well, but have skirted around core mechanical issues at trying to mitigate it through encouraging harassment all over the place.
There are things they could do, like make the auto-targeting "less good" but at the end of the day it would only help so much. As long as we can box all our units and A-move them, the death ball will always be an issue. If they wanted to make it better, making protoss less reliant of the colossi for its constant splash damage would go a long way to limiting their "death-bally-ness". But I don't know how you do that.
On July 27 2013 02:19 IAmHaunteR wrote: How can someone be so short-sided?
Most of Zerg ladder wins are because of all ins...and the reason we had a ZvZ FINALS is because the Zergs there were way and above the rest of the crowd...
Ugh
Most of Terran ladder wins are because of 3 base all ins...and the reason we see innovation and flash do so well is because they are way and above the rest of the crowd...
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit.
The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess.
I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic.
I can see that, but I have friends who don't like Dota because "everything isn't on one screen". They don't like scrolling to other parts of the map or being attacked or stunned from off screen. Or getting nuked down without a chance to respond.
Does that make Dota bad? No, just not for them. Games like this are not going to please everyone and trying to do that only makes them flat and boring. I would rather Dota be batshit crazy and SC2 being unforgiving and mean than slowing everything down so some people can catch up.
See your point is fair, but equally I don't put 'terrible terrible damage' in the same kind of category as you.
If the interviewer had demanded automated macro, or something really alien to what Starcraft historically is, I would be in agreement.
As it is, discussing how deathball v deathball battles can end really quickly and in a frustrating manner for both players and spectators is a legitimate point of inquiry, to me at least.
They acknowledge the issue as well, but have skirted around core mechanical issues at trying to mitigate it through encouraging harassment all over the place.
There are things they could do, like make the auto-targeting "less good" but at the end of the day it would only help so much. As long as we can box all our units and A-move them, the death ball will always be an issue. If they wanted to make it better, making protoss less reliant of the colossi for its constant splash damage would go a long way to limiting their "death-bally-ness". But I don't know how you do that.
I'm more annoyed by their lack of EVER doing anything with the Collosus, than the actual state of the game at present tbf.
I've seen some cool suggestions that don't even involve re-designing anything at the engine level. One which is my own personal one is making Collosus a lot more slow, Zealots without charge and faster passive speed, and tweaking Protoss move speeds across the board.
More divergent move speeds makes it harder to control a deathball. There is an advantage in controlling well, if the consequence of A-moving involves your Zealots ahead of your Stalkers/Immortals, and your critical AoE lagging behind.
It's by no means at all a good idea, but the general concept of non-engine tweaks to alter deathball play is really unexplored, imo.
He is also biased as hell, not necessarily race biased but unit biased. "We don't want to nerf the widow mine and medivac." Basically guarantueeing the two most problematic terran units will remain untouched also indicates they will not make mech more viable.
The widow mine and the medivac are the 2 units that keep terran in the game atm. Nerf these and we got WOL terran again. We all knew how "fun" the last wol year was
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit.
The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess.
I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic.
I can see that, but I have friends who don't like Dota because "everything isn't on one screen". They don't like scrolling to other parts of the map or being attacked or stunned from off screen. Or getting nuked down without a chance to respond.
Does that make Dota bad? No, just not for them. Games like this are not going to please everyone and trying to do that only makes them flat and boring. I would rather Dota be batshit crazy and SC2 being unforgiving and mean than slowing everything down so some people can catch up.
See your point is fair, but equally I don't put 'terrible terrible damage' in the same kind of category as you.
If the interviewer had demanded automated macro, or something really alien to what Starcraft historically is, I would be in agreement.
As it is, discussing how deathball v deathball battles can end really quickly and in a frustrating manner for both players and spectators is a legitimate point of inquiry, to me at least.
They acknowledge the issue as well, but have skirted around core mechanical issues at trying to mitigate it through encouraging harassment all over the place.
There are things they could do, like make the auto-targeting "less good" but at the end of the day it would only help so much. As long as we can box all our units and A-move them, the death ball will always be an issue. If they wanted to make it better, making protoss less reliant of the colossi for its constant splash damage would go a long way to limiting their "death-bally-ness". But I don't know how you do that.
I'm more annoyed by their lack of EVER doing anything with the Collosus, than the actual state of the game at present tbf.
I've seen some cool suggestions that don't even involve re-designing anything at the engine level. One which is my own personal one is making Collosus a lot more slow, Zealots without charge and faster passive speed, and tweaking Protoss move speeds across the board.
More divergent move speeds makes it harder to control a deathball. There is an advantage in controlling well, if the consequence of A-moving involves your Zealots ahead of your Stalkers/Immortals, and your critical AoE lagging behind.
It's by no means at all a good idea, but the general concept of non-engine tweaks to alter deathball play is really unexplored, imo.
I don't think the colossi is bad as a unit. I just only want to build 2. Really all protoss needs is a basic ranged unit that can dump out reasonable DPS that doesn't cost a mint(ie, not the immotal) and the colossi problem is solved. That is the only reason colossi are built, is that the stalker can't dump out enough DPS and the immortal is to bursty.
I also want a better charge for Zealots. I just want to be able to turn it on myself and control them while they charge. The amount of cool stuff I could do with that would be neat.
On July 27 2013 02:19 IAmHaunteR wrote: How can someone be so short-sided?
Most of Zerg ladder wins are because of all ins...and the reason we had a ZvZ FINALS is because the Zergs there were way and above the rest of the crowd...
Ugh
Most of Terran ladder wins are because of 3 base all ins...and the reason we see innovation and flash do so well is because they are way and above the rest of the crowd...
On July 26 2013 13:05 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim till date still don't address the low cost of Roaches which dealt so much damage in mass.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck? All his comments doesn't make sense. And buffing VIPER which already so strong against P which makes making colos pretty useless.
Err you realize the counter to viper is templar right? Like it's not that hard to feedback a viper before it abducts colossi .
I am curious how they will buff the viper without making it broken as shit lol.
abduct range is larger then feedback range.
Where did you get this from lol? They are the same range...
He is also biased as hell, not necessarily race biased but unit biased. "We don't want to nerf the widow mine and medivac." Basically guarantueeing the two most problematic terran units will remain untouched also indicates they will not make mech more viable.
The widow mine and the medivac are the 2 units that keep terran in the game atm. Nerf these and we got WOL terran again. We all knew how "fun" the last wol year was
current state of terran is not necessarily fun. It was entertaining in the beginning, but not as much now . ZvP and ZvZ are more dynamic.
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
haha i remember all the WOL battlereports with Browder and how proud he was with his "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE" , so yeah, the interviewer probably hurt his feelings. Rude question.
No its just a dumb one and has not merit. I know YOU think its super important, but asking pointless questions is dumb and alittle rude. It is a core part of the game and not something they are going to change, so why even ask the question when you could ask one about something they might change?
I know what you mean but to be fair, DK had a nice answer with the medivac healing and prolonging battles. Maaaaaybe similar things could be done to more units/ situations to reach the same result without a design overhaul.
Still don't see how you can think of it as rude, Blizzard is the salesman and you can ask whatever the fuck you want, it's up to the salesman to present his product and explain why certain things were done the way they are. In this case, he could have easily said "because this is better" and end of story.
On July 26 2013 13:05 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim till date still don't address the low cost of Roaches which dealt so much damage in mass.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck? All his comments doesn't make sense. And buffing VIPER which already so strong against P which makes making colos pretty useless.
We've seen like 20 David Kim interviews about balance since SC2 launch and each one is the same. Why do you guys keep expecting something else? You think the 21st is going to be wildly different?
On July 27 2013 03:11 snakeeyez wrote: Wouldnt it make more sense to comment on the balance in OSL because the best players in the world are playing in that.
This game is hopeless like david kim's answers. There are not enough top protoss players, this just made me lol. Maybe the korean government will establish a top secret training base for 1000 protoss warriors. Well how about giving the protoss the right tools, right now its like having some dude in a 1950's car compete with a 2013 lamborghini. I wonder who will win. When you balance the game only by some win/loss spreadsheets, nothing good is gonna come out of it.
On July 26 2013 16:35 papaz wrote: Honestly isn't everyone sick of only seeing variations of bio in both TvP and TvZ?
Very sick of it. TvP especially has been stale and uninteresting no matter who's playing for a very long time because Terran only has one compositional choice in a standard game. I actually prefer to watch all-ins from either side because then you at least see a wider range of Terran units on the field. Of course, HotS has pretty much killed those with the nexus cannon.
On July 26 2013 16:35 papaz wrote: Honestly isn't everyone sick of only seeing variations of bio in both TvP and TvZ?
Very sick of it. TvP especially has been stale and uninteresting no matter who's playing for a very long time because Terran only has one compositional choice in a standard game. I actually prefer to watch all-ins from either side because then you at least see a wider range of Terran units on the field. Of course, HotS has pretty much killed those with the nexus cannon.
There is like 30% of the units not even being used. Since mech is so useless you'll never see a full mech army. What about Battlecruisers, Carriers, Brood lords (I'm not a fan of the Brood lord itself) but they are Tier 3 units, 50mineral marines are actually more supply-efficient then all of these units, makes no sense at all to even have Tier 3 when they evidently arent good to use. When someone built a carrier in BW I was in pure fear cause it ruled the sky, a carrier in SC2 is a joke and the same goes for the battlecruiser.
I'd like it if lategame actually felt like lategame.
i play R and am pleased to read mr kims answers, he seems to know exactly how this game plays. in wings of liberty, it was like they were watching a different game. they now use examples which i find relevant and discuss topics in actual detail
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
haha i remember all the WOL battlereports with Browder and how proud he was with his "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE" , so yeah, the interviewer probably hurt his feelings. Rude question.
No its just a dumb one and has not merit. I know YOU think its super important, but asking pointless questions is dumb and alittle rude. It is a core part of the game and not something they are going to change, so why even ask the question when you could ask one about something they might change?
Interviews are not only about begging for balance changes that can realistically happen. It's also about raising the issues that the player base is concerned about. Battles end too fast for my liking, and for the liking of numerous others. The fact that these others have accepted it long ago doesn't change the fact that they disapprove. And if such disapprovement hurts blizzards feelings guess what, I don't give a shit.
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
haha i remember all the WOL battlereports with Browder and how proud he was with his "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE" , so yeah, the interviewer probably hurt his feelings. Rude question.
No its just a dumb one and has not merit. I know YOU think its super important, but asking pointless questions is dumb and alittle rude. It is a core part of the game and not something they are going to change, so why even ask the question when you could ask one about something they might change?
Interviews are not only about begging for balance changes that can realistically happen. It's also about raising the issues that the player base is concerned about. Battles end too fast for my liking, and for the liking of numerous others. The fact that these others have accepted it long ago doesn't change the fact that they disapprove. And if such disapprovement hurts blizzards feelings guess what, I don't give a shit.
I'm just all about not asking stupid, useless questions. Its pointless and when people in thread like this go "Good point, that is a fundamental and serious design flaw that hold back the growth of the game. They should consider redesigning the game to allow for more positional, micro based game play that is centered around the highest level of control” I want to dunk my head in ice water. I mean, if people want Blizzard to provide the same answer over and over, just so they can sit in a circle and say “yeah, we are right, we are all right, the game would be better if they did what we said”, I guess they can. I find it to be tiresome, like most balance talks.
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit.
The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess.
I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic.
I can see that, but I have friends who don't like Dota because "everything isn't on one screen". They don't like scrolling to other parts of the map or being attacked or stunned from off screen. Or getting nuked down without a chance to respond.
Does that make Dota bad? No, just not for them. Games like this are not going to please everyone and trying to do that only makes them flat and boring. I would rather Dota be batshit crazy and SC2 being unforgiving and mean than slowing everything down so some people can catch up.
See your point is fair, but equally I don't put 'terrible terrible damage' in the same kind of category as you.
If the interviewer had demanded automated macro, or something really alien to what Starcraft historically is, I would be in agreement.
As it is, discussing how deathball v deathball battles can end really quickly and in a frustrating manner for both players and spectators is a legitimate point of inquiry, to me at least.
They acknowledge the issue as well, but have skirted around core mechanical issues at trying to mitigate it through encouraging harassment all over the place.
There are things they could do, like make the auto-targeting "less good" but at the end of the day it would only help so much. As long as we can box all our units and A-move them, the death ball will always be an issue. If they wanted to make it better, making protoss less reliant of the colossi for its constant splash damage would go a long way to limiting their "death-bally-ness". But I don't know how you do that.
I'm more annoyed by their lack of EVER doing anything with the Collosus, than the actual state of the game at present tbf.
I've seen some cool suggestions that don't even involve re-designing anything at the engine level. One which is my own personal one is making Collosus a lot more slow, Zealots without charge and faster passive speed, and tweaking Protoss move speeds across the board.
More divergent move speeds makes it harder to control a deathball. There is an advantage in controlling well, if the consequence of A-moving involves your Zealots ahead of your Stalkers/Immortals, and your critical AoE lagging behind.
It's by no means at all a good idea, but the general concept of non-engine tweaks to alter deathball play is really unexplored, imo.
I don't think the colossi is bad as a unit. I just only want to build 2. Really all protoss needs is a basic ranged unit that can dump out reasonable DPS that doesn't cost a mint(ie, not the immotal) and the colossi problem is solved. That is the only reason colossi are built, is that the stalker can't dump out enough DPS and the immortal is to bursty.
I also want a better charge for Zealots. I just want to be able to turn it on myself and control them while they charge. The amount of cool stuff I could do with that would be neat.
IMO the Colossus is a terrible unit. It takes the long range, massive splash damage of a tank and leaves out any degree of positioning, skill and anticipation. It is almost the epitome of an A-move unit and requires only a minimal amount of control. The cliffwalking and ability to freely move over whatever units it wants makes it a big contributor to the one dimensional Protoss deathball. I really wish theyd either entirely remove the unit or at least make it a bit more difficult to control.
The questions were pretty bad but they aren't nearly as bad as some of the posts in this thread, holy hell!
I guess that is what happens when a game becomes this popular - if lots of people join something, you are bound to get quite a bit of trash too.
I wish TL would revert back to being harsh on the quality of posts. Personal insults, ridiculous balance complaints, and rude language... But nowadays it seems to fly even in the LR threads..
On July 27 2013 07:10 Cereb wrote: The questions were pretty bad but they aren't nearly as bad as some of the posts in this thread, holy hell!
I guess that is what happens when a game becomes this popular - if lots of people join something, you are bound to get quite a bit of trash too.
I wish TL would revert back to being harsh on the quality of posts. Personal insults, ridiculous balance complaints, and rude language... But nowadays it seems to fly even in the LR threads..
You could get away with a lot worse threads/insults on TL before sc2beta. Just look up some like 2004 threads lol.
On July 27 2013 07:10 Cereb wrote: The questions were pretty bad but they aren't nearly as bad as some of the posts in this thread, holy hell!
I guess that is what happens when a game becomes this popular - if lots of people join something, you are bound to get quite a bit of trash too.
I wish TL would revert back to being harsh on the quality of posts. Personal insults, ridiculous balance complaints, and rude language... But nowadays it seems to fly even in the LR threads..
You could get away with a lot worse threads/insults on TL before sc2beta. Just look up some like 2004 threads lol.
I think I have heard about that, unfortunately I'm not that old school
On July 27 2013 07:10 Cereb wrote: The questions were pretty bad but they aren't nearly as bad as some of the posts in this thread, holy hell!
I guess that is what happens when a game becomes this popular - if lots of people join something, you are bound to get quite a bit of trash too.
I wish TL would revert back to being harsh on the quality of posts. Personal insults, ridiculous balance complaints, and rude language... But nowadays it seems to fly even in the LR threads..
Agreed. This is the worst thread I have seen in a long time. Made me sad to visit TL. :/
On July 27 2013 07:10 Cereb wrote: The questions were pretty bad but they aren't nearly as bad as some of the posts in this thread, holy hell!
I guess that is what happens when a game becomes this popular - if lots of people join something, you are bound to get quite a bit of trash too.
I wish TL would revert back to being harsh on the quality of posts. Personal insults, ridiculous balance complaints, and rude language... But nowadays it seems to fly even in the LR threads..
You could get away with a lot worse threads/insults on TL before sc2beta. Just look up some like 2004 threads lol.
I think I have heard about that, unfortunately I'm not that old school
Ok, Zerg not OP? Well in the beginning it is very taxing on the micro, especially ZvZ however as the late game progresses Zergs do become much easier to use, assuming your on point with all the injects, cspread and what not. I think David Kim was dodging the questions by pointing out games and correlating race figures to make the game look like its balanced.
Zergs have a multitude of free units. In the late game they have: Upgraded Locusts, Broodlords (though they aren't used as much as in WoL) and Infestors. Both T and P have huge troubles dealing with hordes of those units rushing to their doorstep. Once and offensive line has been setup, again, assuming the Zerg player is not a doofus, the upgraded locusts will almost certainly trade cost effeciently with enough swarm hosts.
Protoss players have the most trouble as their units, though Tier 1 units are strong, they are not as mobile as Terran tier 1 units. Take away swarm host upgrades altogether in the next patch? Nerf the extended time? Swarm host movement speed reduced? Minor damage reduction, attack speed reduction in the next patch? Not all of the suggested changes but maybe some of them?
Give binding cloud a slow movement speed in AoE for the enemy and unaffected for ZvZ? (maybe that will be too much of a headache for ZvZ)
Amplify the damage of Medivacs under a speed boost? Energy cost per speed boost + same cooldown time?
Bring back Khaydarian Amulet upgrade? (A man can dream right? )
And why didn't any of the Press ask proper questions like actual tips on balance and most importantly the possibility of bringing back 12 unit control? (even 24 unit control)
That will most definitely be the biggest change to the sc2 scene. It could be the "hardcore" ladder in comparison to D3 and it can really show the true skill of progamers. Homage to the Broodwar era. Disregarding the total changes in timing attacks, unit compositions and all, this will not be a downgrade to the game. There could be a separate ladder and a hardcore ladder. It will really bring the excitement out of the game, just like Broodwar did and don't get me wrong, I love everything about SCII, and I know progamers do not "1A" their groups but in the late game, they certainly cannot control 50 units and must think of different approaches to initiate attacks and who can truly out-micro their opponent..
I still think the problem in regards to balance are the maps. It is already half way into the year and the map pool in tournaments hasn't changed drastically at all. Maybe 3 maps added and 3 taken out of rotation but 80% of the maps that were used at the beginning of HOTS are still being used.
People say that the pros don't want to play on new maps and choose maps they are comfortable with. That is a lame excuse, forcing new maps seems to be the only way to force out a new metagame in SC2. Units aren't as multidimensional as they were in BW, this isn't a bad thing but there are only so many ways you go do a barracks push before it becomes standard. The way to counter this is by introducing new maps that break the current metagame.
People will whine and complain about maps being favored to certain races. So what, that is what a veto is used for.
what a joke, david kim needs to be fired. widow mine a micro unit? it requires zero micro for sub diamond/master to insta-destroy a zerg army with WM, forces zerg to carry a detector everywhere. It introduces more micro for the opponent than it does for terran, not to mention they're cheap as chips so it doesn't matter if you lose a bunch. Broken.
On July 27 2013 05:04 c0sm0naut wrote: i play R and am pleased to read mr kims answers, he seems to know exactly how this game plays. in wings of liberty, it was like they were watching a different game. they now use examples which i find relevant and discuss topics in actual detail
I agree somewhat, they seem to taking a better approach with HotS, and I´m enjoying the higher caution with balance changes.
However, I do feel that they are neglecting certain things when their eyes are stuck at observing the statistics too closely. To me the Raven is a great example of this, I wish they would let terrans use this unit as a part of the metagame but after the futile efforts in beta and like this upgrade Durable Materials (60+ seconds to Auto-turret and PDD) makes it feel like they just decided to discard the whole unit out of their agenda.
Q: Since the launch of SC2 WOL, Protoss hasn't gotten a lot of championships. How do you see this? Is this because of balance?
David Kim: Overall, Protoss's performance is not weak. In a lot of tournament's Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg.
And it's settled.
On July 27 2013 12:41 Crankyhobo wrote: what a joke, david kim needs to be fired. widow mine a micro unit? it requires zero micro for sub diamond/master to insta-destroy a zerg army with WM
This is how Zerg vs Bio was (and still is to some extent) for the bio player for three years. If your account was created in 2011 why didn't you complain about this unfairness before? If you're going to be pushing for the firing of certain employees then the logic you use as a basis shouldn't have contradictions.
On July 27 2013 12:41 Crankyhobo wrote: what a joke, david kim needs to be fired. widow mine a micro unit? it requires zero micro for sub diamond/master to insta-destroy a zerg army with WM, forces zerg to carry a detector everywhere. It introduces more micro for the opponent than it does for terran, not to mention they're cheap as chips so it doesn't matter if you lose a bunch. Broken.
I thought the point of the widow mine was to help even up the amount of micro and army control required between Terran and the other races. Am I just imagining that? Because I coulda sworn that Blizz said something along those lines during beta.
so people can just sit in this thread and repeatedly call David Kim an "idiot", say he should be fired, etc. and it's np? i've experienced much harsher moderation on TL. that being said, i didn't gain much from this interview.
On July 27 2013 16:44 Schelim wrote: so people can just sit in this thread and repeatedly call David Kim an "idiot", say he should be fired, etc. and it's np? i've experienced much harsher moderation on TL. that being said, i didn't gain much from this interview.
This.
The posts people are making in this thread are beyond elementary, and show the opposite of support and passion for eSports. Where is the moderation team here?
On July 27 2013 16:44 Schelim wrote: so people can just sit in this thread and repeatedly call David Kim an "idiot", say he should be fired, etc. and it's np? i've experienced much harsher moderation on TL. that being said, i didn't gain much from this interview.
This is a privately owned and operated site and they can obviously moderate as they damn well please.
That said, let me disagree on Kim with an analogy.
American Football or Soccer, whatever. Team A beats Team B, some questionable - not necessarily wrong - decisions by the referee. After the game, the umpire answers a question of the press asking about his decisions saying "Team B sucks, they would have lost anyway and they better step up their game in the future."
That's unprofessionel, that's rude, that's stupid and that's 100% uncalled for. It also raises question if he is fit to be an referee. Exactly the same thing is happening here.
It would make a lot of sense if we had the same 'triple standard' we see in other professional sports:
The unwashed masses (esports consumers and hobby players) can complain about referees and rules all day long. They will not necessarily being taken serious however.
Pro players should remain silent about referees and rules unless they are sure they have an extremely good point.
Referees and sports officials don't comment on player performance ever. EVER. Just fucking don't do. You will have a hard time getting rid of that air, that assumption of bias.
On July 27 2013 16:44 Schelim wrote: so people can just sit in this thread and repeatedly call David Kim an "idiot", say he should be fired, etc. and it's np? i've experienced much harsher moderation on TL. that being said, i didn't gain much from this interview.
This.
The posts people are making in this thread are beyond elementary, and show the opposite of support and passion for eSports. Where is the moderation team here?
If you see any posts that you deem worthy of our attention just report them or PM a moderator about it. Don't post about it in the thread please, it just leads to derailment. Carry on
On July 27 2013 16:44 Schelim wrote: so people can just sit in this thread and repeatedly call David Kim an "idiot", say he should be fired, etc. and it's np? i've experienced much harsher moderation on TL. that being said, i didn't gain much from this interview.
This.
The posts people are making in this thread are beyond elementary, and show the opposite of support and passion for eSports. Where is the moderation team here?
If you see any posts that you deem worthy of our attention just report them or PM a moderator about it. Don't post about it in the thread please, it just leads to derailment. Carry on
Nice guy KadaverBB ruining my reporting stats...
On point, I dislike how the interviewer and the most vocal part of this community is begging Blizz to nerf terran while there is no evidence that TvZ or TvP is terran favoured. There especially has not been time to find out the real effect of the hellbat nerf. The running joke is that when a T or a P is losing a lot, they practice more. The Z clocks more forum time. Now, I know this isn't true of DRG, Life, Hyun, Soulkey and all the other brilliant Z players, but looking at this thread, I think this joke will live long and prosper.
On July 27 2013 16:44 Schelim wrote: so people can just sit in this thread and repeatedly call David Kim an "idiot", say he should be fired, etc. and it's np? i've experienced much harsher moderation on TL. that being said, i didn't gain much from this interview.
This is a privately owned and operated site and they can obviously moderate as they damn well please.
That said, let me disagree on Kim with an analogy.
American Football or Soccer, whatever. Team A beats Team B, some questionable - not necessarily wrong - decisions by the referee. After the game, the umpire answers a question of the press asking about his decisions saying "Team B sucks, they would have lost anyway and they better step up their game in the future."
That's unprofessionel, that's rude, that's stupid and that's 100% uncalled for. It also raises question if he is fit to be an referee. Exactly the same thing is happening here.
It would make a lot of sense if we had the same 'triple standard' we see in other professional sports:
The unwashed masses (esports consumers and hobby players) can complain about referees and rules all day long. They will not necessarily being taken serious however.
Pro players should remain silent about referees and rules unless they are sure they have an extremely good point.
Referees and sports officials don't comment on player performance ever. EVER. Just fucking don't do. You will have a hard time getting rid of that air, that assumption of bias.
its a pretty good analogy with some merit.
However, pro baseball players are constantly whining about umpiring. The great players with great talent are able to intimidate officials with this tactic. Proven veteran players get calls that unproven rookies do not get. A rookie like Bret Lawrie complains a lot and he is basically "labelled" by the umpires and rarely gets a borderline call.
In fact, right after Lawrie was suspended for throwing his batting helmet and striking an umpire.. the other umpires actively were seeking physical confrontations with him. Staring him down after borderline calls just daring him to say something. Basically, after 1 of their "bretheren" was hit with the batting helmet every MLB umpire "circled the wagons".
At this point... 1 wrong word from Lawrie and he is ejected from the game. Derek Jeter could yell at an umpire for 10 minutes and not get thrown out. Obviously, this impacts on the outcome of the game when you lose one of your starting players to an ejection.
You've illustrated the goal to strive for, and its a good goal, I'm not so sure other sports have reached that goal though. SC2 has not as you've noted.
On July 27 2013 12:41 Crankyhobo wrote: what a joke, david kim needs to be fired. widow mine a micro unit? it requires zero micro for sub diamond/master to insta-destroy a zerg army with WM, forces zerg to carry a detector everywhere. It introduces more micro for the opponent than it does for terran, not to mention they're cheap as chips so it doesn't matter if you lose a bunch. Broken.
You fail to understand "Blizzard logic" ... it is inverse logic and the microing has to be done by the DEFENDER and not the ATTACKER. Defender in this case would be the Zerg horde ... which is the one needing to micro (spread out and send in advance units to soack up WM shots) just as the Terran Marines need to split to avoid Banelings. It is a stupid concept, but its the one we have to live with.
Thus DK was right in his comment about them being a "micro unit" ... just not in the way you expected it.
On July 27 2013 16:44 Schelim wrote: so people can just sit in this thread and repeatedly call David Kim an "idiot", say he should be fired, etc. and it's np? i've experienced much harsher moderation on TL. that being said, i didn't gain much from this interview.
Calling someone an idiot is a direct insult and shouldnt happen.
Calling for someone to be fired is NOT a direct insult to the person and only questions his abilities and decisions. This is fine IMO because it isnt directed at the person and someone might be a great guy and still do extremely stupid stuff which he should never have done.
Example: IdrA did some really questionable things for example and yet he seems a nice guy when people are talking to him.
Well this is MY view of the matter and in no way representative of the mods view, I just feel that people need to look very closely when it comes to bad language and possible insults so I made this post.
Another important part is "can this insult be proven or not"? There is a relatively good definition for arrogance, but the same isnt true for idiocy. So calling someone arrogant could be "proven" while calling someone an idiot is "not provable" because it is closely related to just being stupid or other harmless traits.
Example: David Kim has stated that the dev team thinks mech - with sieged Tanks - is dull/boring (?? cant really remember which one exactly it was) and thus they would make sure that it would at most become as viable as bio, but you can practically hear from what he says that they will keep it less viable. To me this sounds a lot like arrogance, because "they" want to dictate how the game is played instead of giving the players the choice ... which is what I would expect from the developers of a "strategy" game. [Just watch the interview of David Kim with Apollo to see what I mean, but this interview pretty much underlines the whole thing.]
On July 26 2013 20:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Why are people blaming DK on the state of Protoss, mech, design etc? Isn't he responsible mostly for balance? It's Dustin Terrible Terrible Go Play BW Browder that should get that sort of hate.
Why do blame them for anything? They make themselves available. Thats why I like Valve and Icefrog. You can't yell at them, they don't ever take an interview. They just patch stuff and you deal with it.
Oh man you got good with those heroes. Well fuck that, you will learn these guys now and like it. Don't like the changes, what? I can't hear you, to busy counting money
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
They don't look arrogant at all. I think they're more of CoD or Mass Effect type of developers, who are good for feeding average gamers but not good for true starcraft fans.
Designing a good "Starcraft game" isnt that hard ... really. You just have to START AT BW and then improve on that slowly and steadily. That isnt how they did it ... they just too a few core units and then built an entirely new thing around those and ended up with an ACTION FOCUSED game (emphasized by David Kim in his Interview with Apollo when he said that mech was "dull" and they didnt like the playstyle).
How can they NOT BE arrogant when they - David Kim - basically say "we will tell you how to play and because of this we wont make Siege Tank based mech viable anymore"? They should try their utmost to make EVERY unit which is in the game viable and let the players figure out the rest, but instead they "enforce" an action based playstyle and deliberately keep a more strategically focused playstyle less than viable.
How can they NOT BE arrogant when certain problems with the general game design have become obvious throughout WoL and they do add new units which make the situation even worse? The unit density is a problem, because it is the reason for the existence of critical numbers. For them that term is just another catch phrase to throw out in a discussion, but I would describe that as a huge problem instead due to the "boost in efficiency" you gain from reaching a critical number and thus "breaking the balance".
Arrogance includes the inability to admit mistakes and they made quite a lot of them which haunt the game as persistent problems and will continue to do so.
well said. I would also suggest bringing the people who designed BW and make them balance the races and give the best opportunity for exciting and strategic play. I never understood what was with the Terran nerfs, or severe nerfs there of to THors, Hellions, and the deletion of the Warhound. I definitely think that SC2 could have surpassed BW, potentially, had the developers utilized their wits and exercise passion.
On July 26 2013 22:22 Irre wrote: I really hate how people just assume the best protoss players based on if they get 3 bases and deathball it or "defend well". Guess what? Protoss is SUPER STRONG on 1 base or 2 base timings. Who have been the most successful protoss players so far? MC, Seed, SoS, Parting, Rain, Creator. Only 2 of those play a sit there and play a "MACRO STYLE" that is acceptable to what foreigners ideal of good play is, and those 2 (Rain and Creator) haven't had the same level of success as the others. Maybe you should just face the facts that the optimal way to play protoss is to use all ins or exploit their early/mid game timings (OMG MC WON ~400k like this). I know its disappointing to people that like NR15 games or whatever, or think that all races should play the same macro style, but thats just not how the race was designed. Protoss needs a complete redesign that isnt going to happen in order to play competitively on the same level of "MACRO GAMES" as zerg and terran do in a long series while still being balanced in the early/mid game. The MSC is a bandaid fix that works fairly well to this style of play, but you still are not nearly playing the optimal way if you aren't killing kids with all ins or timings when you are the strongest. Protoss has an incredibly strong end game. Its just unfortunate that the end game play is based around turtling to it, and the timing play is not to the liking of the community because it doesnt take as much skill or finesse as the other races. EMBRACE IT or stop whining that the protoss players are losing because of imbalance.
This interview was horrible. Probably bad translating, really biased questioning, and despite David Kim giving statistics and facts about the state of both ladder and pro play, we get 12 pages of people ignoring that and proclaiming DK some moron....really sad.
Bigger maps would help. DOn't know why they made the maps smaller in SC2. well, actually I do. I hope KEspa can get even bigger maps for Proleague and OSL>
On July 26 2013 22:22 Irre wrote: I really hate how people just assume the best protoss players based on if they get 3 bases and deathball it or "defend well". Guess what? Protoss is SUPER STRONG on 1 base or 2 base timings. Who have been the most successful protoss players so far? MC, Seed, SoS, Parting, Rain, Creator. Only 2 of those play a sit there and play a "MACRO STYLE" that is acceptable to what foreigners ideal of good play is, and those 2 (Rain and Creator) haven't had the same level of success as the others. Maybe you should just face the facts that the optimal way to play protoss is to use all ins or exploit their early/mid game timings (OMG MC WON ~400k like this). I know its disappointing to people that like NR15 games or whatever, or think that all races should play the same macro style, but thats just not how the race was designed. Protoss needs a complete redesign that isnt going to happen in order to play competitively on the same level of "MACRO GAMES" as zerg and terran do in a long series while still being balanced in the early/mid game. The MSC is a bandaid fix that works fairly well to this style of play, but you still are not nearly playing the optimal way if you aren't killing kids with all ins or timings when you are the strongest. Protoss has an incredibly strong end game. Its just unfortunate that the end game play is based around turtling to it, and the timing play is not to the liking of the community because it doesnt take as much skill or finesse as the other races. EMBRACE IT or stop whining that the protoss players are losing because of imbalance.
This interview was horrible. Probably bad translating, really biased questioning, and despite David Kim giving statistics and facts about the state of both ladder and pro play, we get 12 pages of people ignoring that and proclaiming DK some moron....really sad.
Bigger maps would help. DOn't know why they made the maps smaller in SC2. well, actually I do. I hope KEspa can get even bigger maps for Proleague and OSL>
Big maps make boring games with no action until 15 min in. Big maps arent a problem.
On July 26 2013 20:44 QNdie wrote: All I can hear from this interview is "winrates are ok --> balance is ok" which is complete bullshit. Players want the game to be balanced all around and not have moments in the game where certain things are uncounterable. An example is hellbat drops before the patch which killed everything and nobody payed attention to the fact they were very strong until winrates natrually shifted in favour of terran. Players want to see all units being used, the fact that protoss late game in every matchup is so stale annoys not only their opponents but the protoss themselves... The case is similar with the game still being a deathball fest for every race but terran where multi-pronged harassment is not actually all that useful (see WCS NA Ro32 DeMuslim vs. Crank g1) and you are encouraged to make an expensive army and attack, rather than make 3 warp prisms and try harassing. The game has so many problems and I'm baffled that David Kim fails to see the fact that "balance" is just the tip of the iceberg.
I concur exactly. I think this is part of the reason that SC2 is starting to get bypassed by other games like Dota and LoL. Yes, LoL is a great game in of itself. but SC2 started the whole e-sports craze no doubt about it. and Koreans aren't flocking to Sc2 for several reasons. Price to play online. and the game is just not as fun as what BW was. I had a few Korean friends who play after work, at PC bangs in New JErsey. THey would get their coffee and play BW for like 2-3 hours every night. it was so much fun to watch. That has all but disappeared.
On July 26 2013 22:22 Irre wrote: I really hate how people just assume the best protoss players based on if they get 3 bases and deathball it or "defend well". Guess what? Protoss is SUPER STRONG on 1 base or 2 base timings. Who have been the most successful protoss players so far? MC, Seed, SoS, Parting, Rain, Creator. Only 2 of those play a sit there and play a "MACRO STYLE" that is acceptable to what foreigners ideal of good play is, and those 2 (Rain and Creator) haven't had the same level of success as the others. Maybe you should just face the facts that the optimal way to play protoss is to use all ins or exploit their early/mid game timings (OMG MC WON ~400k like this). I know its disappointing to people that like NR15 games or whatever, or think that all races should play the same macro style, but thats just not how the race was designed. Protoss needs a complete redesign that isnt going to happen in order to play competitively on the same level of "MACRO GAMES" as zerg and terran do in a long series while still being balanced in the early/mid game. The MSC is a bandaid fix that works fairly well to this style of play, but you still are not nearly playing the optimal way if you aren't killing kids with all ins or timings when you are the strongest. Protoss has an incredibly strong end game. Its just unfortunate that the end game play is based around turtling to it, and the timing play is not to the liking of the community because it doesnt take as much skill or finesse as the other races. EMBRACE IT or stop whining that the protoss players are losing because of imbalance.
This interview was horrible. Probably bad translating, really biased questioning, and despite David Kim giving statistics and facts about the state of both ladder and pro play, we get 12 pages of people ignoring that and proclaiming DK some moron....really sad.
Bigger maps would help. DOn't know why they made the maps smaller in SC2. well, actually I do. I hope KEspa can get even bigger maps for Proleague and OSL>
Big maps make boring games with no action until 15 min in. Big maps arent a problem.
with 6 wokers at the start, there should be more action. The bigger map would allow for more strategic play across various spectrums and terrain. more fights in locations at bridges like in BW or at chokes were great to witness. Bigger maps allowed it. Smaller maps are just so claustophobic IMO. I think the game wouldn't be such a dragging game if the maps were a bit bigger.
Kinda off-topic: but, at my job (java programming) its worst thing when you let the things go by their own. For example, there is a possible chance that user may not understand some function, but you'll suppose he will learn through some trial&error. It will usually backfire pretty hard. My guess is blizzard is doing same mistake.
On July 26 2013 20:18 Sapphire.lux wrote: Why are people blaming DK on the state of Protoss, mech, design etc? Isn't he responsible mostly for balance? It's Dustin Terrible Terrible Go Play BW Browder that should get that sort of hate.
Why do blame them for anything? They make themselves available. Thats why I like Valve and Icefrog. You can't yell at them, they don't ever take an interview. They just patch stuff and you deal with it.
Oh man you got good with those heroes. Well fuck that, you will learn these guys now and like it. Don't like the changes, what? I can't hear you, to busy counting money
It is my impression that Browder and co. just failed to learn and replicate the parts that made BW such a great game. Whether due to arrogance or incompetence doesn't matter, but Valve proved you can do right by a classic game.
They don't look arrogant at all. I think they're more of CoD or Mass Effect type of developers, who are good for feeding average gamers but not good for true starcraft fans.
Designing a good "Starcraft game" isnt that hard ... really. You just have to START AT BW and then improve on that slowly and steadily. That isnt how they did it ... they just too a few core units and then built an entirely new thing around those and ended up with an ACTION FOCUSED game (emphasized by David Kim in his Interview with Apollo when he said that mech was "dull" and they didnt like the playstyle).
How can they NOT BE arrogant when they - David Kim - basically say "we will tell you how to play and because of this we wont make Siege Tank based mech viable anymore"? They should try their utmost to make EVERY unit which is in the game viable and let the players figure out the rest, but instead they "enforce" an action based playstyle and deliberately keep a more strategically focused playstyle less than viable.
How can they NOT BE arrogant when certain problems with the general game design have become obvious throughout WoL and they do add new units which make the situation even worse? The unit density is a problem, because it is the reason for the existence of critical numbers. For them that term is just another catch phrase to throw out in a discussion, but I would describe that as a huge problem instead due to the "boost in efficiency" you gain from reaching a critical number and thus "breaking the balance".
Arrogance includes the inability to admit mistakes and they made quite a lot of them which haunt the game as persistent problems and will continue to do so.
well said. I would also suggest bringing the people who designed BW and make them balance the races and give the best opportunity for exciting and strategic play. I never understood what was with the Terran nerfs, or severe nerfs there of to THors, Hellions, and the deletion of the Warhound. I definitely think that SC2 could have surpassed BW, potentially, had the developers utilized their wits and exercise passion.
The problem isnt really their wits ... the problem is that they fail to look at the state of the game objectively.
- Does the unlimited unit selection REALLY improve gameplay or cause problems? - Does smart cast REALLY improve gameplay or cause problems? - Do the increased economy and asymmetric production boosts REALLY improve gameplay or cause problems? - Are "critical number" and "deathball" good or bad?
To me it feels as if they started with a blank sheet of paper and a lot of good intentions (and some bad ones like Facebook integration and so on) and have stuck to that initial draft of how they think the game should work while ignoring some possible solutions which could have solved problems we have encountered so far.
Example: The Fungal Growth nerf might not have been necessary in this form (the missile) IF they had taken smartcast out for that spell. They could also have tuned down the economy to reduce the number of Infestors you can easily build and so on ... If you look at these "alternative ways of nerfing" you might notice that some would get rid of several issues at the same time without the need to adjust the units at all. The one exception is AoE attacks if you introduce limited unit selection and forced unit spreading instead of forced unit clumping.
The people who designed BW arent really needed to improve the game ... just a more "open minded" attitude towards the general mechanics of the game and their impact on problems within the game.
On July 28 2013 02:52 saddaromma wrote: Kinda off-topic: but, at my job (java programming) its worst thing when you let the things go by their own. For example, there is a possible chance that user may not understand some function, but you'll suppose he will learn through some trial&error. It will usually backfire pretty hard. My guess is blizzard is doing same mistake.
I would say they are doing the opposite and try to handhold the players and dictate their playstyle by not giving alternative choices. You need "unit X" to counter / defend against "unit Y". Going for "air" isnt really a viable option due to Fungal Growth and the super clumped up ground forces which take down a small air force rather easily; the only somewhat viable air force - Void Ray / Phoenix / Tempest - only works if you get a "critical number" (i.e. enough Void Rays and stuff to kill any incoming AA defense without losses). That is a bad concept but the reason lies entirely in that one spell AND the clumped up ground units ...
On July 26 2013 15:52 fezvez wrote: Amusing how half the people around here think david kim is an idiot (and has been hurting eSport for three years now).
The game is closer to balance than it has ever been. Just look at the monthly statistics.
The game is overall much better. Hydras are indeed a success, they are now a staple of ZvZ and ZvP.
People want to hear what they want to hear, no matter what he would have said, he'd still be an idiot.
the problem is that he nerfed units into oblivion. The who point of the game is to make units useful, without making the game imbalanced. Look at chess, every unit is useful. If the rook was useless, the game would be flawed severely.
The Thor was nerfed to futility. The hellion is not a strong balanced unit. The reaper was finally buffed,and we are starting to see Reaper play more, finally. I still think the reaper could use a speed buff. The Banshee should be more late game unit and should start dealing more devastating attacks. I don't agree with the cloak of the Banshee TBH should it does add a dynamic to the game. I'd like to see the vulture come back into play because the widow mines are a strange unit. The vulture mine added a dynamic to the game vs every race due to its ability create a minefield that could drag and splash units. THe Tanks were of course a great unit and perhaps the tank needs to increase its range just every so slightly. And of course the Warhound added a dynamic to the gameplay with Terran, but it has been erased unjustifiably. Though the unit was OP, they could have nerfed the stats of the warhound so that there was a balance to the unit vs the rest of the races or opponents. That is the point of balance. make a unit on the fine line between over powered/underpowered
On July 28 2013 03:13 Wombat_NI wrote: What dynamic did the Warhound add to Terran exactly?
IMO, the warhound were good counters to the late game army or Zergs and Protosses. think of it as super marines that could mass against late game zergs and protoss. Just the damage was way too high at 23. perhaps the hit points could have lowered to 175-190 range. I also liked the hellions that morfed into hellbats idea too.
Counter-units are not particularly dynamic. Ideally massing any unit would be sup-optimal or have huge drawbacks.
The Warhound just raped Immortals, which rape tanks, but in doing this (and thus dropping the Warhound) Blizzard also somewhat killed their chances of making Mech more viable.
Marines are dynamic units because of their microability, their synergy with dropships, their high DPS and low cost, but low HP and thus weakness to AoE.
On July 28 2013 03:13 Wombat_NI wrote: What dynamic did the Warhound add to Terran exactly?
IMO, the warhound were good counters to the late game army or Zergs and Protosses. think of it as super marines that could mass against late game zergs and protoss. Just the damage was way too high at 23. perhaps the hit points could have lowered to 175-190 range. I also liked the hellions that morfed into hellbats idea too.
Terran doesn't need a late game buff versus zerg lol. Maybe vs protoss idk but in general the warhound was a pretty lame unit. I think they should have changed it though rather then completely remove it.
On July 28 2013 03:13 Wombat_NI wrote: What dynamic did the Warhound add to Terran exactly?
IMO, the warhound were good counters to the late game army or Zergs and Protosses. think of it as super marines that could mass against late game zergs and protoss. Just the damage was way too high at 23. perhaps the hit points could have lowered to 175-190 range. I also liked the hellions that morfed into hellbats idea too.
Terran doesn't need a late game buff versus zerg lol. Maybe vs protoss idk but in general the warhound was a pretty lame unit. I think they should have changed it though rather then completely remove it.
They can remove the hellbat and let the warhound stay and change it to a not OP unit. It's still 5 units in the factory like it is now. Hellbat is such an inconsistent unit in the game. And in this way TvP mech would be viable.
On July 28 2013 03:13 Wombat_NI wrote: What dynamic did the Warhound add to Terran exactly?
IMO, the warhound were good counters to the late game army or Zergs and Protosses. think of it as super marines that could mass against late game zergs and protoss. Just the damage was way too high at 23. perhaps the hit points could have lowered to 175-190 range. I also liked the hellions that morfed into hellbats idea too.
Terran doesn't need a late game buff versus zerg lol. Maybe vs protoss idk but in general the warhound was a pretty lame unit. I think they should have changed it though rather then completely remove it.
They can remove the hellbat and let the warhound stay and change it to a not OP unit. Then TvP mech would be viable.
If you remove the hellbat chargelots will kill tank-heavy compositions. Unless warhound could kill them too but that means they could kill everything and we are back to square one since it's no true mech ect.
Sadly the warhound removal most likely killed chances of mech TvP to work at pro-level. Mech will not work without it but reintroducing it (or something like it) is out of the question.
On July 28 2013 03:40 lorestarcraft wrote: David Kim, showing once again that he doesn't understand the game he helped design. So sad.
HotS balance is actually very good right now. This is the sort of mindless hate I don't understand. We have all races vying for major tournament wins all the time -- yet David Kim doesn't understand the game? /eyeroll
On July 28 2013 03:13 Wombat_NI wrote: What dynamic did the Warhound add to Terran exactly?
IMO, the warhound were good counters to the late game army or Zergs and Protosses. think of it as super marines that could mass against late game zergs and protoss. Just the damage was way too high at 23. perhaps the hit points could have lowered to 175-190 range. I also liked the hellions that morfed into hellbats idea too.
Terran doesn't need a late game buff versus zerg lol. Maybe vs protoss idk but in general the warhound was a pretty lame unit. I think they should have changed it though rather then completely remove it.
They can remove the hellbat and let the warhound stay and change it to a not OP unit. Then TvP mech would be viable.
If you remove the hellbat chargelots will kill tank-heavy compositions. Unless warhound could kill them too but that means they could kill everything and we are back to square one since it's no true mech ect.
Sadly the warhound removal most likely killed chances of mech TvP to work at pro-level. Mech will not work without it but reintroducing it (or something like it) is out of the question.
I mean during the beta. Of course you can't reintroduce it. What is done is done.
Anyone who is still bitching about balance needs to just become a spectator and quit playing. The game is fine and has been fine for a while now. Sure there were a few gimmicks that came about with newer units and new unit comps, but now most people understand the game and it's units a lot better.
On July 28 2013 03:13 Wombat_NI wrote: What dynamic did the Warhound add to Terran exactly?
IMO, the warhound were good counters to the late game army or Zergs and Protosses. think of it as super marines that could mass against late game zergs and protoss. Just the damage was way too high at 23. perhaps the hit points could have lowered to 175-190 range. I also liked the hellions that morfed into hellbats idea too.
Terran doesn't need a late game buff versus zerg lol. Maybe vs protoss idk but in general the warhound was a pretty lame unit. I think they should have changed it though rather then completely remove it.
They can remove the hellbat and let the warhound stay and change it to a not OP unit. Then TvP mech would be viable.
If you remove the hellbat chargelots will kill tank-heavy compositions. Unless warhound could kill them too but that means they could kill everything and we are back to square one since it's no true mech ect.
Sadly the warhound removal most likely killed chances of mech TvP to work at pro-level. Mech will not work without it but reintroducing it (or something like it) is out of the question.
The whole warhound situation reminds me of the Xbox One DRM situation where, at first, no one wanted it. Now everyone wants it back but it's too late so M$ is trying to find a way to bring it back but in a subtle way.
On July 28 2013 03:13 Wombat_NI wrote: What dynamic did the Warhound add to Terran exactly?
IMO, the warhound were good counters to the late game army or Zergs and Protosses. think of it as super marines that could mass against late game zergs and protoss. Just the damage was way too high at 23. perhaps the hit points could have lowered to 175-190 range. I also liked the hellions that morfed into hellbats idea too.
You just reminded me how much I missed the Transformer hellions, those were so cool.
I can't believe people are complaining about imba, balance is so fine, what is hurting the game is how stale it is, not that anything is so obviously OP people won't watch the game.
Its like I have been skipping SC2 tournaments because games have gotten too predictable, what I do now is watch players I like only. David Kim's true sin is that he is a balance genius but doesn't get entertainment. What would buffing Viper and keeping mech down do? Severely damage TvZ in the favor of Swarm Host siege play. Less people will be willing to watch SC2 games if that happens, however the late game will perhaps be more "balanced".
What they should do is let David Kim go, get some crazy Steve Jobs type guy to go in and make SC2 crazy and fun again, then when they break the game again, rehire David Kim lol.
On July 28 2013 03:58 SiNKami wrote: Annyone who is still bitching about balance needs to just become a spectator and quit playing.The game is fine and has been fine for a while now. Sure there were a few gimmicks that came about with newer units and new unit comps, but now most people understand the game and it's units a lot better.
On July 28 2013 03:13 Wombat_NI wrote: What dynamic did the Warhound add to Terran exactly?
IMO, the warhound were good counters to the late game army or Zergs and Protosses. think of it as super marines that could mass against late game zergs and protoss. Just the damage was way too high at 23. perhaps the hit points could have lowered to 175-190 range. I also liked the hellions that morfed into hellbats idea too.
Terran doesn't need a late game buff versus zerg lol. Maybe vs protoss idk but in general the warhound was a pretty lame unit. I think they should have changed it though rather then completely remove it.
They can remove the hellbat and let the warhound stay and change it to a not OP unit. Then TvP mech would be viable.
If you remove the hellbat chargelots will kill tank-heavy compositions. Unless warhound could kill them too but that means they could kill everything and we are back to square one since it's no true mech ect.
Sadly the warhound removal most likely killed chances of mech TvP to work at pro-level. Mech will not work without it but reintroducing it (or something like it) is out of the question.
The whole warhound situation reminds me of the Xbox One DRM situation where, at first, no one wanted it. Now everyone wants it back but it's too late so M$ is trying to find a way to bring it back but in a subtle way.
I would love that, but iam afraid it would become so stale in the long run because even now its pretty stale to watch this game, its only fun to watch some key players like innovation and life
Other than that its pretty lame cuz of how the game is atm
Honestly, these are really good questions. I like how they don't beat around the bush. And David Kim with those PR answers using statistics that aren't readily available to the public.
On July 26 2013 13:08 JJH777 wrote: Proleague is either the highest skilled tournament or a very close second to WCS KR currently and it is heavily dominated by Protoss. They are fine.
Proleague is a series of best of 1 games, which is a format that favors the protoss race. There are literally 0 tournaments for single competitors which are best of 1. Protoss can have really unique and cool strats for a single game on a single map, but that's about as far as it goes for them. Play a best of series and you run out of tricks real quick.
Dunno if it's the interviewer or the translation, but it seemed a bit aggressive to me. I want aware that the viper was weak also, and I really hope mech stays right where it is.
Well, I'm a bit late to the thread but Viper buff(s) will be awesome. Also I want the host to change a bit, but I just don't like the "burrow and hope the rally does damage" style of them.
I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
On July 27 2013 16:44 Schelim wrote: so people can just sit in this thread and repeatedly call David Kim an "idiot", say he should be fired, etc. and it's np? i've experienced much harsher moderation on TL. that being said, i didn't gain much from this interview.
This.
The posts people are making in this thread are beyond elementary, and show the opposite of support and passion for eSports. Where is the moderation team here?
If you see any posts that you deem worthy of our attention just report them or PM a moderator about it. Don't post about it in the thread please, it just leads to derailment. Carry on
I did and it says something along the lines of "it has already been reported". If this thread is a wrong place to ask then please tell me where can I find out why calling somebody an idiot is not a violation of forum rules?
On July 28 2013 07:27 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
I personally disagree that TvP is more entertaining now than it was before. There's not really been any form of evolution in the matchup since the WOL Beta at the pro level and it's by far in my eyes the most boring matchup to watch. Every game (as a long watching spectator who's loved SC2 since the start) plays out almost exactly the same no matter who's playing it.
PvP is certainly a lot better but that's because it's gotten out of what TvP was and is, a stale one strat matchup.
There's a reason why TvT is the most entertaining matchup and it's because so many different styles are viable. Admittedly I prefer Mech vs Mech overall as I feel it requires more strategic thinking and the matches go on longer, but atleast there's diffferent styles.
On July 28 2013 07:27 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
TvP has the same unit composition since 2010.
It's all the same since 2010.
It's all MMMVG since 2010.
How is this "much more entertaining"?
Everything, every unit composition in every matchup has changed since 2010, except TvP.
I feel like some of their justifications for balance don't really work. Maybe protoss achieves a pretty balanced win rate on ladder, and maybe even in high level tournaments, but I don't think that's really the whole picture. You win 50% of the time flipping coins, but you can't be consistent doing it, and it feels to me like every match up with protoss is a lot closer to flipping coins than the ones without.
It might be "balanced" but it's just hard for protoss to play all around builds that will carry a great player through a tournament. Protoss feels like it's got to commit a lot more to a particular tech and playstyle than zerg and terran. It feels like every match up involving protoss is super precarious, where the entire game comes down to singular decisions/engagements, rather than a back and forth dynamic. Unit composition is also much more a determining factor in match ups with protoss.
Maybe these aren't balance issues, but it's just gripes I have as an observer. The race frustrates me. Blizzard is too focused on win rates rather than improving the dynamic of the game.
On July 28 2013 07:27 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
TvP has the same unit composition since 2010.
It's all the same since 2010.
It's all MMMVG since 2010.
How is this "much more entertaining"?
Everything, every unit composition in every matchup has changed since 2010, except TvP.
It is the most boring and stagnant matchup.
Compositional variety does not necessarily make matchups better.
I've always liked PvT at the top, top level because it feels very fair, very execution-based and intense.
PvZ had more variety, but a hell of a lot more gimmicky/silly in WoL. A lot better now though.
I'm not sure, I don't like the MsC for what it does to PvT, makes things a bit too safe. Equally proxy oracle play is kind of silly to me in how potent it is.
On July 28 2013 07:27 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
TvP has the same unit composition since 2010.
It's all the same since 2010.
It's all MMMVG since 2010.
How is this "much more entertaining"?
Everything, every unit composition in every matchup has changed since 2010, except TvP.
It is the most boring and stagnant matchup.
As opposed to zealot goon arbiter vs. tank goon goliath. The only thing remotely interesting in BW PvT was a recall into the Terran's base. At least both armies can now maneuver around each other for better positioning.
On July 28 2013 07:27 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
TvP has the same unit composition since 2010.
It's all the same since 2010.
It's all MMMVG since 2010.
How is this "much more entertaining"?
Everything, every unit composition in every matchup has changed since 2010, except TvP.
It is the most boring and stagnant matchup.
As opposed to zealot goon arbiter vs. tank goon goliath. The only thing remotely interesting in BW PvT was a recall into the Terran's base. At least both armies can now maneuver around each other for better positioning.
Zealot bombs are pretty cool, storm was more potent in certain ways. Dragoons target firing spidermines can be pretty sick to watch.
That and the general different way BW functions makes it interesting to me. That said I haven't consumed a lot of it like some of you vets.
PvT was super intense in late WoL at a Code S level. I remember tons of really entertaining matches like Parting v anyone, and Polt vs Parting that were some of my favourite games of that era.
On July 28 2013 07:27 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
TvP has the same unit composition since 2010.
It's all the same since 2010.
It's all MMMVG since 2010.
How is this "much more entertaining"?
Everything, every unit composition in every matchup has changed since 2010, except TvP.
It is the most boring and stagnant matchup.
As opposed to zealot goon arbiter vs. tank goon goliath. The only thing remotely interesting in BW PvT was a recall into the Terran's base. At least both armies can now maneuver around each other for better positioning.
I agree, pvt got stale
But every matchup got pretty stale the last years
but the first 5years of broodwar was alot more fun than sc2 to watch
On July 28 2013 08:16 Beakyboo wrote: I feel like some of their justifications for balance don't really work. Maybe protoss achieves a pretty balanced win rate on ladder, and maybe even in high level tournaments, but I don't think that's really the whole picture. You win 50% of the time flipping coins, but you can't be consistent doing it, and it feels to me like every match up with protoss is a lot closer to flipping coins than the ones without.
It might be "balanced" but it's just hard for protoss to play all around builds that will carry a great player through a tournament. Protoss feels like it's got to commit a lot more to a particular tech and playstyle than zerg and terran. It feels like every match up involving protoss is super precarious, where the entire game comes down to singular decisions/engagements, rather than a back and forth dynamic. Unit composition is also much more a determining factor in match ups with protoss.
Maybe these aren't balance issues, but it's just gripes I have as an observer. The race frustrates me. Blizzard is too focused on win rates rather than improving the dynamic of the game.
On July 28 2013 07:27 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
TvP has the same unit composition since 2010.
It's all the same since 2010.
It's all MMMVG since 2010.
How is this "much more entertaining"?
Everything, every unit composition in every matchup has changed since 2010, except TvP.
It is the most boring and stagnant matchup.
As opposed to zealot goon arbiter vs. tank goon goliath. The only thing remotely interesting in BW PvT was a recall into the Terran's base. At least both armies can now maneuver around each other for better positioning.
I agree, pvt got stale
But every matchup got pretty stale the last years
but the first 5years of broodwar was alot more fun than sc2 to watch
Well in those days, there was little interaction and very few people knew what they were doing. Day[9] always talks about how for a year or so, people didn't even know expanding while your main is still mining is a viable strategy.
With SC2, you have new people but you also have a lot of BW vets who have good gamesense and just need to adapt to the new units and mechanics. So the derp-phase ended much more quickly than it did in BW.
On July 28 2013 07:27 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
TvP has the same unit composition since 2010.
It's all the same since 2010.
It's all MMMVG since 2010.
How is this "much more entertaining"?
Everything, every unit composition in every matchup has changed since 2010, except TvP.
It is the most boring and stagnant matchup.
As opposed to zealot goon arbiter vs. tank goon goliath. The only thing remotely interesting in BW PvT was a recall into the Terran's base. At least both armies can now maneuver around each other for better positioning.
I agree, pvt got stale
But every matchup got pretty stale the last years
but the first 5years of broodwar was alot more fun than sc2 to watch
Well in those days, there was little interaction and very few people knew what they were doing. Day[9] always talks about how for a year or so, people didn't even know expanding while your main is still mining is a viable strategy.
With SC2, you have new people but you also have a lot of BW vets who have good gamesense and just need to adapt to the new units and mechanics. So the derp-phase ended much more quickly than it did in BW.
BW was harder mechanically which also contributed. It made more strategies deemed as viable because good players could overcome small build order deficits by just having better mechanics (to a bigger degree than in hots).
On July 28 2013 07:27 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
TvP has the same unit composition since 2010.
It's all the same since 2010.
It's all MMMVG since 2010.
How is this "much more entertaining"?
Everything, every unit composition in every matchup has changed since 2010, except TvP.
It is the most boring and stagnant matchup.
As opposed to zealot goon arbiter vs. tank goon goliath. The only thing remotely interesting in BW PvT was a recall into the Terran's base. At least both armies can now maneuver around each other for better positioning.
I agree, pvt got stale
But every matchup got pretty stale the last years
but the first 5years of broodwar was alot more fun than sc2 to watch
Well in those days, there was little interaction and very few people knew what they were doing. Day[9] always talks about how for a year or so, people didn't even know expanding while your main is still mining is a viable strategy.
With SC2, you have new people but you also have a lot of BW vets who have good gamesense and just need to adapt to the new units and mechanics. So the derp-phase ended much more quickly than it did in BW.
Maybe the first year, sure but after that year, people knew expanding was good Thing was, people didnt know how to do a fast expand and defend it effective
I dont know why i am gonna write this, hope it doesnt sound weird or anything
So the first years i dont remember 100% Protoss went 1gate pressure vs zerg for example, forge expand took very many years before they started with it
PvZ: So 2gate zealot rush (to force zerg make lings, not drones) into Citadel>upgrade zealot speed (no charge, just very fast passive movement speed) > Forge > hightemplar building (which included dts also)
It varied alot, sometimes protoss did more gateways, sometimes he went nexus after 2gate and forge to hold it with speed zealots and cannons And he teched to storm pretty fast everytime (he had to), and note protoss didnt use corsairs for a long time, protoss used archon to support zealots and to be able to hold muta switch (which was annoying as HELL, note pro protoss players died alot to mutas because of muta micro and no space for archon to attack)
And while he got his expand up, zerg pressure with hydralisk, zerglings and later on added lurkers
And now with expand up, protoss can move out with his force and gain map control, to put pressure and secure additional bases .... I just felt to write this, this was so much much cooler Broodwar was so dynamic, especially the first years
This has been said time and again, but I feel like some combination of force fields and warpgate tech basically means that protoss will always be the "coin flip" race, or whatever you want to call it.
Those two abilities are insanely strong in certain ways. Therefore, the entire race had to be balanced around them. I hate to say it, but Blizzard has their work cut out for them.
On July 28 2013 07:27 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
TvP has the same unit composition since 2010.
It's all the same since 2010.
It's all MMMVG since 2010.
How is this "much more entertaining"?
Everything, every unit composition in every matchup has changed since 2010, except TvP.
It is the most boring and stagnant matchup.
As opposed to zealot goon arbiter vs. tank goon goliath. The only thing remotely interesting in BW PvT was a recall into the Terran's base. At least both armies can now maneuver around each other for better positioning.
Did you list goons for Terran's side because they're so dumb you might as well be fighting against them too?
On July 28 2013 07:27 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think a lot of matchups are actually less stale than BW. PvT is much more entertaining now, and PvP got a second wind strategy-wise from WoL to HotS.
TvP has the same unit composition since 2010.
It's all the same since 2010.
It's all MMMVG since 2010.
How is this "much more entertaining"?
Everything, every unit composition in every matchup has changed since 2010, except TvP.
It is the most boring and stagnant matchup.
As opposed to zealot goon arbiter vs. tank goon goliath. The only thing remotely interesting in BW PvT was a recall into the Terran's base. At least both armies can now maneuver around each other for better positioning.
Did you list goons for Terran's side because they're so dumb you might as well be fighting against them too?
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I feel like in TvP, terran has to do early game damage in order to fight equally in a 200/200 army situation. Oracles are game ending when you choose to go reaper on 1;1 maps. Idk, maybe it's just me, but protoss is not even played to it's full extent. No usage of warp prisms on most pro games, no storm drops, nothing. Although this is mostly because they want just straight up win an engagement without harrass.
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
On July 28 2013 10:33 ::Rhapsody wrote: I feel like in TvP, terran has to do early game damage in order to fight equally in a 200/200 army situation. Oracles are game ending when you choose to go reaper on 1;1 maps. Idk, maybe it's just me, but protoss is not even played to it's full extent. No usage of warp prisms on most pro games, no storm drops, nothing. Although this is mostly because they want just straight up win an engagement without harrass.
What a load of crap. Crank uses WP all the time. So does grubby and other high level players. And they lose straight up engagements too if they are don't have the control to keep up. Stop blaming the game for your worst match up.
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
On July 28 2013 10:33 ::Rhapsody wrote: I feel like in TvP, terran has to do early game damage in order to fight equally in a 200/200 army situation. Oracles are game ending when you choose to go reaper on 1;1 maps. Idk, maybe it's just me, but protoss is not even played to it's full extent. No usage of warp prisms on most pro games, no storm drops, nothing. Although this is mostly because they want just straight up win an engagement without harrass.
What a load of crap. Crank uses WP all the time. So does grubby and other high level players. And they lose straight up engagements too if they are don't have the control to keep up. Stop blaming the game for your worst match up.
I play Random. This isn't my worst matchup, TvT and PvZ are. No need to attack me personally.
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
On July 28 2013 10:41 Sated wrote: David Kim is using the "Protoss players are worse than Zerg and Terran players, it's not a balance issue" excuse...
Are you fucking serious?
Either Protoss is heavily underplayed [not] or Protoss has design issues [probably] or Protoss is weak [a bit unlikely]. The relience on FF and gimmicks make protoss really weird compared to T and Z.
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
As a Protoss player I share his feelings on this.
I am not against safe openers, but to me it seems HoTs has really given Protoss tools to make what SHOULD be easy-to-punish greed, be perfectly safe. Reminds me of a similar time that Terrans were struggling against Queen-heavy openers after that patch.
I feel whining about enabling 'macro games' has really homogenised certain aspects of the game.
Now, in the overall scheme of things I am probably slightly behind Artosis, and far beyond everybody else in terms of my love of 'safe' builds so perhaps I am biased. That said, I feel more reactionary, calculated defensive play is more interesting and more fair than blind play that is incredibly hard to punish reactively.
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
As a Protoss player I share his feelings on this.
I am not against safe openers, but to me it seems HoTs has really given Protoss tools to make what SHOULD be easy-to-punish greed, be perfectly safe. Reminds me of a similar time that Terrans were struggling against Queen-heavy openers after that patch.
I feel whining about enabling 'macro games' has really homogenised certain aspects of the game.
Now, in the overall scheme of things I am probably slightly behind Artosis, and far beyond everybody else in terms of my love of 'safe' builds so perhaps I am biased. That said, I feel more reactionary, calculated defensive play is more interesting and more fair than blind play that is incredibly hard to punish reactively.
I don't know, a lot of these new hellion opener we have been seeing are giving the fast expand builds a run for their money. I saw several in the recent WCS and did some reasonable damage with the risk of doing a lot more if the protoss hadn't been on the ball. I think stuff is to safe until people figure out how to make it not safe.
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
As a Protoss player I share his feelings on this.
I am not against safe openers, but to me it seems HoTs has really given Protoss tools to make what SHOULD be easy-to-punish greed, be perfectly safe. Reminds me of a similar time that Terrans were struggling against Queen-heavy openers after that patch.
I feel whining about enabling 'macro games' has really homogenised certain aspects of the game.
Now, in the overall scheme of things I am probably slightly behind Artosis, and far beyond everybody else in terms of my love of 'safe' builds so perhaps I am biased. That said, I feel more reactionary, calculated defensive play is more interesting and more fair than blind play that is incredibly hard to punish reactively.
Yes! Exactly what I was saying in much better wording! Thank you, I always get flamed at for having poor choice of words.
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
Thank you rhapsody, I suffer too on TL, getting ignored for using too many words
Plansix, any games in particular to check out? My incessant Starcraft watching has taken a momentary hit, I pretty much have a gap for this entire WCS Kr season to fill up, having only really seen the current IEM tournament of recent top-tier action.
On July 28 2013 10:56 Wombat_NI wrote: Thank you rhapsody, I suffer too on TL, getting ignored for using too many words
Plansix, any games in particular to check out? My incessant Starcraft watching has taken a momentary hit, I pretty much have a gap for this entire WCS Kr season to fill up, having only really seen the current IEM tournament of recent top-tier action.
Demuslims games in WCS this week had some good hellion usage against crank. I also think he used them against Huk I think. They still take 5 shots from a Nexus cannon and put the fear in protoss of a run by.
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
On July 28 2013 10:25 ::Rhapsody wrote: I think P is way too safe on TvP, I think Nathanias said something about how it was bullshit that 2rax can't punish 1gate fe.
Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
On July 28 2013 10:30 Plansix wrote: [quote] Because a Protoss a 1 fax fe before with just two gates.
I don't know what you're saying. Explain.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
On July 28 2013 11:09 Wombat_NI wrote: Also I do apologise for my seemingly unrelenting negativity, Protoss do have the occasional entertaining game for sure, they aren't beyond hope.
I think the most fun era of Protoss was early-mid 2011 when 2 base was the name of the game. MC was always rolling out new builds with ridiculous micro.
On July 28 2013 11:09 Wombat_NI wrote: Also I do apologise for my seemingly unrelenting negativity, Protoss do have the occasional entertaining game for sure, they aren't beyond hope.
I think the most fun era of Protoss was early-mid 2011 when 2 base was the name of the game. MC was always rolling out new builds with ridiculous micro.
Nono, it was when HerO and JYP were warp prisming them Zergs to death, and when Parting was debuting that Templar everywhere style.
Protoss have a lot of skillful finesse units like Templars, Phoenixes, Stalkers (and indeed the problematic sentry), but things like Collosus and Voids really prevent seeing 'entertaining' play. I loved HerO vs Jaedong g1 especially at the recent IEM, a lot of skirmishes and excellent micro and multitasking on display.
Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
All Protoss one base all-ins can be defended by lifting your expansion and defending from one base. You don't need to scout gas, nor Pylons, you only need to know whether or not there is an expansion by 6:00.
ALL Protoss all ins? Are you saying I should never scout? only check if there's an expansion? Ok. Tell me what I should do if I see no expo at 6:00. What to expect.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
All Protoss one base all-ins can be defended by lifting your expansion and defending from one base. You don't need to scout gas, nor Pylons, you only need to know whether or not there is an expansion by 6:00.
EDIT:
Also, Terran can open 111 into expand and still be equal on economy with a 20 Nexus Protoss because of MULEs. You don't need to do damage.
On July 28 2013 10:39 Plansix wrote: [quote] Sorry, punish a 1 fax fe with just two gates. It's not an option.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
I don't understand what you are trying to say any more. Reaper openings are fine and get good information, just like stalker openings are good for protoss, but cost more.
Its clear that you have issues with TvP. Rather than complaining, go watch Demuslim beat Huk and Crank from earlier this week and try to figure out how he did it, then try to adjust your play.
I still don't know what you're talking about. What I said is: Nathanias said something about it being bullshit that Terran cannot punish Protoss with a 2 Rax, not the other way around. You might have misread.
Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
I don't understand what you are trying to say any more. Reaper openings are fine and get good information, just like stalker openings are good for protoss, but cost more.
Its clear that you have issues with TvP. Rather than complaining, go watch Demuslim beat Huk and Crank from earlier this week and try to figure out how he did it, then try to adjust your play.
We were talking about Balance and David Kim, can you stop talking about my TvP? What's your problem? I'm saying that P plays too safe cause of MSC and they're able to expand easily compared to WoL, and you're only replying saying "You have issues with TvP, stop complaining." You have issues with conversing.
On July 28 2013 10:48 Plansix wrote: [quote] Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
I don't understand what you are trying to say any more. Reaper openings are fine and get good information, just like stalker openings are good for protoss, but cost more.
Its clear that you have issues with TvP. Rather than complaining, go watch Demuslim beat Huk and Crank from earlier this week and try to figure out how he did it, then try to adjust your play.
We were talking about Balance and David Kim, can you stop talking about my TvP? What's your problem? I'm saying that P plays too safe cause of MSC and they're able to expand easily compared to WoL, and you're only replying saying "You have issues with TvP, stop complaining." You have issues with conversing.
And I pointed out earlier that high level players have recently in games made that opening seem less safe and taken to protoss players. You didn't read that part of the discussion and continued down the line of the MCS makes protoss to safe. And you keep referencing the era of WoL, when terran could 1 rax expand off of no gas and almost no scouting information against protoss. That was not a great era and protoss has really limited builds and just hid in their base in fear not having enough force fields to stop marines walking across the map and killing them.
On July 28 2013 10:51 Wombat_NI wrote: [quote] There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
I don't understand what you are trying to say any more. Reaper openings are fine and get good information, just like stalker openings are good for protoss, but cost more.
Its clear that you have issues with TvP. Rather than complaining, go watch Demuslim beat Huk and Crank from earlier this week and try to figure out how he did it, then try to adjust your play.
We were talking about Balance and David Kim, can you stop talking about my TvP? What's your problem? I'm saying that P plays too safe cause of MSC and they're able to expand easily compared to WoL, and you're only replying saying "You have issues with TvP, stop complaining." You have issues with conversing.
And I pointed out earlier that high level players have recently in games made that opening seem less safe and taken to protoss players. You didn't read that part of the discussion and continued down the line of the MCS makes protoss to safe. And you keep referencing the era of WoL, when terran could 1 rax expand off of no gas and almost no scouting information against protoss. That was not a great era and protoss has really limited builds and just hid in their base in fear not having enough force fields to stop marines walking across the map and killing them.
Everyone can agree that WoL is horrid compared to Hots, that doesn't add anything to your conversation. I don't think Protoss being safe was what David Kim intended for it to be. I'm sure DK wanted Protoss to be stronger vs All ins, not early game pressure. It's like the queen buff, yes, terrans adapted, but it did change many things about TvZ in WoL.
On July 28 2013 10:54 Plansix wrote: [quote] The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
I don't understand what you are trying to say any more. Reaper openings are fine and get good information, just like stalker openings are good for protoss, but cost more.
Its clear that you have issues with TvP. Rather than complaining, go watch Demuslim beat Huk and Crank from earlier this week and try to figure out how he did it, then try to adjust your play.
We were talking about Balance and David Kim, can you stop talking about my TvP? What's your problem? I'm saying that P plays too safe cause of MSC and they're able to expand easily compared to WoL, and you're only replying saying "You have issues with TvP, stop complaining." You have issues with conversing.
And I pointed out earlier that high level players have recently in games made that opening seem less safe and taken to protoss players. You didn't read that part of the discussion and continued down the line of the MCS makes protoss to safe. And you keep referencing the era of WoL, when terran could 1 rax expand off of no gas and almost no scouting information against protoss. That was not a great era and protoss has really limited builds and just hid in their base in fear not having enough force fields to stop marines walking across the map and killing them.
Everyone can agree that WoL is horrid compared to Hots, that doesn't add anything to your conversation. I don't think Protoss being safe was what David Kim intended for it to be. I'm sure DK wanted Protoss to be stronger vs All ins, not early game pressure. It's like the queen buff, yes, terrans adapted, but it did change many things about TvZ in WoL.
Once again, there are players doing stuff with hellions in the early game that is pretty interesting and has potential. I don't think protoss it to safe at this point and I think DK put the in the nexus cannon to help protoss deal with the early pressure they would die to in WoL. I am sure he intended protoss to be safer, because I remember him saying it. I think the time warp might be a bit much and may need to cost a bit more, or be smaller, but the cannon is fine.
On July 28 2013 10:59 Wombat_NI wrote: [quote] I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
I don't understand what you are trying to say any more. Reaper openings are fine and get good information, just like stalker openings are good for protoss, but cost more.
Its clear that you have issues with TvP. Rather than complaining, go watch Demuslim beat Huk and Crank from earlier this week and try to figure out how he did it, then try to adjust your play.
We were talking about Balance and David Kim, can you stop talking about my TvP? What's your problem? I'm saying that P plays too safe cause of MSC and they're able to expand easily compared to WoL, and you're only replying saying "You have issues with TvP, stop complaining." You have issues with conversing.
And I pointed out earlier that high level players have recently in games made that opening seem less safe and taken to protoss players. You didn't read that part of the discussion and continued down the line of the MCS makes protoss to safe. And you keep referencing the era of WoL, when terran could 1 rax expand off of no gas and almost no scouting information against protoss. That was not a great era and protoss has really limited builds and just hid in their base in fear not having enough force fields to stop marines walking across the map and killing them.
Everyone can agree that WoL is horrid compared to Hots, that doesn't add anything to your conversation. I don't think Protoss being safe was what David Kim intended for it to be. I'm sure DK wanted Protoss to be stronger vs All ins, not early game pressure. It's like the queen buff, yes, terrans adapted, but it did change many things about TvZ in WoL.
Once again, there are players doing stuff with hellions in the early game that is pretty interesting and has potential. I don't think protoss it to safe at this point and I think DK put the in the nexus cannon to help protoss deal with the early pressure they would die to in WoL. I am sure he intended protoss to be safer, because I remember him saying it. I think the time warp might be a bit much and may need to cost a bit more, or be smaller, but the cannon is fine.
I don't want to argue with you anymore. I oppose, time warp is good, although it reduces micro potential, it strengthens Protoss during mid-game engagements, crucial. The Nexus cannon is overkill. I'm not gonna reply to your comments anymore, feels like I'm talking to a wall that plays Protoss.
On July 28 2013 11:02 Plansix wrote: [quote] The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
I don't understand what you are trying to say any more. Reaper openings are fine and get good information, just like stalker openings are good for protoss, but cost more.
Its clear that you have issues with TvP. Rather than complaining, go watch Demuslim beat Huk and Crank from earlier this week and try to figure out how he did it, then try to adjust your play.
We were talking about Balance and David Kim, can you stop talking about my TvP? What's your problem? I'm saying that P plays too safe cause of MSC and they're able to expand easily compared to WoL, and you're only replying saying "You have issues with TvP, stop complaining." You have issues with conversing.
And I pointed out earlier that high level players have recently in games made that opening seem less safe and taken to protoss players. You didn't read that part of the discussion and continued down the line of the MCS makes protoss to safe. And you keep referencing the era of WoL, when terran could 1 rax expand off of no gas and almost no scouting information against protoss. That was not a great era and protoss has really limited builds and just hid in their base in fear not having enough force fields to stop marines walking across the map and killing them.
Everyone can agree that WoL is horrid compared to Hots, that doesn't add anything to your conversation. I don't think Protoss being safe was what David Kim intended for it to be. I'm sure DK wanted Protoss to be stronger vs All ins, not early game pressure. It's like the queen buff, yes, terrans adapted, but it did change many things about TvZ in WoL.
Once again, there are players doing stuff with hellions in the early game that is pretty interesting and has potential. I don't think protoss it to safe at this point and I think DK put the in the nexus cannon to help protoss deal with the early pressure they would die to in WoL. I am sure he intended protoss to be safer, because I remember him saying it. I think the time warp might be a bit much and may need to cost a bit more, or be smaller, but the cannon is fine.
I don't want to argue with you anymore. I oppose, time warp is good, although it reduces micro potential, it strengthens Protoss during mid-game engagements, crucial. The Nexus cannon is overkill. I'm not gonna reply to your comments anymore, feels like I'm talking to a wall that plays Protoss.
Yeah, well its clear we were going to disagree. You want the nexus cannon removed so you can be super aggressive and protoss has to dump gas into sentries to feel safe. I remember the days when I didn't have it and don't want to go back to those because they sucked.. I mean, if they removed the bunker from the game, I would be all for it, then we could all be aggressive together. But I don't think terrans would go for that.
And you should watch the games with Demuslim, me makes from this week. He makes hellions look pretty scary, even with the nexus cannon.
From my perspective it's not that the Nexus Cannon is too powerful, but that it's not really a choice to have it available for the most part. Most builds get a Mothership core and it often has the requisite energy, there's less of a decision-making process going on.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
I don't understand what you are trying to say any more. Reaper openings are fine and get good information, just like stalker openings are good for protoss, but cost more.
Its clear that you have issues with TvP. Rather than complaining, go watch Demuslim beat Huk and Crank from earlier this week and try to figure out how he did it, then try to adjust your play.
We were talking about Balance and David Kim, can you stop talking about my TvP? What's your problem? I'm saying that P plays too safe cause of MSC and they're able to expand easily compared to WoL, and you're only replying saying "You have issues with TvP, stop complaining." You have issues with conversing.
And I pointed out earlier that high level players have recently in games made that opening seem less safe and taken to protoss players. You didn't read that part of the discussion and continued down the line of the MCS makes protoss to safe. And you keep referencing the era of WoL, when terran could 1 rax expand off of no gas and almost no scouting information against protoss. That was not a great era and protoss has really limited builds and just hid in their base in fear not having enough force fields to stop marines walking across the map and killing them.
Everyone can agree that WoL is horrid compared to Hots, that doesn't add anything to your conversation. I don't think Protoss being safe was what David Kim intended for it to be. I'm sure DK wanted Protoss to be stronger vs All ins, not early game pressure. It's like the queen buff, yes, terrans adapted, but it did change many things about TvZ in WoL.
Once again, there are players doing stuff with hellions in the early game that is pretty interesting and has potential. I don't think protoss it to safe at this point and I think DK put the in the nexus cannon to help protoss deal with the early pressure they would die to in WoL. I am sure he intended protoss to be safer, because I remember him saying it. I think the time warp might be a bit much and may need to cost a bit more, or be smaller, but the cannon is fine.
I don't want to argue with you anymore. I oppose, time warp is good, although it reduces micro potential, it strengthens Protoss during mid-game engagements, crucial. The Nexus cannon is overkill. I'm not gonna reply to your comments anymore, feels like I'm talking to a wall that plays Protoss.
Yeah, well its clear we were going to disagree. You want the nexus cannon removed so you can be super aggressive and protoss has to dump gas into sentries to feel safe. I remember the days when I didn't have it and don't want to go back to those because they sucked.. I mean, if they removed the bunker from the game, I would be all for it, then we could all be aggressive together. But I don't think terrans would go for that.
And you should watch the games with Demuslim, me makes from this week. He makes hellions look pretty scary, even with the nexus cannon.
Nexus cannons were mostly for improving pvp, letting it be actually a matchup which you can expand in it.
You seriosuly compare it to a bunker? lol... Please dont force me to list defensive comparisons.
there is a serious problem for terrans in aggression capability vs toss nowdays, and its a fact. in WOL a toss playing greedy was a BO risk, now - its a super standard build...
On July 28 2013 12:02 Wombat_NI wrote: From my perspective it's not that the Nexus Cannon is too powerful, but that it's not really a choice to have it available for the most part. Most builds get a Mothership core and it often has the requisite energy, there's less of a decision-making process going on.
On July 28 2013 12:02 Wombat_NI wrote: From my perspective it's not that the Nexus Cannon is too powerful, but that it's not really a choice to have it available for the most part. Most builds get a Mothership core and it often has the requisite energy, there's less of a decision-making process going on.
Eh, the previous decision was "Yo, I need a lot of sentries and I can't be aggressive with those, how many should I build?". It was pretty dull and only focused around how greedy the protss wanted to be in their macro build. It is one step above "how many cannons" do I build in levels of interesting. I am ok with it getting toned down, but once again, those hellion builds Demuslim did seemed to have potential to not give a shit about the cannon(or to do damage well before it killed them)
You chose to build sentries or cannons, you generally have a MSC (for the most part). I find the MSC (somewhat) analogous to the Queen, you get the Queen for creep spready goodness and injects, you can't really play Zerg without those, especially the latter. When the Queen gives you additional defensive utility against a lot of other things, without you having to engage your brain or make reads, just not generally a fan of that kind of thing.
I had high hopes for the MSC as an interesting macro/auxilliary unit, with a tradeoff of some kind. I mean it initially could give your defensive units extra energy, which is handy for templar/sentries. If you did this however, you didn't have your cannon. Those kind of cost/benefit decisions
On July 28 2013 10:48 Plansix wrote: [quote] Sorry, typing on a Ipad. Its not like a protoss could punish a 1 rax FE with 2 gates anyways. The era of building a bunch of marines off of 300 minerals worth of production and walking them across the map to do damage to a protoss fast expand is over. The builds are slightly more complicated that than now.
There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
All Protoss one base all-ins can be defended by lifting your expansion and defending from one base. You don't need to scout gas, nor Pylons, you only need to know whether or not there is an expansion by 6:00.
ALL Protoss all ins? Are you saying I should never scout? only check if there's an expansion? Ok. Tell me what I should do if I see no expo at 6:00. What to expect.
This is why "scan timings" are a thing amongst terran players. Scan the protoss around 7, maybe 7:30. And no, not just if he plays 1 base. But always unless you already have an idea of what he's doing. You will get enough info to act accordingly. Also scout the map with one or two units for proxy pylons or stargates if you see he's one basing (and you're expanding).
Just knowing that he's up to something should put you in a more defensive position already. Maybe get an engineering bay, at least save a scan or two, keep enough marines to kill an oracle in your mineral line, keep your ramp walled and scout ahead of your ramp, so if something is coming, you can move those marines.
And note I am assuming you're doing something like a 1 rax fe in this case. If you're doing a 1 base play yourself, keep executing it and try to trade at least evenly with your attack. Trying to defend is good too in this case, but not if you lose your potential for doing damage. Also, understand you are not meant to defend literally every attack. Taking damage, sometimes a lot of damage or just losing, is normal.
On July 28 2013 10:51 Wombat_NI wrote: [quote] There was actually some subtlety in such moveouts, occasionally you would see seemingly random hitsquads of marines take really weird routes and hit the Protoss at specific timings, solely with the aim of say, sniping sentries. That mineral-only investment would then force the Protoss player to have to make a calculated decision, replace those lost sentries and sink that gas to be more defensively solid, or cut that defensive corner to push up the tech tree?
The problem I had with that was the terran never had to spend any gas to get this stuff, except maybe on reactors. They would just march their marine hit squad across the map and the protoss would pray they had enough FF to hold out until the production kicked in. And the terran could do this off of no gas and the back of a bunch of mules. I like the new era where the marine is useful, but not the snowball unit of choice for the early game.
I'm not talking about any kind of kill-move, but really specific timings that are designed to punish certain builds. The old WoL CreatorPrime PvT stuck rigidly to 4 sentries as the best balance between defensive solidity, and achieving the tech goals of the overall build schematic. You would see smart players adjusting to target that specific element of the build, which I quite enjoyed seeing.
You could also deny such moveouts with good stalker positioning, and small scale stalker vs naked marine micro battles were some of my favourite aspects of the PvT of old.
The problem I had with that was it was one way. The terran could 1 rax FE back in WoL and there was shit all a protoss could do about it without all inning or dumping a shit ton of gas. But the terran could just build 2 raxes, not take any gasses and march across the map and try to do some damage. Maybe he wouldn't or maybe the protoss would fuck up, their timing would be off and it was game over.
I like this new era where the terran has to invest in some sort of gas, rather than just living off of mules until its time to get upgrades.
But you see.. say I go 1rax reaper fe. Get 1-4 probe kills (usually), or not any. Then I'm forced to either go for another reaper, go for fact. or go for reactor, or go for reactor @50gas and stop mining gas. Then, if the protoss scouts that I'm making a reaper, a stargate follow up is incredibly dangerous for the terran, or if he scouts that I'm going reactor, he can play safely. Terran has to put a bit off pressure simply because of game design.
It's slightly easier to get the terran offguard than cornering the protoss offguard simply because of aoe, and such. I know this comes all in all into skill level, but it's mostly the Protoss' army design that is so flawed. Costly units, they don't scale well, colossus is really strong, stalker is super strong early game, and sucks late game. Protoss units don't have any consistency.
Why are you trying for probe kills with your reaper? You should be using it for scouting and maybe light harassment, rather than trying to get a lead that early. I don't know why you think you should be able to do tons of damage by building a single unit and moving it across map.
The probe kills are for a replacement of what Terran early game harass used to be, scouting #1 priority, the probe kills are an extra, it delays low apm Protoss players. What I'm saying is that it's the only thing to really do damage, are you saying I should just 1 rax FE?
Situation: You are terran, you go 1 rax fe, scout 2 gas. 3 pylons in base. What's coming? Blink? Sentry expo? 4 Gate? Stargate? DTs!? Now here is the scarier part, you scout 2 pylons. That's why I go reaper.
All Protoss one base all-ins can be defended by lifting your expansion and defending from one base. You don't need to scout gas, nor Pylons, you only need to know whether or not there is an expansion by 6:00.
ALL Protoss all ins? Are you saying I should never scout? only check if there's an expansion? Ok. Tell me what I should do if I see no expo at 6:00. What to expect.
This is why "scan timings" are a thing amongst terran players. Scan the protoss around 7, maybe 7:30. And no, not just if he plays 1 base. But always unless you already have an idea of what he's doing. You will get enough info to act accordingly. Also scout the map with one or two units for proxy pylons or stargates if you see he's one basing (and you're expanding).
Just knowing that he's up to something should put you in a more defensive position already. Maybe get an engineering bay, at least save a scan or two, keep enough marines to kill an oracle in your mineral line, keep your ramp walled and scout ahead of your ramp, so if something is coming, you can move those marines.
And note I am assuming you're doing something like a 1 rax fe in this case. If you're doing a 1 base play yourself, keep executing it and try to trade at least evenly with your attack. Trying to defend is good too in this case, but not if you lose your potential for doing damage. Also, understand you are not meant to defend literally every attack. Taking damage, sometimes a lot of damage or just losing, is normal.
Exactly. He said I can survive any all in even if I don't scout it as long as I know it's coming. Which is bullshit. All ins range from 4G, 3Grobo Bunker bust all in, Stargate Vr + Gateway units all in, Oracle + gateway units all in. And he's telling me, I can hold EVERY single type of all in ,as long as I know that an all in is coming. Thanks for agreeing with me.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
I would hate to play the game that you were lead balanced designer of. Making balance changes based on what race gets 1st place in a mindgame ridden tournament more often than others?
In a more pure situation, ladder, or an even more competitive but slightly less statistically pure situation, proleague, we see protosses doing alright yes? Just because protoss doesn't win 1st place really isn't relevant.
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
I would hate to play the game that you were lead balanced designer of. Making balance changes based on what race gets 1st place in a mindgame ridden tournament more often than others?
In a more pure situation, ladder, or an even more competitive but slightly less statistically pure situation, proleague, we see protosses doing alright yes? Just because protoss doesn't win 1st place really isn't relevant.
Did you even try to understand the post you quoted? He was more or less raging about David Kim saying that "new TOP Protoss players are needed" and the fact - in his mind - that there arent any. There is nothing in that post which supports the "balance around top players only" ... quite the contrary, because Blizzards pov seems to be that and he criticized it.
I definitely agree that there seem to be design issues with P compared to the other races and it really is a shame it often forces the "all or nothing" type of engagements and play. I find PvT to be well balanced overall but suffering from tedious late game battles always coming down to viking vs collossi and ghost vs HT. PvZ seems worse though, often forcing the P to attempt to end the game on 2 bases before the 15 minute mark on most maps. That said, I still enjoy watching the game, I'd just wish the issues could be adressed for a more entertaining viewer experience.
With players like Her0, Rain, First etc. the argument that top Protoss players should be behind in terms of skill and decision making seems slightly insulting.
Also, I think it would be very interesting to hear more about what the top players feel about it. What do they think about these issues and do they have suggestions on how it might be fixed? Or are they tied down and not allowed to comment and make suggestions in public? Would be fun to hear a top P player give his view on, for instance, swarm host turtle play on Akilon :>
On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote: The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^
Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad.
Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation?
On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote: The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^
Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad.
Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation?
Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment?
I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net
On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote: The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^
Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad.
Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation?
Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment?
I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net
I dont see any wrong with those questions at all? its been a while since we heard anything from blizzard, so we now we get a chance ofcourse we are curious how they see the balance right now and not weeks back
And it was just statements with zerg, not childinsh or bad at all imo
On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote: The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^
Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad.
Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation?
Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment?
I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net
I dont see any wrong with those questions at all? its been a while since we heard anything from blizzard, so we now we get a chance ofcourse we are curious how they see the balance right now and not weeks back
And it was just statements with zerg, not childinsh or bad at all imo
"But this is an expansion about Zerg." - that's quite suggestive; like nearly every other question is suggestive and basically gives the respones only one "right" answer.
I think this one is the worst: "In my opinion, Protoss is not a stable race. Although it has high damage, it relies heavily on high-tier units and the high costs of them limit the versatility of Protoss in competitive games. Have you considered changing this situation?" Well, nice. In his opinion. Whatever 'stable' means for him... etc
On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote: The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^
Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad.
Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation?
Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment?
I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net
I dont see any wrong with those questions at all? its been a while since we heard anything from blizzard, so we now we get a chance ofcourse we are curious how they see the balance right now and not weeks back
And it was just statements with zerg, not childinsh or bad at all imo
"But this is an expansion about Zerg." - that's quite suggestive; like nearly every other question is suggestive and basically gives the respones only one "right" answer.
I think this one is the worst: "In my opinion, Protoss is not a stable race. Although it has high damage, it relies heavily on high-tier units and the high costs of them limit the versatility of Protoss in competitive games. Have you considered changing this situation?" Well, nice. In his opinion. Whatever 'stable' means for him... etc
You might have noticed that Foxxan likes to balance whine a whole lot himself, so it's not surprising he thinks there's nothing wrong with those questions.
On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote: The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^
Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad.
Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation?
Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment?
I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net
The question is phrased in a confusing way, which I would put down to the translation and a certain "judgement call" made as part of it. There are A LOT of them and that is a certain style of asking questions where you start with a statement "people think that Zerg is weak" and then try to coax an answer / counter argument out of the person interviewed.
Your own "answer" is pretty childish, because you dont really explain why this question you quoted is bad. Also stuff like "lolok.net" and "We know blizzard stance towards balance already" are really terrible, because one is childish and the other doesnt apply since the question is about Zerg balance / power level and not general game balance. Are the assumptions made as part of it really bad? I do hope you noticed that the question says "Many people complain" and not "I think", so he just takes up the Zerg whining as the basis of the question. Is the assumption that Zerg should be more powerful because HotS is the Zerg expansion wrong? Obviously it is, but it belongs to the "Many people complain ..." part of the question and is in no way representative of the interviewers opinion.
The big point is that there have been quite a lot of people who have posted comments like sage_francis did which stated that ALL of the questions - basically the whole interview - are really bad, which isnt really the case and I dont think anyone has actually made an effort of "disecting" the questions to show where they are bad or childish and instead just give a two-line "statement of fact" that the questions are terrible ... NOT PERSONAL OPINION "I think they are terrible" but FACT "They are terrible".
On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote: The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^
Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad.
Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation?
Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment?
I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net
I dont see any wrong with those questions at all? its been a while since we heard anything from blizzard, so we now we get a chance ofcourse we are curious how they see the balance right now and not weeks back
And it was just statements with zerg, not childinsh or bad at all imo
"But this is an expansion about Zerg." - that's quite suggestive; like nearly every other question is suggestive and basically gives the respones only one "right" answer.
I think this one is the worst: "In my opinion, Protoss is not a stable race. Although it has high damage, it relies heavily on high-tier units and the high costs of them limit the versatility of Protoss in competitive games. Have you considered changing this situation?" Well, nice. In his opinion. Whatever 'stable' means for him... etc
Do you really think that starting with a statement - like "people say Zerg is weak" - can leave only one "right" answer open? You can always agree that Zerg is weak, disagree and say there are some Zerg units which are too powerful and need to be looked at or disagree and state that things are fine. The point and style of the interview is "start with a statement" (either taken from the community or the interviewer) and then get Blizzards point of view on the topic.
If he had had enough time to ask five more follow up questions to push David Kim into changing his own point of view and "seeing the light" the interview would have been bad, but as it is there is nothing wrong with it. No one would / did complain about Nony asking David Kim about the Carrier and David Kim was good enough to evade the question and not to answer it (in the SotG interview).
IMO: "But this is an expansion about Zerg" belongs to the previous sentence because of the way it is phrased and thus is belongs to "the community opinion" which is just a basis to compare "Blizzards stance" with.
Finally! David Kim knows what's up! I really hate players with lesser knowledge/league complain about balance cause they lose to better players. There are smaller issues with the variety of protoss all-ins that needs to be reduced, just because most Protoss players either go all-in or hit late game with no idea how to outplay their opponent. By outplaying I mean simple warp prism harras. It's not much to ask of Protoss players to be more active instead of going all in every game. Terran and Zerg are as close to balance as balance gets. TvP has some minor issues where it's so easy to end a game early. Whereas TvZ, there are longer macro games with alot of back and forth.
Your own "answer" is pretty childish, because you dont really explain why this question you quoted is bad. Also stuff like "lolok.net" and "We know blizzard stance towards balance already" are really terrible, because one is childish and the other doesnt apply since the question is about Zerg balance / power level and not general game balance. Are the assumptions made as part of it really bad? I do hope you noticed that the question says "Many people complain" and not "I think", so he just takes up the Zerg whining as the basis of the question. Is the assumption that Zerg should be more powerful because HotS is the Zerg expansion wrong? Obviously it is, but it belongs to the "Many people complain ..." part of the question and is in no way representative of the interviewers opinion.
The big point is that there have been quite a lot of people who have posted comments like sage_francis did which stated that ALL of the questions - basically the whole interview - are really bad, which isnt really the case and I dont think anyone has actually made an effort of "disecting" the questions to show where they are bad or childish and instead just give a two-line "statement of fact" that the questions are terrible ... NOT PERSONAL OPINION "I think they are terrible" but FACT "They are terrible".
Wait, why do I need to explain, I say it's bad, thus it's my opinion. You can take it for what it is or you can simply ignore it. The questions are generic, especially the one I snipped. Zerg balance is still overall game balance, don't pretend they're different fields. And no, I don't think "Many people complain." He's probably a zerg player himself and threw that in so he doesn't feel alone. I haven't seen many people complain about zerg being weak except for ZvT.
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
David Kim: If we make this change right now, then it is too big of a change. Players have gotten used to the current mode. But we can improve the length of the game. Especially in TvZ, there are a lot of back and forth. This is because the healing ability of medivac and the production capacity of Zerg. So the game lasts longer.
This is one of the most critical questions. The answer however, is extremely underwhelming and disappointing. Not that we should expect more at this point, but it's sad to see the lead designer of the game indirectly say, "deal with it, it won't change". Then top it with some irrelevant bullshit about tvz game length.
Once again, this is nothing new. We know that DK and DB have a distorted vision about what is fun and competitive, but those harsh reminders are very demoralizing.
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
David Kim: If we make this change right now, then it is too big of a change. Players have gotten used to the current mode. But we can improve the length of the game. Especially in TvZ, there are a lot of back and forth. This is because the healing ability of medivac and the production capacity of Zerg. So the game lasts longer.
This is one of the most critical questions. The answer however, is extremely underwhelming and disappointing. Not that we should expect more at this point, but it's sad to see the lead designer of the game indirectly say, "deal with it, it won't change". Then top it with some irrelevant bullshit about tvz game length.
Once again, this is nothing new. We know that DK and DB have a distorted vision about what is fun and competitive, but those harsh reminders are very demoralizing.
This is SC2 man.... More so than just changing armor and damage, the game speed should be changed too, if you want to make it more like BW/WC3.
Seriously though, complaining about this is to complain about SC2 as a game. Why do you support it if you don't like the way it's played? Games can already potentially last long enough. Whether or not players want to play out long games is their choice. Forcing longer battles will end up destroying peoples macro if you keep the game speed this fast, thus it'll create a new skill cap and help ruin late games.
The question is one of many terrible questions written by someone who is bad at writing up interview questions. The answer is very fitting, and tries to solve the question as much as possible without just completely disregarding it like he wants to.
You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
On July 29 2013 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote: You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
would you really expect blizzard to change anything this big? They balanced and designed the units to function at this pacing of the game.
They don't have to change anything, but equally it's not the height of rudeness to ask the questions if that is something that bothers you about the game moving forward
On July 29 2013 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote: You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
would you really expect blizzard to change anything this big? They balanced and designed the units to function at this pacing of the game.
HOTS was the perfect opportunity to change fundamental flaws in game design, which is exactly what blizzard did when TFT (the frozen throne WAR3 expansion) came. Hero design, armor types, unit design, damage types, buildings, race fundamentals, economy, everything was drastically changed, towards the best.
But the changes is HOTS were, like everything else, underwhelming. They didn't even bother changing the in-game timer... Saying that "people are use to playing like this" is not even an argument at this point. It's just a poorly labeled excuse to avoid addressing critical issues. Or it's indirectly admitting that "we are happy with SC2 as it is now, there is no reason to change anything". Take a look at how LoL's lead designers address issues and how they interact with the community. The difference with Blizzard's people is light years away.
SC2 is on autopilot and these people know it. We are three years in and it's clear It will never become an esport of BWs or LoL's caliber; and this is what personally hurts the most.
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
David Kim: If we make this change right now, then it is too big of a change. Players have gotten used to the current mode. But we can improve the length of the game. Especially in TvZ, there are a lot of back and forth. This is because the healing ability of medivac and the production capacity of Zerg. So the game lasts longer.
This is one of the most critical questions. The answer however, is extremely underwhelming and disappointing. Not that we should expect more at this point, but it's sad to see the lead designer of the game indirectly say, "deal with it, it won't change". Then top it with some irrelevant bullshit about tvz game length.
Once again, this is nothing new. We know that DK and DB have a distorted vision about what is fun and competitive, but those harsh reminders are very demoralizing.
This is SC2 man.... More so than just changing armor and damage, the game speed should be changed too, if you want to make it more like BW/WC3.
Seriously though, complaining about this is to complain about SC2 as a game. Why do you support it if you don't like the way it's played? Games can already potentially last long enough. Whether or not players want to play out long games is their choice. Forcing longer battles will end up destroying peoples macro if you keep the game speed this fast, thus it'll create a new skill cap and help ruin late games.
The question is one of many terrible questions written by someone who is bad at writing up interview questions. The answer is very fitting, and tries to solve the question as much as possible without just completely disregarding it like he wants to.
You know something is wrong with the game when people discuss more balance/design than strategy and execution. It used to be other way around in BW. Int'view questions are good, they're direct and precise so that developers can't just go around and around, which anyways, DK somehow managed to do.
so many DK fans out here, cant understand why people admire him, he didn't do anything spectacular other than a game which barely lives to its name.
On July 29 2013 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote: You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
would you really expect blizzard to change anything this big? They balanced and designed the units to function at this pacing of the game.
HOTS was the perfect opportunity to change fundamental flaws in game design, which is exactly what blizzard did when TFT (the frozen throne WAR3 expansion) came. Hero design, armor types, unit design, damage types, buildings, race fundamentals, economy, everything was drastically changed, towards the best.
But the changes is HOTS were, like everything else, underwhelming. They didn't even bother changing the in-game timer... Saying that "people are use to playing like this" is not even an argument at this point. It's just a poorly labeled excuse to avoid addressing critical issues. Or it's indirectly admitting that "we are happy with SC2 as it is now, there is no reason to change anything". Take a look at how LoL's lead designers address issues and how they interact with the community. The difference with Blizzard's people is light years away.
SC2 is on autopilot and these people know it. We are three years in and it's clear It will never become an esport of BWs or LoL's caliber; and this is what personally hurts the most.
Completely agree with this and it baffles me to see so many people rate HOTS so high. The fundamental difference from WOL is actually that they fixed the damn Infestor so the game opened up. Many people seem to think of WOL of just that last few months or so, when Blizz was the one that broke the game with the Queen change and then refused for a long time to fix the Infestor.
Most of the HOTS multiplayer was designed in the BETA anyway, so there is so much they could do in a few weeks. The question is what the fuck were they doing in the 2 years of development, single player?
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
Ya, hes the most terran biased guy out there, and he runs balence...he admit his bias early on in WoL but now will deny any claim of the sort
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
Ya, hes the most terran biased guy out there, and he runs balence...he admit his bias early on in WoL but now will deny any claim of the sort
I am unsurprised i disagree with a lot of what he says:+ Show Spoiler +
- ladder winrate means nothing to me. you balance a game at its highest levels, not at its "we aren't good at this game" levels. this is the basic concept of "competetive balance" - viper isn't weak, it totally marginalized mech in tvz, it counter collosus in pvz - if, theoretically, the widow mine is overpowered, it is clearly best to nerf it. widow mines are not used in tvt. widow mines are used infrequently in tvp, and even then, mostly as drop harass, not as their main use (map control) vs. zerg. Why in the world would you buff something for zerg when it could affect zvz, zvt, and zvp. - on another note, for the interviewer, why would someone want everything to be slowed down? high damage relative to defense promotes skillful play? you can't mess up or not pay attention? Of course, you can overdo it (if everything killed everything in one hit). david kim is actually correct in promoting back and forth rather than whatever prolonged things questioner had in mind.
But what's weird here is they seem to be misunderstanding things:
I agree that protoss has gotten more stable but: - Instability had nothing to do with reliance on high tier units, at least, not directly. the instability of protoss, at its root, was the existence of the force-field ability. + Show Spoiler +
-Because of forcefield, and to a LESSER extent warp-ins, all available early units must either be melee or extremely weak in straight-up confrontations. the ability to cut up the opponents army, create artificial chokes, and to cover retreats, is, frankly, broken as hell in the early mid game. that is why six marines can beat 2 stalkers straight up. that is why, cost-for-cost, stalkers and sentries are a joke compared to almost any standard unit (roach, marine, marauder, hellbat, zergling). - Why then, does toss never push out when they are theoretically balanced to fight with forcefield aid? because forcefields run out. Once forcefields run out, toss can easily be crushed if the opponent is not already functionally dead. - This is why early-mid toss was so weak in WoL, because if sentries could be picked off, or just avoided, toss had a lot of difficulty securing bases/ defending all-ins. - Furthermore, protoss must rely on later tech if they want to kill an enemy who knows what is happenign in-game. Outside of all-ins, it is wholly unlikely that any protoss can push through the map without some sort of late game splash. -The standard "protoss death-ball" was created by this reliance on later tech. All the damage comes from splash units like collosus and templar (and also archons). These units must be grouped into a deathball because they are really squishy relative to cost. They must be squishy not because of forcefield, but simply because you cant make a long range high dps splash, and then make it really tanky... that's just basic rts - Because of forcefield, there is a tremendous variation in the way things may go. Because depending on how well you hit your forcefields, you may get stomped and look like a scrub, or you may make your opponent look like a scrub because none of your stuff died. This variation is usually at one pole or the other, because the middle ground is a lot thinner. Because early-mid units must be squishy/low damage compared to cost. Because of forcefield.
- oracle is a corner all-in unit that you mix in later for the revelation ability. warp prism harass is nice, isn't super significant early-mid due to its high costs. warp prism help make mid-late game more interesting. -The mothership core is responsible for making protoss more stable, i am extremely weird-ed out by david kim not mentioning it, since it is essentially a patch up job for of all the flaws forcefield creates. + Show Spoiler +
- Its friggin tailor-made for the issues forcefield creates, it was the one thing i was actually like "oh, design actually understand starcraft, ty david kim" - So forcefield makes it impossible to do early game pressure, pokes, harass. It makes it necessary for units not to be able to really take straight up fights in early-mid game. So you make a magic button that can teleport them back to your base after you harass a bit. No more getting all your stuff killed for being on the map. - So the inherent squishiness of the high units make a deathball necessary, which in turn makes it difficult to deal with attacks on multiple fronts/ counterattacks with parts of an opponents army. So you make a magic button that can teleport units to another besieged base. - So because of your weak units it's difficult to stave off massive drops/ all-ins. So you make a magic button that turns your nexus into a giant photon cannon. This, in turn, allows people to open phoenix with relative impunity, further adding skill to pvz
I do actually agree with his statement about there not being many good protoss. Because there aren't. The only protoss i consider good at macro games (which is a more consistent way to win than all-in games if that needs to be stated) are Rain and Parting, and lately Parting has been underperforming. Compare this to the legions of zerg (soulkey, symbol, hyun, roro etc. etc.) and terran (innovation, flash, bomber, supernova, etc.) that can be considered good at macro/are all-around solid.
There are actually quite a few up-and coming macro monsters though (jangbi, first spring to mind), so i think this should fix itself pretty soon. Whether the MS core fixed things, or peopleare finally escaping an all-in mentality that was started by MC, i don't know
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
Ya, hes the most terran biased guy out there, and he runs balence...he admit his bias early on in WoL but now will deny any claim of the sort
Yeah!!! He is so terran biased that he let terran be the weakest race for a whole year (end of WOL). So biased!!
On July 28 2013 08:16 Beakyboo wrote: I feel like some of their justifications for balance don't really work. Maybe protoss achieves a pretty balanced win rate on ladder, and maybe even in high level tournaments, but I don't think that's really the whole picture. You win 50% of the time flipping coins, but you can't be consistent doing it, and it feels to me like every match up with protoss is a lot closer to flipping coins than the ones without.
It might be "balanced" but it's just hard for protoss to play all around builds that will carry a great player through a tournament. Protoss feels like it's got to commit a lot more to a particular tech and playstyle than zerg and terran. It feels like every match up involving protoss is super precarious, where the entire game comes down to singular decisions/engagements, rather than a back and forth dynamic. Unit composition is also much more a determining factor in match ups with protoss.
Maybe these aren't balance issues, but it's just gripes I have as an observer. The race frustrates me. Blizzard is too focused on win rates rather than improving the dynamic of the game.
I think this is a well simplified and raw explanation of what currently plagues Protoss players at the top. Once they run out of gimmicky or surprising tactics they simply crumble. If you are lucky and play a lot of PvP through the tournament then your chances of winning is highest (interestingly enough most Protoss champions did go through a lot of PvP) because you can reveal a lot less what you have planned in the other MUs.
Another point is that I feel like we have come full circle, in a sense, pertaining the design of the game. David Kim talks about the statistics, but as with Infestor/BL it's much more than statistics alone. We have come full circle again because the game designers are once again stuck on extracting balance entirely from statistics and that balance alone is the measure of a fun game; a topic that was vociferously and consistently present on these forums a year ago. Did they have a moment where they actually learned something, or was it something forced out of community pressure? The way they are discussing the issue leads me to believe it's the former, despite their utterances assuring us otherwise.
Does a tournament format, including scheduling and bo's, affect the results? Can an extended shift or overhaul in format alter the distribution of win rates? These are questions I would like to see discussed more frequently and included in statistical analysis. Do we see a certain race win more consistently when a tournament is of a certain format? If so, why?
My own thoughts around this is that longer series are detrimental to Protoss players, and I think the logic in this becomes more clear when looking at over all tournament formats and results combined with the gimmick/surprise based design of Protoss. The strength of Protoss play is actually eroded and undermined by it. As a tournament progresses it is typical that the later rounds have larger best of's. Simply put: Protoss has the clearest advantage in a bo1, but as a series extends to a bo3 and beyond there is significant impact in results. A typical final will have either a bo5 or bo7. Plenty of Protoss have reached a final, but not many have won and fewer still have lost in a close series. Once a Protoss reaches a final he will have revealed so much by that time that any surprises or gimmicks that can catch an opponent truly off guard are very minimal.
My conclusion is that if David Kim and et al. continue to adamantly refuse design changes for Protoss we will continue to see a shortage of Protoss champions. The way tournaments are formatted and the way the race is designed inherently interact and produce a disadvantage for the Protoss player. So what is better to change at this point? In my mind the answer is clearly to change the design of the race. Of course it's nice to have races with different styles which encourage variety, yet we are seeing the opposite since the variety is actually diminished because of the aforementioned issue. Variety needs to be emergent, it should not be forced out by strict design. All races should have core mechanics that are stable and are entirely playable on that basis, i.e safe and standard macro play and the variety in play should be rewarded when a player takes advantage of the small things that encourage a certain style. Protoss power units are so ridiculous when it comes to abilities and power, compared to the core units, that it's no longer an encouragement to play a certain style but instead it's an obligation without alternatives.
On July 29 2013 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote: You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
would you really expect blizzard to change anything this big? They balanced and designed the units to function at this pacing of the game.
HOTS was the perfect opportunity to change fundamental flaws in game design, which is exactly what blizzard did when TFT (the frozen throne WAR3 expansion) came. Hero design, armor types, unit design, damage types, buildings, race fundamentals, economy, everything was drastically changed, towards the best.
But the changes is HOTS were, like everything else, underwhelming. They didn't even bother changing the in-game timer... Saying that "people are use to playing like this" is not even an argument at this point. It's just a poorly labeled excuse to avoid addressing critical issues. Or it's indirectly admitting that "we are happy with SC2 as it is now, there is no reason to change anything". Take a look at how LoL's lead designers address issues and how they interact with the community. The difference with Blizzard's people is light years away.
SC2 is on autopilot and these people know it. We are three years in and it's clear It will never become an esport of BWs or LoL's caliber; and this is what personally hurts the most.
- at least on EUW and other forums there is basically no interaction with the lead designers, it is just NA - the bug report section on the other forums is pretty dead as well - they abuse their user base by installing a software called "Pando Media Booster" on installing the game, which basically turns your computer into a seedbox to reduce their own server load for people downloading the game. It is completely unnecessary and can be deinstalled right after LoL got installed, by they won't tell you
and it is not like there wouldn't be plenty of large changes to the game necessary: - they are stuck with adobe air, which is horrific - even the ability design is not consistent throughout the game, which gives a ton of trouble every time they try to implement something new, as they have to rework a lot of the old stuff. Many of the abilities are coded badly as well. To give an example, Amumus ultimate being two abilities (damage and pseudo-stunned), of which only the first one triggers spell shields. His bandage toss, apparently having a different hitbox than the actual toss (so you sometimes get super long range bandage tosses when the ability hits, but the bandage animation has not yet cought up while the opponent uses a movement ability). Or a more recent example, the marks helping to aim Zyras Grasping Roots (a champion that came out nearly exactly one year ago) are two different entities, aim at different targets (one in a line, the other at a point) and if I recall correctly one disappears once you level up the ability to the max. And those are just few of the obvious problems (interactions with champions who have after-life abilities allowing for double kills would be another one). The game mostly is a scrap pile, held together with a lot of tape and some glitter to make it look shiny. - I won't even go into balance here (global abilities, champions such as Zed...)
no, LoL is not better than SC2. It is cool that on the NA forums the designers communicate with the community, but I still honestly believe that SC2 is a better produced game, even though it is way off what one would wish for. While Protoss design still is lacking, I do admire the balance of the game even though the design of the races is SO different.
On July 28 2013 08:16 Beakyboo wrote: I feel like some of their justifications for balance don't really work. Maybe protoss achieves a pretty balanced win rate on ladder, and maybe even in high level tournaments, but I don't think that's really the whole picture. You win 50% of the time flipping coins, but you can't be consistent doing it, and it feels to me like every match up with protoss is a lot closer to flipping coins than the ones without.
It might be "balanced" but it's just hard for protoss to play all around builds that will carry a great player through a tournament. Protoss feels like it's got to commit a lot more to a particular tech and playstyle than zerg and terran. It feels like every match up involving protoss is super precarious, where the entire game comes down to singular decisions/engagements, rather than a back and forth dynamic. Unit composition is also much more a determining factor in match ups with protoss.
Maybe these aren't balance issues, but it's just gripes I have as an observer. The race frustrates me. Blizzard is too focused on win rates rather than improving the dynamic of the game.
I think this is a well simplified and raw explanation of what currently plagues Protoss players at the top. Once they run out of gimmicky or surprising tactics they simply crumble. If you are lucky and play PvP through the tournament a lot then your chances are highest (interestingly enough most Protoss champions did go through a lot of PvP) because you can reveal a lot less what you have planned in the other MUs.
Another point is that I feel like we have come full circle, in a sense, pertaining the design of the game. David Kim talks about the statistics, but as with Infestor/BL it's much more than statistics alone. We have come full circle again because the game designers are once again stuck on extracting balance entirely from statistics and that balance alone is the measure of a fun game; a topic that was vociferously and consistently present on these forums a year ago. Did they have a moment where they actually learned something, or was it something forced out of community pressure? The way they are discussing the issue leads me to believe it's the former, despite their utterances assuring us otherwise.
Does a tournament format, including scheduling and bo's, affect the results? Can an extended shift or overhaul in format alter the distribution of win rates? These are questions I would like to see discussed more frequently and included in statistical analysis. Do we see a certain race win more consistently when a tournament is of a certain format? If so, why?
My own thoughts around this is that longer series are detrimental to Protoss players, and I think the logic in this becomes more clear when looking at over all tournament formats and results combined with the gimmick/surprise based design of Protoss. The strength of Protoss play is actually eroded and undermined by it. As a tournament progresses it is typical that the later rounds have larger best of's. Simply put: Protoss has the clearest advantage in a bo1, but as a series extends to a bo3 and beyond there is significant impact in results. A typical final will have either a bo5 or bo7. Plenty of Protoss have reached a final, but not many have won and fewer still have lost in a close series. Once a Protoss reaches a final he will have revealed so much by that time that any surprises or gimmicks that can catch an opponent truly off guard are very minimal.
My conclusion is that if David Kim and et al. continue to adamantly refuse design changes for Protoss we will continue to see a shortage of Protoss champions. The way tournaments are formatted and the way the race is designed inherently interact and produce a disadvantage for the Protoss player. So what is better to change at this point? In my mind the answer is clearly to change the design of the race. Of course it's nice to have races with different styles which encourage variety, yet we are seeing the opposite since the variety is actually diminished because of the aforementioned issue. Variety needs to be emergent, it should not forced by design. All races should have core mechanics that are stable and are entirely playable on that basis, i.e safe and standard macro play and the variety in play should be rewarded when a player takes advantage of the small things that encourage a certain style.
This is so true, and well put. Yet many refuse to believe or don't understand it.
MC won a GSL Championship 6 gating July. Seed won his Championship with a Warp Prism 4 Gate all-in over MC. When Parting was on top, it was because he was Soul Training Zerg after Zerg when Zerg was the dominant race. Naniwa 4 Gated his way to an MLG championship.
Since people are claiming LoL is better than SC2, can someone provide me with an update on if they have replays yet? Last time I played they did not, but were working on it(for 9 months or more).
On July 28 2013 08:16 Beakyboo wrote: I feel like some of their justifications for balance don't really work. Maybe protoss achieves a pretty balanced win rate on ladder, and maybe even in high level tournaments, but I don't think that's really the whole picture. You win 50% of the time flipping coins, but you can't be consistent doing it, and it feels to me like every match up with protoss is a lot closer to flipping coins than the ones without.
It might be "balanced" but it's just hard for protoss to play all around builds that will carry a great player through a tournament. Protoss feels like it's got to commit a lot more to a particular tech and playstyle than zerg and terran. It feels like every match up involving protoss is super precarious, where the entire game comes down to singular decisions/engagements, rather than a back and forth dynamic. Unit composition is also much more a determining factor in match ups with protoss.
Maybe these aren't balance issues, but it's just gripes I have as an observer. The race frustrates me. Blizzard is too focused on win rates rather than improving the dynamic of the game.
I think this is a well simplified and raw explanation of what currently plagues Protoss players at the top. Once they run out of gimmicky or surprising tactics they simply crumble. If you are lucky and play PvP through the tournament a lot then your chances are highest (interestingly enough most Protoss champions did go through a lot of PvP) because you can reveal a lot less what you have planned in the other MUs.
Another point is that I feel like we have come full circle, in a sense, pertaining the design of the game. David Kim talks about the statistics, but as with Infestor/BL it's much more than statistics alone. We have come full circle again because the game designers are once again stuck on extracting balance entirely from statistics and that balance alone is the measure of a fun game; a topic that was vociferously and consistently present on these forums a year ago. Did they have a moment where they actually learned something, or was it something forced out of community pressure? The way they are discussing the issue leads me to believe it's the former, despite their utterances assuring us otherwise.
Does a tournament format, including scheduling and bo's, affect the results? Can an extended shift or overhaul in format alter the distribution of win rates? These are questions I would like to see discussed more frequently and included in statistical analysis. Do we see a certain race win more consistently when a tournament is of a certain format? If so, why?
My own thoughts around this is that longer series are detrimental to Protoss players, and I think the logic in this becomes more clear when looking at over all tournament formats and results combined with the gimmick/surprise based design of Protoss. The strength of Protoss play is actually eroded and undermined by it. As a tournament progresses it is typical that the later rounds have larger best of's. Simply put: Protoss has the clearest advantage in a bo1, but as a series extends to a bo3 and beyond there is significant impact in results. A typical final will have either a bo5 or bo7. Plenty of Protoss have reached a final, but not many have won and fewer still have lost in a close series. Once a Protoss reaches a final he will have revealed so much by that time that any surprises or gimmicks that can catch an opponent truly off guard are very minimal.
My conclusion is that if David Kim and et al. continue to adamantly refuse design changes for Protoss we will continue to see a shortage of Protoss champions. The way tournaments are formatted and the way the race is designed inherently interact and produce a disadvantage for the Protoss player. So what is better to change at this point? In my mind the answer is clearly to change the design of the race. Of course it's nice to have races with different styles which encourage variety, yet we are seeing the opposite since the variety is actually diminished because of the aforementioned issue. Variety needs to be emergent, it should not forced by design. All races should have core mechanics that are stable and are entirely playable on that basis, i.e safe and standard macro play and the variety in play should be rewarded when a player takes advantage of the small things that encourage a certain style.
This is so true, and well put. Yet many refuse to believe or don't understand it.
MC won a GSL Championship 6 gating July. Seed won his Championship with a Warp Prism 4 Gate all-in over MC. When Parting was on top, it was because he was Soul Training Zerg after Zerg when Zerg was the dominant race. Naniwa 4 Gated his way to an MLG championship.
Sorta an exaggeration. Yes, MC's championships were 2base all-ins. Seed took down players like Taeja in macro games though. Him allinning in PvP isn't really indicative of much at all, since PvP didn't really stabilize until Rain came along. Parting's PvT was also amazing in macro style, hence the "Parting Storms" and such. Yeah, he Soul Trained, but everyone knew that Zerg was imba back then anyway so it doesn't say much about Protoss as a whole (Terrans were getting stomped pretty badly as well).
On July 28 2013 08:16 Beakyboo wrote: I feel like some of their justifications for balance don't really work. Maybe protoss achieves a pretty balanced win rate on ladder, and maybe even in high level tournaments, but I don't think that's really the whole picture. You win 50% of the time flipping coins, but you can't be consistent doing it, and it feels to me like every match up with protoss is a lot closer to flipping coins than the ones without.
It might be "balanced" but it's just hard for protoss to play all around builds that will carry a great player through a tournament. Protoss feels like it's got to commit a lot more to a particular tech and playstyle than zerg and terran. It feels like every match up involving protoss is super precarious, where the entire game comes down to singular decisions/engagements, rather than a back and forth dynamic. Unit composition is also much more a determining factor in match ups with protoss.
Maybe these aren't balance issues, but it's just gripes I have as an observer. The race frustrates me. Blizzard is too focused on win rates rather than improving the dynamic of the game.
I think this is a well simplified and raw explanation of what currently plagues Protoss players at the top. Once they run out of gimmicky or surprising tactics they simply crumble. If you are lucky and play PvP through the tournament a lot then your chances are highest (interestingly enough most Protoss champions did go through a lot of PvP) because you can reveal a lot less what you have planned in the other MUs.
Another point is that I feel like we have come full circle, in a sense, pertaining the design of the game. David Kim talks about the statistics, but as with Infestor/BL it's much more than statistics alone. We have come full circle again because the game designers are once again stuck on extracting balance entirely from statistics and that balance alone is the measure of a fun game; a topic that was vociferously and consistently present on these forums a year ago. Did they have a moment where they actually learned something, or was it something forced out of community pressure? The way they are discussing the issue leads me to believe it's the former, despite their utterances assuring us otherwise.
Does a tournament format, including scheduling and bo's, affect the results? Can an extended shift or overhaul in format alter the distribution of win rates? These are questions I would like to see discussed more frequently and included in statistical analysis. Do we see a certain race win more consistently when a tournament is of a certain format? If so, why?
My own thoughts around this is that longer series are detrimental to Protoss players, and I think the logic in this becomes more clear when looking at over all tournament formats and results combined with the gimmick/surprise based design of Protoss. The strength of Protoss play is actually eroded and undermined by it. As a tournament progresses it is typical that the later rounds have larger best of's. Simply put: Protoss has the clearest advantage in a bo1, but as a series extends to a bo3 and beyond there is significant impact in results. A typical final will have either a bo5 or bo7. Plenty of Protoss have reached a final, but not many have won and fewer still have lost in a close series. Once a Protoss reaches a final he will have revealed so much by that time that any surprises or gimmicks that can catch an opponent truly off guard are very minimal.
My conclusion is that if David Kim and et al. continue to adamantly refuse design changes for Protoss we will continue to see a shortage of Protoss champions. The way tournaments are formatted and the way the race is designed inherently interact and produce a disadvantage for the Protoss player. So what is better to change at this point? In my mind the answer is clearly to change the design of the race. Of course it's nice to have races with different styles which encourage variety, yet we are seeing the opposite since the variety is actually diminished because of the aforementioned issue. Variety needs to be emergent, it should not forced by design. All races should have core mechanics that are stable and are entirely playable on that basis, i.e safe and standard macro play and the variety in play should be rewarded when a player takes advantage of the small things that encourage a certain style.
This is so true, and well put. Yet many refuse to believe or don't understand it.
MC won a GSL Championship 6 gating July. Seed won his Championship with a Warp Prism 4 Gate all-in over MC. When Parting was on top, it was because he was Soul Training Zerg after Zerg when Zerg was the dominant race. Naniwa 4 Gated his way to an MLG championship.
Sorta an exaggeration. Yes, MC's championships were 2base all-ins. Seed took down players like Taeja in macro games though. Him allinning in PvP isn't really indicative of much at all, since PvP didn't really stabilize until Rain came along. Parting's PvT was also amazing in macro style, hence the "Parting Storms" and such. Yeah, he Soul Trained, but everyone knew that Zerg was imba back then anyway so it doesn't say much about Protoss as a whole (Terrans were getting stomped pretty badly as well).
But you can't deny most of them used lots of coin-flippy strats to win something, at least 50% of their games. Which is not an indication of protoss doing ok.
On July 28 2013 08:16 Beakyboo wrote: I feel like some of their justifications for balance don't really work. Maybe protoss achieves a pretty balanced win rate on ladder, and maybe even in high level tournaments, but I don't think that's really the whole picture. You win 50% of the time flipping coins, but you can't be consistent doing it, and it feels to me like every match up with protoss is a lot closer to flipping coins than the ones without.
It might be "balanced" but it's just hard for protoss to play all around builds that will carry a great player through a tournament. Protoss feels like it's got to commit a lot more to a particular tech and playstyle than zerg and terran. It feels like every match up involving protoss is super precarious, where the entire game comes down to singular decisions/engagements, rather than a back and forth dynamic. Unit composition is also much more a determining factor in match ups with protoss.
Maybe these aren't balance issues, but it's just gripes I have as an observer. The race frustrates me. Blizzard is too focused on win rates rather than improving the dynamic of the game.
I think this is a well simplified and raw explanation of what currently plagues Protoss players at the top. Once they run out of gimmicky or surprising tactics they simply crumble. If you are lucky and play PvP through the tournament a lot then your chances are highest (interestingly enough most Protoss champions did go through a lot of PvP) because you can reveal a lot less what you have planned in the other MUs.
Another point is that I feel like we have come full circle, in a sense, pertaining the design of the game. David Kim talks about the statistics, but as with Infestor/BL it's much more than statistics alone. We have come full circle again because the game designers are once again stuck on extracting balance entirely from statistics and that balance alone is the measure of a fun game; a topic that was vociferously and consistently present on these forums a year ago. Did they have a moment where they actually learned something, or was it something forced out of community pressure? The way they are discussing the issue leads me to believe it's the former, despite their utterances assuring us otherwise.
Does a tournament format, including scheduling and bo's, affect the results? Can an extended shift or overhaul in format alter the distribution of win rates? These are questions I would like to see discussed more frequently and included in statistical analysis. Do we see a certain race win more consistently when a tournament is of a certain format? If so, why?
My own thoughts around this is that longer series are detrimental to Protoss players, and I think the logic in this becomes more clear when looking at over all tournament formats and results combined with the gimmick/surprise based design of Protoss. The strength of Protoss play is actually eroded and undermined by it. As a tournament progresses it is typical that the later rounds have larger best of's. Simply put: Protoss has the clearest advantage in a bo1, but as a series extends to a bo3 and beyond there is significant impact in results. A typical final will have either a bo5 or bo7. Plenty of Protoss have reached a final, but not many have won and fewer still have lost in a close series. Once a Protoss reaches a final he will have revealed so much by that time that any surprises or gimmicks that can catch an opponent truly off guard are very minimal.
My conclusion is that if David Kim and et al. continue to adamantly refuse design changes for Protoss we will continue to see a shortage of Protoss champions. The way tournaments are formatted and the way the race is designed inherently interact and produce a disadvantage for the Protoss player. So what is better to change at this point? In my mind the answer is clearly to change the design of the race. Of course it's nice to have races with different styles which encourage variety, yet we are seeing the opposite since the variety is actually diminished because of the aforementioned issue. Variety needs to be emergent, it should not forced by design. All races should have core mechanics that are stable and are entirely playable on that basis, i.e safe and standard macro play and the variety in play should be rewarded when a player takes advantage of the small things that encourage a certain style.
This is so true, and well put. Yet many refuse to believe or don't understand it.
MC won a GSL Championship 6 gating July. Seed won his Championship with a Warp Prism 4 Gate all-in over MC. When Parting was on top, it was because he was Soul Training Zerg after Zerg when Zerg was the dominant race. Naniwa 4 Gated his way to an MLG championship.
Sorta an exaggeration. Yes, MC's championships were 2base all-ins. Seed took down players like Taeja in macro games though. Him allinning in PvP isn't really indicative of much at all, since PvP didn't really stabilize until Rain came along. Parting's PvT was also amazing in macro style, hence the "Parting Storms" and such. Yeah, he Soul Trained, but everyone knew that Zerg was imba back then anyway so it doesn't say much about Protoss as a whole (Terrans were getting stomped pretty badly as well).
But you can't deny most of them used lots of coin-flippy strats to win something, at least 50% of their games. Which is not an indication of protoss doing ok.
They are also high level GSL winners and players, who play their opponent, not some standard ladder match. Also, the matches cited are all from WoL, so they don't really matter for current balance.
On July 29 2013 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote: You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
would you really expect blizzard to change anything this big? They balanced and designed the units to function at this pacing of the game.
HOTS was the perfect opportunity to change fundamental flaws in game design, which is exactly what blizzard did when TFT (the frozen throne WAR3 expansion) came. Hero design, armor types, unit design, damage types, buildings, race fundamentals, economy, everything was drastically changed, towards the best.
But the changes is HOTS were, like everything else, underwhelming. They didn't even bother changing the in-game timer... Saying that "people are use to playing like this" is not even an argument at this point. It's just a poorly labeled excuse to avoid addressing critical issues. Or it's indirectly admitting that "we are happy with SC2 as it is now, there is no reason to change anything". Take a look at how LoL's lead designers address issues and how they interact with the community. The difference with Blizzard's people is light years away.
SC2 is on autopilot and these people know it. We are three years in and it's clear It will never become an esport of BWs or LoL's caliber; and this is what personally hurts the most.
Completely agree with this and it baffles me to see so many people rate HOTS so high. The fundamental difference from WOL is actually that they fixed the damn Infestor so the game opened up. Many people seem to think of WOL of just that last few months or so, when Blizz was the one that broke the game with the Queen change and then refused for a long time to fix the Infestor.
Most of the HOTS multiplayer was designed in the BETA anyway, so there is so much they could do in a few weeks. The question is what the fuck were they doing in the 2 years of development, single player?
It's because WoL was so bad that people were just praying for things to get better, which it did.. a little bit, so everyone was like OMG BLIZZ FIXED IT. When in fact bnet is still terrible and the game still has a lot of designed flaws (im looking at you protoss, yes we know your race was badly designed =( don't worry, itll get better in lotv.. maybe).
On July 29 2013 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote: You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
would you really expect blizzard to change anything this big? They balanced and designed the units to function at this pacing of the game.
HOTS was the perfect opportunity to change fundamental flaws in game design, which is exactly what blizzard did when TFT (the frozen throne WAR3 expansion) came. Hero design, armor types, unit design, damage types, buildings, race fundamentals, economy, everything was drastically changed, towards the best.
But the changes is HOTS were, like everything else, underwhelming. They didn't even bother changing the in-game timer... Saying that "people are use to playing like this" is not even an argument at this point. It's just a poorly labeled excuse to avoid addressing critical issues. Or it's indirectly admitting that "we are happy with SC2 as it is now, there is no reason to change anything". Take a look at how LoL's lead designers address issues and how they interact with the community. The difference with Blizzard's people is light years away.
SC2 is on autopilot and these people know it. We are three years in and it's clear It will never become an esport of BWs or LoL's caliber; and this is what personally hurts the most.
Completely agree with this and it baffles me to see so many people rate HOTS so high. The fundamental difference from WOL is actually that they fixed the damn Infestor so the game opened up. Many people seem to think of WOL of just that last few months or so, when Blizz was the one that broke the game with the Queen change and then refused for a long time to fix the Infestor.
Most of the HOTS multiplayer was designed in the BETA anyway, so there is so much they could do in a few weeks. The question is what the fuck were they doing in the 2 years of development, single player?
Starcraft produces the least revenue and profit out of their 3 "worlds".
As Blizzard has stated in the past they move employees around to get new products out the door. They probably moved a bunch of guys that were assigned to SC2 over to D3.
We are lucky a company as great as Blizzard is still willing to invest heavily in the RTS genre.
My first glimpse of David Kim occurred in July 2010 on the bonus DVD. He was just a member of the design/balance team. Now he has a management position and a big title something like "Senior Game Designer".
I think David Kim deserves the promotion and the big title. If its one thing Blizzard knows how to do its how to hire, nurture, and develop game designers.
Thank you for all your hard work, Mr. Kim. And, thank you for tolerating personal insults from immature cry babies who can't handle losing.
On July 29 2013 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote: You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
would you really expect blizzard to change anything this big? They balanced and designed the units to function at this pacing of the game.
HOTS was the perfect opportunity to change fundamental flaws in game design, which is exactly what blizzard did when TFT (the frozen throne WAR3 expansion) came. Hero design, armor types, unit design, damage types, buildings, race fundamentals, economy, everything was drastically changed, towards the best.
But the changes is HOTS were, like everything else, underwhelming. They didn't even bother changing the in-game timer... Saying that "people are use to playing like this" is not even an argument at this point. It's just a poorly labeled excuse to avoid addressing critical issues. Or it's indirectly admitting that "we are happy with SC2 as it is now, there is no reason to change anything". Take a look at how LoL's lead designers address issues and how they interact with the community. The difference with Blizzard's people is light years away.
SC2 is on autopilot and these people know it. We are three years in and it's clear It will never become an esport of BWs or LoL's caliber; and this is what personally hurts the most.
I completely agree with this. I really want SC2 to become great but so far it has been lack luster. They had a great opportunity to change the dynamic of the change that was clearly lacking in WOL but simply just added a bunch of units that didn't change the core problems.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, the biggest problem with SC2 right now is Protoss. The race is just awfully designed. As long as Warpgate exists the way it does now and Gateway units are really weak Protoss will continue to be the race about builds/timings/all-ins.
Protoss cannot split their army because Gateway units suck by themselves which leads to deathball vs deathball games with any match up involving Protoss most of the time.
Warpgates make any timings with Protoss an all or nothing strategy.
On July 29 2013 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote: You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
would you really expect blizzard to change anything this big? They balanced and designed the units to function at this pacing of the game.
HOTS was the perfect opportunity to change fundamental flaws in game design, which is exactly what blizzard did when TFT (the frozen throne WAR3 expansion) came. Hero design, armor types, unit design, damage types, buildings, race fundamentals, economy, everything was drastically changed, towards the best.
But the changes is HOTS were, like everything else, underwhelming. They didn't even bother changing the in-game timer... Saying that "people are use to playing like this" is not even an argument at this point. It's just a poorly labeled excuse to avoid addressing critical issues. Or it's indirectly admitting that "we are happy with SC2 as it is now, there is no reason to change anything". Take a look at how LoL's lead designers address issues and how they interact with the community. The difference with Blizzard's people is light years away.
SC2 is on autopilot and these people know it. We are three years in and it's clear It will never become an esport of BWs or LoL's caliber; and this is what personally hurts the most.
Completely agree with this and it baffles me to see so many people rate HOTS so high. The fundamental difference from WOL is actually that they fixed the damn Infestor so the game opened up. Many people seem to think of WOL of just that last few months or so, when Blizz was the one that broke the game with the Queen change and then refused for a long time to fix the Infestor.
Most of the HOTS multiplayer was designed in the BETA anyway, so there is so much they could do in a few weeks. The question is what the fuck were they doing in the 2 years of development, single player?
Starcraft produces the least revenue and profit out of their 3 "worlds".
As Blizzard has stated in the past they move employees around to get new products out the door. They probably moved a bunch of guys that were assigned to SC2 over to D3.
We are lucky a company as great as Blizzard is still willing to invest heavily in the RTS genre.
It is a 60 euro game and HOTS is a 40 euro expansion, so it matters fuck all what place SC has in the companies revenue stream. We are not lucky for anything and they are doing RTS to make money, not charity.
On July 29 2013 17:02 kasumimi wrote: Or it's indirectly admitting that "we are happy with SC2 as it is now, there is no reason to change anything".
David Kim's comments have been more direct.
I'm a career Diamond leaguer. I'm happy with the game. my gf is a bronze/silver player she is happy. i play with an assortment of people from bronze to masters and they're happy as well.
i know one top 5 Masters/"5 time GM" player who plays 30+ hours per week and hates the game. Rages about it on a daily or weekly basis.
As soon as they stop liking the game they'll send a signal to Blizzard that is louder than any post on this forum. They'll stop spending money on Starcraft.
SC2 probably isn't going to change to the degree TFT changed WC3.
On July 28 2013 08:16 Beakyboo wrote: I feel like some of their justifications for balance don't really work. Maybe protoss achieves a pretty balanced win rate on ladder, and maybe even in high level tournaments, but I don't think that's really the whole picture. You win 50% of the time flipping coins, but you can't be consistent doing it, and it feels to me like every match up with protoss is a lot closer to flipping coins than the ones without.
It might be "balanced" but it's just hard for protoss to play all around builds that will carry a great player through a tournament. Protoss feels like it's got to commit a lot more to a particular tech and playstyle than zerg and terran. It feels like every match up involving protoss is super precarious, where the entire game comes down to singular decisions/engagements, rather than a back and forth dynamic. Unit composition is also much more a determining factor in match ups with protoss.
Maybe these aren't balance issues, but it's just gripes I have as an observer. The race frustrates me. Blizzard is too focused on win rates rather than improving the dynamic of the game.
I think this is a well simplified and raw explanation of what currently plagues Protoss players at the top. Once they run out of gimmicky or surprising tactics they simply crumble. If you are lucky and play PvP through the tournament a lot then your chances are highest (interestingly enough most Protoss champions did go through a lot of PvP) because you can reveal a lot less what you have planned in the other MUs.
Another point is that I feel like we have come full circle, in a sense, pertaining the design of the game. David Kim talks about the statistics, but as with Infestor/BL it's much more than statistics alone. We have come full circle again because the game designers are once again stuck on extracting balance entirely from statistics and that balance alone is the measure of a fun game; a topic that was vociferously and consistently present on these forums a year ago. Did they have a moment where they actually learned something, or was it something forced out of community pressure? The way they are discussing the issue leads me to believe it's the former, despite their utterances assuring us otherwise.
Does a tournament format, including scheduling and bo's, affect the results? Can an extended shift or overhaul in format alter the distribution of win rates? These are questions I would like to see discussed more frequently and included in statistical analysis. Do we see a certain race win more consistently when a tournament is of a certain format? If so, why?
My own thoughts around this is that longer series are detrimental to Protoss players, and I think the logic in this becomes more clear when looking at over all tournament formats and results combined with the gimmick/surprise based design of Protoss. The strength of Protoss play is actually eroded and undermined by it. As a tournament progresses it is typical that the later rounds have larger best of's. Simply put: Protoss has the clearest advantage in a bo1, but as a series extends to a bo3 and beyond there is significant impact in results. A typical final will have either a bo5 or bo7. Plenty of Protoss have reached a final, but not many have won and fewer still have lost in a close series. Once a Protoss reaches a final he will have revealed so much by that time that any surprises or gimmicks that can catch an opponent truly off guard are very minimal.
My conclusion is that if David Kim and et al. continue to adamantly refuse design changes for Protoss we will continue to see a shortage of Protoss champions. The way tournaments are formatted and the way the race is designed inherently interact and produce a disadvantage for the Protoss player. So what is better to change at this point? In my mind the answer is clearly to change the design of the race. Of course it's nice to have races with different styles which encourage variety, yet we are seeing the opposite since the variety is actually diminished because of the aforementioned issue. Variety needs to be emergent, it should not forced by design. All races should have core mechanics that are stable and are entirely playable on that basis, i.e safe and standard macro play and the variety in play should be rewarded when a player takes advantage of the small things that encourage a certain style.
This is so true, and well put. Yet many refuse to believe or don't understand it.
MC won a GSL Championship 6 gating July. Seed won his Championship with a Warp Prism 4 Gate all-in over MC. When Parting was on top, it was because he was Soul Training Zerg after Zerg when Zerg was the dominant race. Naniwa 4 Gated his way to an MLG championship.
Sorta an exaggeration. Yes, MC's championships were 2base all-ins. Seed took down players like Taeja in macro games though. Him allinning in PvP isn't really indicative of much at all, since PvP didn't really stabilize until Rain came along. Parting's PvT was also amazing in macro style, hence the "Parting Storms" and such. Yeah, he Soul Trained, but everyone knew that Zerg was imba back then anyway so it doesn't say much about Protoss as a whole (Terrans were getting stomped pretty badly as well).
But you can't deny most of them used lots of coin-flippy strats to win something, at least 50% of their games. Which is not an indication of protoss doing ok.
They are also high level GSL winners and players, who play their opponent, not some standard ladder match. Also, the matches cited are all from WoL, so they don't really matter for current balance.
I don't get your point. As BeyondCtrL pointed out there is no real solid macro style for protoss. Nobody said it's impossible to be successful with protoss, but if you are a successful protoss, you'll be most likely a allining / cheesy one and not a macroplayer. It's the same for Wol and HotS imho.
On July 28 2013 08:16 Beakyboo wrote: I feel like some of their justifications for balance don't really work. Maybe protoss achieves a pretty balanced win rate on ladder, and maybe even in high level tournaments, but I don't think that's really the whole picture. You win 50% of the time flipping coins, but you can't be consistent doing it, and it feels to me like every match up with protoss is a lot closer to flipping coins than the ones without.
It might be "balanced" but it's just hard for protoss to play all around builds that will carry a great player through a tournament. Protoss feels like it's got to commit a lot more to a particular tech and playstyle than zerg and terran. It feels like every match up involving protoss is super precarious, where the entire game comes down to singular decisions/engagements, rather than a back and forth dynamic. Unit composition is also much more a determining factor in match ups with protoss.
Maybe these aren't balance issues, but it's just gripes I have as an observer. The race frustrates me. Blizzard is too focused on win rates rather than improving the dynamic of the game.
I think this is a well simplified and raw explanation of what currently plagues Protoss players at the top. Once they run out of gimmicky or surprising tactics they simply crumble. If you are lucky and play PvP through the tournament a lot then your chances are highest (interestingly enough most Protoss champions did go through a lot of PvP) because you can reveal a lot less what you have planned in the other MUs.
Another point is that I feel like we have come full circle, in a sense, pertaining the design of the game. David Kim talks about the statistics, but as with Infestor/BL it's much more than statistics alone. We have come full circle again because the game designers are once again stuck on extracting balance entirely from statistics and that balance alone is the measure of a fun game; a topic that was vociferously and consistently present on these forums a year ago. Did they have a moment where they actually learned something, or was it something forced out of community pressure? The way they are discussing the issue leads me to believe it's the former, despite their utterances assuring us otherwise.
Does a tournament format, including scheduling and bo's, affect the results? Can an extended shift or overhaul in format alter the distribution of win rates? These are questions I would like to see discussed more frequently and included in statistical analysis. Do we see a certain race win more consistently when a tournament is of a certain format? If so, why?
My own thoughts around this is that longer series are detrimental to Protoss players, and I think the logic in this becomes more clear when looking at over all tournament formats and results combined with the gimmick/surprise based design of Protoss. The strength of Protoss play is actually eroded and undermined by it. As a tournament progresses it is typical that the later rounds have larger best of's. Simply put: Protoss has the clearest advantage in a bo1, but as a series extends to a bo3 and beyond there is significant impact in results. A typical final will have either a bo5 or bo7. Plenty of Protoss have reached a final, but not many have won and fewer still have lost in a close series. Once a Protoss reaches a final he will have revealed so much by that time that any surprises or gimmicks that can catch an opponent truly off guard are very minimal.
My conclusion is that if David Kim and et al. continue to adamantly refuse design changes for Protoss we will continue to see a shortage of Protoss champions. The way tournaments are formatted and the way the race is designed inherently interact and produce a disadvantage for the Protoss player. So what is better to change at this point? In my mind the answer is clearly to change the design of the race. Of course it's nice to have races with different styles which encourage variety, yet we are seeing the opposite since the variety is actually diminished because of the aforementioned issue. Variety needs to be emergent, it should not forced by design. All races should have core mechanics that are stable and are entirely playable on that basis, i.e safe and standard macro play and the variety in play should be rewarded when a player takes advantage of the small things that encourage a certain style.
This is so true, and well put. Yet many refuse to believe or don't understand it.
MC won a GSL Championship 6 gating July. Seed won his Championship with a Warp Prism 4 Gate all-in over MC. When Parting was on top, it was because he was Soul Training Zerg after Zerg when Zerg was the dominant race. Naniwa 4 Gated his way to an MLG championship.
Sorta an exaggeration. Yes, MC's championships were 2base all-ins. Seed took down players like Taeja in macro games though. Him allinning in PvP isn't really indicative of much at all, since PvP didn't really stabilize until Rain came along. Parting's PvT was also amazing in macro style, hence the "Parting Storms" and such. Yeah, he Soul Trained, but everyone knew that Zerg was imba back then anyway so it doesn't say much about Protoss as a whole (Terrans were getting stomped pretty badly as well).
But you can't deny most of them used lots of coin-flippy strats to win something, at least 50% of their games. Which is not an indication of protoss doing ok.
They are also high level GSL winners and players, who play their opponent, not some standard ladder match. Also, the matches cited are all from WoL, so they don't really matter for current balance.
I don't get your point. As BeyondCtrL pointed out there is no real solid macro style for protoss. Nobody said it's impossible to be successful with protoss, but if you are a successful protoss, you'll be most likely a allining / cheesy one and not a macroplayer. It's the same for Wol and HotS imho.
Rain is a real good example of a solid macro player who is champion quality yet has not won as much as he should. One 1st place was against Parting (PvP and a lot of PvP as a whole in the tournament) in WCS Asia Finals and the other vs. DRG in the OGN Starleague, which to be frank would have been a PvP as well if Parting and DRG switched places. Rain's 1st place finishes were a PvP and a PvZ against a DRG on the downswing who played the easier half of the tournament in comparison.
On July 29 2013 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote: You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
would you really expect blizzard to change anything this big? They balanced and designed the units to function at this pacing of the game.
HOTS was the perfect opportunity to change fundamental flaws in game design, which is exactly what blizzard did when TFT (the frozen throne WAR3 expansion) came. Hero design, armor types, unit design, damage types, buildings, race fundamentals, economy, everything was drastically changed, towards the best.
But the changes is HOTS were, like everything else, underwhelming. They didn't even bother changing the in-game timer... Saying that "people are use to playing like this" is not even an argument at this point. It's just a poorly labeled excuse to avoid addressing critical issues. Or it's indirectly admitting that "we are happy with SC2 as it is now, there is no reason to change anything". Take a look at how LoL's lead designers address issues and how they interact with the community. The difference with Blizzard's people is light years away.
SC2 is on autopilot and these people know it. We are three years in and it's clear It will never become an esport of BWs or LoL's caliber; and this is what personally hurts the most.
I completely agree with this. I really want SC2 to become great but so far it has been lack luster. They had a great opportunity to change the dynamic of the change that was clearly lacking in WOL but simply just added a bunch of units that didn't change the core problems.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, the biggest problem with SC2 right now is Protoss. The race is just awfully designed. As long as Warpgate exists the way it does now and Gateway units are really weak Protoss will continue to be the race about builds/timings/all-ins.
Protoss cannot split their army because Gateway units suck by themselves which leads to deathball vs deathball games with any match up involving Protoss most of the time.
Warpgates make any timings with Protoss an all or nothing strategy.
I'm actually working on a balance change map (just for fun on my part, mind you) on Star Station. What I basically did was remove both warpgates and forcefields from the protoss and gave stalkers a buff in burst and dps damage. Should I get around to finishing it and publishing it so people can give it a try?
I'm a career Diamond leaguer. I'm happy with the game. my gf is a bronze/silver player she is happy. i play with an assortment of people from bronze to masters and they're happy as well.
i know one top 5 Masters/"5 time GM" player who plays 30+ hours per week and hates the game. Rages about it on a daily or weekly basis.
As soon as they stop liking the game they'll send a signal to Blizzard that is louder than any post on this forum. They'll stop spending money on Starcraft.
SC2 probably isn't going to change to the degree TFT changed WC3.
On July 28 2013 08:16 Beakyboo wrote: I feel like some of their justifications for balance don't really work. Maybe protoss achieves a pretty balanced win rate on ladder, and maybe even in high level tournaments, but I don't think that's really the whole picture. You win 50% of the time flipping coins, but you can't be consistent doing it, and it feels to me like every match up with protoss is a lot closer to flipping coins than the ones without.
It might be "balanced" but it's just hard for protoss to play all around builds that will carry a great player through a tournament. Protoss feels like it's got to commit a lot more to a particular tech and playstyle than zerg and terran. It feels like every match up involving protoss is super precarious, where the entire game comes down to singular decisions/engagements, rather than a back and forth dynamic. Unit composition is also much more a determining factor in match ups with protoss.
Maybe these aren't balance issues, but it's just gripes I have as an observer. The race frustrates me. Blizzard is too focused on win rates rather than improving the dynamic of the game.
I think this is a well simplified and raw explanation of what currently plagues Protoss players at the top. Once they run out of gimmicky or surprising tactics they simply crumble. If you are lucky and play PvP through the tournament a lot then your chances are highest (interestingly enough most Protoss champions did go through a lot of PvP) because you can reveal a lot less what you have planned in the other MUs.
Another point is that I feel like we have come full circle, in a sense, pertaining the design of the game. David Kim talks about the statistics, but as with Infestor/BL it's much more than statistics alone. We have come full circle again because the game designers are once again stuck on extracting balance entirely from statistics and that balance alone is the measure of a fun game; a topic that was vociferously and consistently present on these forums a year ago. Did they have a moment where they actually learned something, or was it something forced out of community pressure? The way they are discussing the issue leads me to believe it's the former, despite their utterances assuring us otherwise.
Does a tournament format, including scheduling and bo's, affect the results? Can an extended shift or overhaul in format alter the distribution of win rates? These are questions I would like to see discussed more frequently and included in statistical analysis. Do we see a certain race win more consistently when a tournament is of a certain format? If so, why?
My own thoughts around this is that longer series are detrimental to Protoss players, and I think the logic in this becomes more clear when looking at over all tournament formats and results combined with the gimmick/surprise based design of Protoss. The strength of Protoss play is actually eroded and undermined by it. As a tournament progresses it is typical that the later rounds have larger best of's. Simply put: Protoss has the clearest advantage in a bo1, but as a series extends to a bo3 and beyond there is significant impact in results. A typical final will have either a bo5 or bo7. Plenty of Protoss have reached a final, but not many have won and fewer still have lost in a close series. Once a Protoss reaches a final he will have revealed so much by that time that any surprises or gimmicks that can catch an opponent truly off guard are very minimal.
My conclusion is that if David Kim and et al. continue to adamantly refuse design changes for Protoss we will continue to see a shortage of Protoss champions. The way tournaments are formatted and the way the race is designed inherently interact and produce a disadvantage for the Protoss player. So what is better to change at this point? In my mind the answer is clearly to change the design of the race. Of course it's nice to have races with different styles which encourage variety, yet we are seeing the opposite since the variety is actually diminished because of the aforementioned issue. Variety needs to be emergent, it should not forced by design. All races should have core mechanics that are stable and are entirely playable on that basis, i.e safe and standard macro play and the variety in play should be rewarded when a player takes advantage of the small things that encourage a certain style.
This is so true, and well put. Yet many refuse to believe or don't understand it.
MC won a GSL Championship 6 gating July. Seed won his Championship with a Warp Prism 4 Gate all-in over MC. When Parting was on top, it was because he was Soul Training Zerg after Zerg when Zerg was the dominant race. Naniwa 4 Gated his way to an MLG championship.
Sorta an exaggeration. Yes, MC's championships were 2base all-ins. Seed took down players like Taeja in macro games though. Him allinning in PvP isn't really indicative of much at all, since PvP didn't really stabilize until Rain came along. Parting's PvT was also amazing in macro style, hence the "Parting Storms" and such. Yeah, he Soul Trained, but everyone knew that Zerg was imba back then anyway so it doesn't say much about Protoss as a whole (Terrans were getting stomped pretty badly as well).
But you can't deny most of them used lots of coin-flippy strats to win something, at least 50% of their games. Which is not an indication of protoss doing ok.
They are also high level GSL winners and players, who play their opponent, not some standard ladder match. Also, the matches cited are all from WoL, so they don't really matter for current balance.
I don't get your point. As BeyondCtrL pointed out there is no real solid macro style for protoss. Nobody said it's impossible to be successful with protoss, but if you are a successful protoss, you'll be most likely a allining / cheesy one and not a macroplayer. It's the same for Wol and HotS imho.
Rain is a real good example of a solid macro player who is champion quality yet has not won as much as he should. One 1st place was against Parting (PvP and a lot of PvP as a whole in the tournament) in WCS Asia Finals and the other vs. DRG in the OGN Starleague, which to be frank would have been a PvP as well if Parting and DRG switched places. Rain's 1st place finishes were a PvP and a PvZ against a DRG on the downswing who played the easier half of the tournament in comparison.
Sure but I guess many of his successful macro builds only work once (eg his oracle into expand vs flash some time ago). We'll need some more time to judge his play i guess.
HOW THE HELL ARE VIPERS NOT STRONG?! the Viper mechanic allows Swarm host + static d to work against protoss, and completely SLAUGHTERS mech play from terran. What the hell is he thinking!?
On July 28 2013 08:16 Beakyboo wrote: I feel like some of their justifications for balance don't really work. Maybe protoss achieves a pretty balanced win rate on ladder, and maybe even in high level tournaments, but I don't think that's really the whole picture. You win 50% of the time flipping coins, but you can't be consistent doing it, and it feels to me like every match up with protoss is a lot closer to flipping coins than the ones without.
It might be "balanced" but it's just hard for protoss to play all around builds that will carry a great player through a tournament. Protoss feels like it's got to commit a lot more to a particular tech and playstyle than zerg and terran. It feels like every match up involving protoss is super precarious, where the entire game comes down to singular decisions/engagements, rather than a back and forth dynamic. Unit composition is also much more a determining factor in match ups with protoss.
Maybe these aren't balance issues, but it's just gripes I have as an observer. The race frustrates me. Blizzard is too focused on win rates rather than improving the dynamic of the game.
I think this is a well simplified and raw explanation of what currently plagues Protoss players at the top. Once they run out of gimmicky or surprising tactics they simply crumble. If you are lucky and play PvP through the tournament a lot then your chances are highest (interestingly enough most Protoss champions did go through a lot of PvP) because you can reveal a lot less what you have planned in the other MUs.
Another point is that I feel like we have come full circle, in a sense, pertaining the design of the game. David Kim talks about the statistics, but as with Infestor/BL it's much more than statistics alone. We have come full circle again because the game designers are once again stuck on extracting balance entirely from statistics and that balance alone is the measure of a fun game; a topic that was vociferously and consistently present on these forums a year ago. Did they have a moment where they actually learned something, or was it something forced out of community pressure? The way they are discussing the issue leads me to believe it's the former, despite their utterances assuring us otherwise.
Does a tournament format, including scheduling and bo's, affect the results? Can an extended shift or overhaul in format alter the distribution of win rates? These are questions I would like to see discussed more frequently and included in statistical analysis. Do we see a certain race win more consistently when a tournament is of a certain format? If so, why?
My own thoughts around this is that longer series are detrimental to Protoss players, and I think the logic in this becomes more clear when looking at over all tournament formats and results combined with the gimmick/surprise based design of Protoss. The strength of Protoss play is actually eroded and undermined by it. As a tournament progresses it is typical that the later rounds have larger best of's. Simply put: Protoss has the clearest advantage in a bo1, but as a series extends to a bo3 and beyond there is significant impact in results. A typical final will have either a bo5 or bo7. Plenty of Protoss have reached a final, but not many have won and fewer still have lost in a close series. Once a Protoss reaches a final he will have revealed so much by that time that any surprises or gimmicks that can catch an opponent truly off guard are very minimal.
My conclusion is that if David Kim and et al. continue to adamantly refuse design changes for Protoss we will continue to see a shortage of Protoss champions. The way tournaments are formatted and the way the race is designed inherently interact and produce a disadvantage for the Protoss player. So what is better to change at this point? In my mind the answer is clearly to change the design of the race. Of course it's nice to have races with different styles which encourage variety, yet we are seeing the opposite since the variety is actually diminished because of the aforementioned issue. Variety needs to be emergent, it should not forced by design. All races should have core mechanics that are stable and are entirely playable on that basis, i.e safe and standard macro play and the variety in play should be rewarded when a player takes advantage of the small things that encourage a certain style.
This is so true, and well put. Yet many refuse to believe or don't understand it.
MC won a GSL Championship 6 gating July. Seed won his Championship with a Warp Prism 4 Gate all-in over MC. When Parting was on top, it was because he was Soul Training Zerg after Zerg when Zerg was the dominant race. Naniwa 4 Gated his way to an MLG championship.
Sorta an exaggeration. Yes, MC's championships were 2base all-ins. Seed took down players like Taeja in macro games though. Him allinning in PvP isn't really indicative of much at all, since PvP didn't really stabilize until Rain came along. Parting's PvT was also amazing in macro style, hence the "Parting Storms" and such. Yeah, he Soul Trained, but everyone knew that Zerg was imba back then anyway so it doesn't say much about Protoss as a whole (Terrans were getting stomped pretty badly as well).
But you can't deny most of them used lots of coin-flippy strats to win something, at least 50% of their games. Which is not an indication of protoss doing ok.
They are also high level GSL winners and players, who play their opponent, not some standard ladder match. Also, the matches cited are all from WoL, so they don't really matter for current balance.
I don't get your point. As BeyondCtrL pointed out there is no real solid macro style for protoss. Nobody said it's impossible to be successful with protoss, but if you are a successful protoss, you'll be most likely a allining / cheesy one and not a macroplayer. It's the same for Wol and HotS imho.
Rain is a real good example of a solid macro player who is champion quality yet has not won as much as he should. One 1st place was against Parting (PvP and a lot of PvP as a whole in the tournament) in WCS Asia Finals and the other vs. DRG in the OGN Starleague, which to be frank would have been a PvP as well if Parting and DRG switched places. Rain's 1st place finishes were a PvP and a PvZ against a DRG on the downswing who played the easier half of the tournament in comparison.
Sure but I guess many of his successful macro builds only work once (eg his oracle into expand vs flash some time ago). We'll need some more time to judge his play i guess.
Yes, that's what I meant; even though he has good macro play it does not benefit him nearly as much as other top players of the other races at his level.
On July 30 2013 04:21 EpicDemente wrote: HOW THE HELL ARE VIPERS NOT STRONG?! the Viper mechanic allows Swarm host + static d to work against protoss, and completely SLAUGHTERS mech play from terran. What the hell is he thinking!?
But they are quite worthless against 4m which is the mainstream and without the viper sky-toss would laugh at any zerg attempts to tickle that flying bringer of death. I don´t know if it needs any tinkering yet and i really can´t see a way of making it viable against terran without making blindin cloud also stun, (which would be broken as hell) or affect mines also.
They should work on more in-depth gameplay involving strategy, positioning and macro. You can only watch 20 minuts of banelings and mines blowing everything up and marines stimming to death while running from Zerglings and Mutas so many times. As someone said, SC2 is on autopilot now. They rely too much on action to keep it going. But guess what, there are ACTION games for that purpose. This is RTS, so stop fucking pretending like it's QL.
David Kim: This units is made for players with good micro. It a micro unit for both sides."
Can anyone explain to me how the widow mine is a micro unit?
I'll make it simple for you. You go into a game with a friend, and ask him to build a ton of bio and some widow mines. Then you build a ton of ling bane and a-move into the bio guarded by WMs. See what happens.
Then do the same thing, but don't a-move. Instead send out small groups of lings ahead, have an overseer or two with your attack and split your banes. See what happens then.
Edit: This might be superfluous, but you could have a test-run where your terran-friend a-moves his WMs and bio into ling-bane.
I think David Kim deserves the promotion and the big title. If its one thing Blizzard knows how to do its how to hire, nurture, and develop game designers.
Thank you for all your hard work, Mr. Kim. And, thank you for tolerating personal insults from immature cry babies who can't handle losing.
Go Dave Go!
How is wanting a better designed game considered "can't handle losing". If you 2 base allin all your games and win half of them then the game is balanced, yes. But is it fun to watch or play against? Think about that the next time you light a candle to DK. The man whose vision of competitive SC2 was marauders vs roaches vs warpgates in steppes of war.
I enjoy SC2. I enjoy playing it, I enjoy watching it. I enjoy it significantly more now than when the game first launched, which I think is a sign that the overall trend, though not without some stumbles along the way, has ultimately been to move towards a better game. So I wouldn't be a fan of ripping it up by the roots and starting it over. Could there be tweaks and changes made to the betterment of the game? Sure. But a full blown TFT style revamp? No thanks.
On July 30 2013 08:43 awesomoecalypse wrote: I enjoy SC2. I enjoy playing it, I enjoy watching it. I enjoy it significantly more now than when the game first launched, which I think is a sign that the overall trend, though not without some stumbles along the way, has ultimately been to move towards a better game. So I wouldn't be a fan of ripping it up by the roots and starting it over. Could there be tweaks and changes made to the betterment of the game? Sure. But a full blown TFT style revamp? No thanks.
I am thinking exactly the same way but there will always be people who dislike a game and have enough passion to hate it on every opportunity they get.
Looking way back there was the same thing when Quake 2 was realeased which got a lot of hate in the german szene because it changed some things compared to the first game. And there were people whining about this game decades later.
I think it was a good interview, but am a bit disappointed by David Kim.
Making mech more viable seems like a good idea, making it easier to use seems very stupid. At the same time I really don't like to see all those bio + widow mine games vs zerg. 1-2 lucky widow mine hits can be insta GG, which seems lame.
And Protoss.... I really don't know why David Kim hates Protoss. I mean it's quite obvious that Protoss does not have a lot of potential left for Top players to use. No amount of skill can make oracles useful after a few turrets have been placed. The warp prism buff was useful but does not really offer new options it just makes harrassment with warpprism more viable. Protoss gameplay is still rather limited.
And as said before protoss has a few critical weaknesses. Any terran attack before templar or colo can be instant death. Failing to take a 3rd, can mean GG quickly. A nexus snipe is GG most times while almost impossible to prevent in many case. A muta switch can kill a protoss instantly with no chance to recover. Any big worker loss, from muta, widow mine, hellbat is mostly deadly.
It's not just for fun that we see so many 2 base plays - it's the most effective way to play apparently and that says a lot about how well designed protoss is.
I wonder if David Kim even cares if Protoss is fun to play?
On July 29 2013 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote: You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
would you really expect blizzard to change anything this big? They balanced and designed the units to function at this pacing of the game.
HOTS was the perfect opportunity to change fundamental flaws in game design, which is exactly what blizzard did when TFT (the frozen throne WAR3 expansion) came. Hero design, armor types, unit design, damage types, buildings, race fundamentals, economy, everything was drastically changed, towards the best.
But the changes is HOTS were, like everything else, underwhelming. They didn't even bother changing the in-game timer... Saying that "people are use to playing like this" is not even an argument at this point. It's just a poorly labeled excuse to avoid addressing critical issues. Or it's indirectly admitting that "we are happy with SC2 as it is now, there is no reason to change anything". Take a look at how LoL's lead designers address issues and how they interact with the community. The difference with Blizzard's people is light years away.
SC2 is on autopilot and these people know it. We are three years in and it's clear It will never become an esport of BWs or LoL's caliber; and this is what personally hurts the most.
I completely agree with this. I really want SC2 to become great but so far it has been lack luster. They had a great opportunity to change the dynamic of the change that was clearly lacking in WOL but simply just added a bunch of units that didn't change the core problems.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, the biggest problem with SC2 right now is Protoss. The race is just awfully designed. As long as Warpgate exists the way it does now and Gateway units are really weak Protoss will continue to be the race about builds/timings/all-ins.
Protoss cannot split their army because Gateway units suck by themselves which leads to deathball vs deathball games with any match up involving Protoss most of the time.
Warpgates make any timings with Protoss an all or nothing strategy.
I'm actually working on a balance change map (just for fun on my part, mind you) on Star Station. What I basically did was remove both warpgates and forcefields from the protoss and gave stalkers a buff in burst and dps damage. Should I get around to finishing it and publishing it so people can give it a try?
Lol nice! That's exactly what I did in the HotS Beta! Although I did buff guardian Shield and raise Stalker damage while lowering their HP Also gave zealots more HP. Oh and I think I lowered Colossus Damage in exchange for faster attackspeed (less effective vs armored units).
And Protoss.... I really don't know why David Kim hates Protoss. I mean it's quite obvious that Protoss does not have a lot of potential left for Top players to use. No amount of skill can make oracles useful after a few turrets have been placed. The warp prism buff was useful but does not really offer new options it just makes harrassment with warpprism more viable. Protoss gameplay is still rather limited.
And as said before protoss has a few critical weaknesses. Any terran attack before templar or colo can be instant death. Failing to take a 3rd, can mean GG quickly. A nexus snipe is GG most times while almost impossible to prevent in many case. A muta switch can kill a protoss instantly with no chance to recover. Any big worker loss, from muta, widow mine, hellbat is mostly deadly.
It's not just for fun that we see so many 2 base plays - it's the most effective way to play apparently and that says a lot about how well designed protoss is.
I wonder if David Kim even cares if Protoss is fun to play?
The flaws of protoss are so deep that small fixes arent going to make a difference.
On July 30 2013 09:55 Freeborn wrote: I think it was a good interview, but am a bit disappointed by David Kim.
Making mech more viable seems like a good idea, making it easier to use seems very stupid. At the same time I really don't like to see all those bio + widow mine games vs zerg. 1-2 lucky widow mine hits can be insta GG, which seems lame.
And Protoss.... I really don't know why David Kim hates Protoss. I mean it's quite obvious that Protoss does not have a lot of potential left for Top players to use. No amount of skill can make oracles useful after a few turrets have been placed. The warp prism buff was useful but does not really offer new options it just makes harrassment with warpprism more viable. Protoss gameplay is still rather limited.
And as said before protoss has a few critical weaknesses. Any terran attack before templar or colo can be instant death. Failing to take a 3rd, can mean GG quickly. A nexus snipe is GG most times while almost impossible to prevent in many case. A muta switch can kill a protoss instantly with no chance to recover. Any big worker loss, from muta, widow mine, hellbat is mostly deadly.
It's not just for fun that we see so many 2 base plays - it's the most effective way to play apparently and that says a lot about how well designed protoss is.
I wonder if David Kim even cares if Protoss is fun to play?
I actually think Protoss is by far the most improved of the 3 races in HotS. And its worth noting that at this point that many of the best Protoss players in the world, like Rain and First for example, are actually known for playing multitask heavy macro games in all 3 matchups. All-inning may be the easiest way to play Protoss, but it doesn't seem to be the most effective, not the way it did in WoL.
On July 30 2013 09:55 Freeborn wrote: I think it was a good interview, but am a bit disappointed by David Kim.
Making mech more viable seems like a good idea, making it easier to use seems very stupid. At the same time I really don't like to see all those bio + widow mine games vs zerg. 1-2 lucky widow mine hits can be insta GG, which seems lame.
And Protoss.... I really don't know why David Kim hates Protoss. I mean it's quite obvious that Protoss does not have a lot of potential left for Top players to use. No amount of skill can make oracles useful after a few turrets have been placed. The warp prism buff was useful but does not really offer new options it just makes harrassment with warpprism more viable. Protoss gameplay is still rather limited.
And as said before protoss has a few critical weaknesses. Any terran attack before templar or colo can be instant death. Failing to take a 3rd, can mean GG quickly. A nexus snipe is GG most times while almost impossible to prevent in many case. A muta switch can kill a protoss instantly with no chance to recover. Any big worker loss, from muta, widow mine, hellbat is mostly deadly.
It's not just for fun that we see so many 2 base plays - it's the most effective way to play apparently and that says a lot about how well designed protoss is.
I wonder if David Kim even cares if Protoss is fun to play?
I totally agree with you. You understand more the game than David Kim.
On July 30 2013 09:55 Freeborn wrote: I think it was a good interview, but am a bit disappointed by David Kim.
Making mech more viable seems like a good idea, making it easier to use seems very stupid. At the same time I really don't like to see all those bio + widow mine games vs zerg. 1-2 lucky widow mine hits can be insta GG, which seems lame.
And Protoss.... I really don't know why David Kim hates Protoss. I mean it's quite obvious that Protoss does not have a lot of potential left for Top players to use. No amount of skill can make oracles useful after a few turrets have been placed. The warp prism buff was useful but does not really offer new options it just makes harrassment with warpprism more viable. Protoss gameplay is still rather limited.
And as said before protoss has a few critical weaknesses. Any terran attack before templar or colo can be instant death. Failing to take a 3rd, can mean GG quickly. A nexus snipe is GG most times while almost impossible to prevent in many case. A muta switch can kill a protoss instantly with no chance to recover. Any big worker loss, from muta, widow mine, hellbat is mostly deadly.
It's not just for fun that we see so many 2 base plays - it's the most effective way to play apparently and that says a lot about how well designed protoss is.
I wonder if David Kim even cares if Protoss is fun to play?
I totally agree with you. You understand more the game than David Kim.
Why have an opinion? Let's just bow before dayvie huh?
I just hate playing against Protoss as a Diamond/Masters Zerg, because of that snowball effect that Protoss has where once they start steamrolling my base (no matter how well I played or ahead I was earlier) I get wiped. It makes for really turtly games where I feel like I have no control.
Looking way back there was the same thing when Quake 2 was realeased which got a lot of hate in the german szene because it changed some things compared to the first game. And there were people whining about this game decades later.
Aah reminds me of Quake 2 CTF, the best game in history. How is it even possible to hate such brilliancy?
On July 30 2013 10:18 awesomoecalypse wrote: All-inning may be the easiest way to play Protoss, but it doesn't seem to be the most effective, not the way it did in WoL.
Protoss players have won 2 Premier Tournaments in HOTS (Terran and Zerg have both won 5 for comparison). Hero won WCS AM, and Stardust won Dreamhack Summer.
I didn't actually watch Hero in WCS AM, but I did watch Stardust, and he just did all-in after all-in.
You know, David Kim is basically saying that he is happy with the state of sc2 at the moment. Good for him.
However, I am pondering a certain question. In a certain interview (I think it was EG's, not sure), Coach Park has stated that he believed Terran was the best race when he started coaching for sc2. Koreans even jokingly named it Terrancraft.
So the question is: who has a better grasp of the game and its mechanics? A top tier Korean coach who analyzes games, coaches players, works hard for all three races, etc or David Kim, who is a game designer?
On July 30 2013 10:18 awesomoecalypse wrote: All-inning may be the easiest way to play Protoss, but it doesn't seem to be the most effective, not the way it did in WoL.
Protoss players have won 2 Premier Tournaments in HOTS (Terran and Zerg have both won 5 for comparison). Hero won WCS AM, and Stardust won Dreamhack Summer.
I didn't actually watch Hero in WCS AM, but I did watch Stardust, and he just did all-in after all-in.
You right, Stardust all-in to won Dreamhack. But as Protoss you realize that the only way to keep Protoss viable race is to all-in PvsZ mutalisk is actually too strong and too easy to kill nexus and probes. That result as Protoss will do 2 base immortal all-in to avoid dealing with mutalisk. Players will always find way to win to counter imbalance, but more the game is imbalance more all-in/cheese players will do...
Update: Balance talk between David Kim and Chinese progamer Jim and XY.
The balance talk is not very well done by the players and it is quite biased. So I summarize a few important points from David Kim:
1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused.
Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game?
I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job.
1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused.
Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game?
I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job.
Hello? What about innovation just being damn good? It has NOTHING to do with terran. Here is your strong terran: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/individual-leagues If we have to believe you, we would see a lot of blue. Meanwhile, I see as much (and actually, even more) green and red. Why?
I challenge you. Name 1 more active balanced game besides BW atm. 1. You will find exactly 0.
1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused.
Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game?
I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job.
I challenge you. Name 1 more active balanced game besides BW atm. 1. You will find exactly 0.
I didn't say Terran was strong, if anything the game is balanced and all three races have yet to settle in the meta-game correctly. Generally speaking, the better player wins. But Terran weak? I don't care about international database, I'm talking about what happens in Korea. That's where the game is played at the highest level and I don't see Terran particularly struggling. Hence I don't think David Kim is really in touch with the game.
You also know full well that SC2 and BW are pretty much the only truly active RTS there are so that "challenge" is irrelevant.
only truly active RTS there are so that "challenge" is irrelevant.
Thing is, if there is ONE RTS game, with far worse design but with a better strategic part that comes out. SC2 will just drop off. In korea, people switched from BW to LoL, or any other game that is not SC2. If Blizzard doesn't change a lot of things, and if another company run his own RTS licence. It'll just wreck SC2 in terms of market, and in terms of eSports.
I like Starcraft universe, and I really like Blizzard's licenses, but I like more RTS games. And SC2 just lack what makes a truly good RTS. It's a good game, but even if i don't like Dotalike, and even if LoL is a far far easier game than sc2, it's just a better eSport licence in every point of view.
I don't think Blizzard will adress anything anytime soon, but I hope so, otherwise, the first company running his own RTS game and making it in a competitive way will just wreck sc2.
only truly active RTS there are so that "challenge" is irrelevant.
Thing is, if there is ONE RTS game, with far worse design but with a better strategic part that comes out. SC2 will just drop off. In korea, people switched from BW to LoL, or any other game that is not SC2. If Blizzard doesn't change a lot of things, and if another company run his own RTS licence. It'll just wreck SC2 in terms of market, and in terms of eSports.
I like Starcraft universe, and I really like Blizzard's licenses, but I like more RTS games. And SC2 just lack what makes a truly good RTS. It's a good game, but even if i don't like Dotalike, and even if LoL is a far far easier game than sc2, it's just a better eSport licence in every point of view.
I don't think Blizzard will adress anything anytime soon, but I hope so, otherwise, the first company running his own RTS game and making it in a competitive way will just wreck sc2.
Another active RTS supported the same way Riot supports LoL is like my dream come true. Preferably with a more complex economy, like an Age of Empires game. :D But this is a tangent, we shouldn't continue dreaming here this thread isn't for that.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
Wow David Kim is so smart!
If Protoss had just known the 1-1-1 was coming, or if Zerg had known that the SoulTrain was coming, they would never have been a problem! I mean, the problem was always that we had no idea they were coming, right?
I don't know how many games I assumed the 1-1-1 was coming and blind countered it, and still lost...
On August 03 2013 04:25 larse wrote: 5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
Just do something already.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
What now? Is he talking about blind countering? This make for a coin flip game. Who cares about numerical balance if the game is so stupid...
Even with the new "information" the situation doesnt improve, because it is the same old and rather stupid "we only look at the units and not the general gameplay mechanics to improve the game's performance on the racial balance level".
The evasive "argument" listed under 5. really shows their absolute reluctance to make mech viable, because TvZ is the non-mirror matchup where mech can be made to work (although with a high "dont lose your army even once" risk factor). It is TvP where mech doesnt work ... at all. This really shows how much of a clue they have OR how much they want to play us for fools. Neither of these options is really acceptable.
On August 03 2013 06:49 Rabiator wrote: The evasive "argument" listed under 5. really shows their absolute reluctance to make mech viable, because TvZ is the non-mirror matchup where mech can be made to work (although with a high "dont lose your army even once" risk factor). It is TvP where mech doesnt work ... at all. This really shows how much of a clue they have OR how much they want to play us for fools. Neither of these options is really acceptable.
But how can you make mech work without turning games into turtle-fest? Bad design introducing strong counters and nerfs have simply crippled any potential mech had. I really can't imagine making it work without some drastic changes. And those won't happen outside of a expansion.
On August 03 2013 06:49 Rabiator wrote: The evasive "argument" listed under 5. really shows their absolute reluctance to make mech viable, because TvZ is the non-mirror matchup where mech can be made to work (although with a high "dont lose your army even once" risk factor). It is TvP where mech doesnt work ... at all. This really shows how much of a clue they have OR how much they want to play us for fools. Neither of these options is really acceptable.
But how can you make mech work without turning games into turtle-fest? Bad design introducing strong counters and nerfs have simply crippled any potential mech had. I really can't imagine making it work without some drastic changes. And those won't happen outside of a expansion.
We just had an expansion that was supposed to do just that but did the opposite. Doesn't fill you with confidence looking foreword to the next one.
I'm getting rather sure now that mech buffs will not be enough to make it work or at least not in an interesting way. The terrible terrible super hard counters like Immortals, Vipers and SH need to be changed in some way or at max we will have 2 base timings from mech or the super boring stand offs where you can never move out and just play tower defense until the map is mined out.
What really annoys me is that after essentially making sure mech is broken and hard countered at every turn, Blizzard uses this as proof and an excuses that mech is boring and should not be viable. WTF?!
I had the unexpected pleasure to run into Mr Kim at IEM SH. He takes in a ton of feedback from all sorts of high level players and knows how to discuss the game pretty well. Most of the players there seemed content with hots. We've always got something to complain about, nothing's perfect especially not Starcraft, Fear not fans, I believe our game is in good hands.
On August 03 2013 06:49 Rabiator wrote: The evasive "argument" listed under 5. really shows their absolute reluctance to make mech viable, because TvZ is the non-mirror matchup where mech can be made to work (although with a high "dont lose your army even once" risk factor). It is TvP where mech doesnt work ... at all. This really shows how much of a clue they have OR how much they want to play us for fools. Neither of these options is really acceptable.
But how can you make mech work without turning games into turtle-fest? Bad design introducing strong counters and nerfs have simply crippled any potential mech had. I really can't imagine making it work without some drastic changes. And those won't happen outside of a expansion.
I have had enough of the "boohoo ... turtling is boring to watch" attitude. It is EXACTLY the position which David Kim tells everyone and the "Blizzard fanboys" adopt it as their own without actually seeing how interesting turtling actually can be.
The CHALLENGE of breaking into a full on turtled up player is more interesting IMO than having games decided by split second clicks and misclicks. That "turtling is boring to watch" is just Blizzard propaganda ... and they have added a lot of tools to break turtle positions with HotS (Abduct, Tempest, NOTHING for Terran) and yet they dont want to make mech viable. That logic is sooo beyond me that it almost hurts.
The biggest reason for making mech viable is to have ALTERNATIVE WAYS to play the game - other than the "arcade action style" whcih Blizzard likes so much - and after mech they should try to tackle the challenge of making AIR viable for all races. That is going to be a bigger challenge due to Fungal Growth and the rather cheesy Abduct / Neural Parasite which make any large and expensive units (like Carrier and BC) rather useless.
In case you didnt get it: The key to make mech / turtle interesting is to change your own attitude and expectations.
On August 03 2013 17:35 Foxxan wrote: the question is, can mech work in this design? can u spread out your units with your buffs?
I doubt it hard, mech will not work, it will become Passiveplay > maxarmee> Move out
Mech - the Siege Tank based version - in the current design of SC2 is a hard thing to pull off. You dont have static defenses to defend your bases against ground assault (and that is a good / stylish thing IMO), so you have to have powerful units which can defend even against strong runbys. That isnt the case atm and the usual Protoss Zealot runbys - and even Zerglings - cant really be defended against by 2-3 Siege Tanks because the Siege Tanks deal only 35 damage against these units in the rather tiny core radius of the splash damage.
To actually make mech work in the current SC2 Blizzard would need to seriously increase the damage output of the Siege Tank against non-armored units. It must be a super high damage output which basically says "You shall not pass" to anything other than a really determined push. Currently the best result for mech is to get the same drop in supply against a Zerg player for example, but the Zerg then remaxes much quicker and in the "war of attrition" mech loses. Thus mech MUST BE stronger than the opponents forces and usually win with an advantage ... the REPRODUCTION CAPABILITY must be taken into account when looking at balance and not only the outcome of a single 200 vs 200 battle.
Higher damage dealt by the Siege Tank might work well enough, because it is one of the few attacks which deal friendly fire and there are quite a lot of spells / attacks which can be used to abuse that ... which would make turtling harder (to balance out the power of the unit).
Another problem of mech is that the high economy and the production speed boosts allow any enemy to just throw away a wave of harrassment units and then reproduce them faster than the damage dealt to the Terrans can be repaired and any tanks replaced. This is one of the core problems of SC2 ... that you actually can get to 200 supply easily. If you couldnt get to 200 reasonably fast every player would try to actually do something in the knowledge that his opponent isnt able to do that, but in SC2 it is just too risky to try and harrass with maybe 2 Stalkers, because your opponent might have build 20 Zerglings and could easily overwhelm you. The boosted production and the huge economy is a problem ...
All in all I see several ways of making it work and the first step is removing the ego of the Blizzard dev team which basically limits the strategic gameplay choices to one style only.
actually "mech " zerg is the only one working atm and its super hyper boring ! SH must be adressed as they are worst thing happening to zerg ! then try to fix terran mech
On August 03 2013 18:32 Rabiator wrote: In case you didnt get it: The key to make mech / turtle interesting is to change your own attitude and expectations.
There is nothing to change regarding expectations as they have always been clear - turtling can be great fun to watch but only as long as only one side does it. There are good reasons why bio vs. mech TvTs are such a treat to watch. Currently successful mech results is both the terran and his opponent turtling with use of viper/sh/tempest.
And yes - this is a sad result of Blizzard not believing in mech and trying to turn it into bio with hellbat drops. But it's important to recognize that as things stand there is little hope of fixing mech in any capacity. The synergy of mech units have simply been weakened to the point that they work better incorporated into bio. Since speedivacs and mines are the only terran things Blizzard genuinely believes in we are stuck with things as they are.
On August 03 2013 18:32 Rabiator wrote: In case you didnt get it: The key to make mech / turtle interesting is to change your own attitude and expectations.
There is nothing to change regarding expectations as they have always been clear - turtling can be great fun to watch but only as long as only one side does it. There are good reasons why bio vs. mech TvTs are such a treat to watch. Currently successful mech results is both the terran and his opponent turtling with use of viper/sh/tempest.
And yes - this is a sad result of Blizzard not believing in mech and trying to turn it into bio with hellbat drops. But it's important to recognize that as things stand there is little hope of fixing mech in any capacity. The synergy of mech units have simply been weakened to the point that they work better incorporated into bio. Since speedivacs and mines are the only terran things Blizzard genuinely believes in we are stuck with things as they are.
The key to breaking up the boring "both sides do it and nothing moves for half an hour" is to give every race powers / attacks / units which are designed to break it or dislodge it without being overpowering.
Zerg - Abduct, Infested Terrans lobbed at Siege Tanks, free units which slowly nibble at stuff AND which provide decoy targets for Siege Tanks to shoot Protoss - Blink, Tempest Terran - Nuke, Seeker Missile
Since everyone has such powers there isnt any problem IMO.
On August 03 2013 18:49 SSVnormandy wrote: actually "mech " zerg is the only one working atm and its super hyper boring ! SH must be adressed as they are worst thing happening to zerg ! then try to fix terran mech
I have to agree with you here, but I also think the issue is FREE UNITS instead of "Zerg mech". You cant really make free units powerful and exciting, so they are actually the exact opposite of what Blizzard wants for the game.
There is one way to change the Swarm Host to make it more dynamic and that would be to give the unit energy and spawning locusts is an active ability which costs energy. This allows you to focus your power on one big push and then risk being vulnerable afterwards, BUT that design turns the unit into an "Infestor v2" ... so it is actually not so great.
Just buff mech already. Many other units are actually fine but don't see play because they only have use against mech.. Swarmhosts, vipers, overlord drops, carriers, voidrays and tempests are not used against terran because they play bio. If mech is buffed we would see them much more and the matchups would open up a fair bit. buffing mech will of course buff terran as a whole which is risky so it is important to not buff parts of mech which just slot into the existing bio strats. Other races might need a few slight buffs as well to keep up if mech is viable since you wouldn't be able to blind counter bio anymore, for example all inning becomes much riskier if there is just a chance that they have siege tanks. There is also the issue of mech being boring even if it would work. Because of that mech needs to be buffed in ways that make it more interesting too. Taking all that into account I think these are the routes to buff it that David Kim could easily apply: - Transformation servos cost reduced severely. This tech is just not used ever because you are better off making hellbats directly. Removing it would go to far as that would just buff hellion play in TvZ too much but reducing it to 50/50 from 150/150 would be fine really, it would still be hard to get in TvZ because of the techlab but would make openings much smoother for mech. You could open hellion harass etc. and actually smoothly transition into hellbat compositions. Actually seeing it being used is just good too as mech would harass more with normal hellions. (Still not as cool as vulture play but it's something). - Tanks. I don't get why this route was chosen for them in HOTS at all. Reintroduce siege tech but seriously buff tanks, it's the best way to buff mech because tanks make mech interesting. They were nerfed long ago because they were a little too good in TvZ on smallish maps but in HotS Z has great options to fight tanks compared to WoL so they could easily be reinstored to former power. P can easily counter 1-1-1 too now so there really is no risk in making them a fair bit better. Reinstating their damage to 50 vs everything is an option, another is just buffing their main damage but keeping the splash damage roughly the same. Buffing tanks also the great benefit of making mech more focussed on it which is better for the cool positional play, even if we see mech nowadays it's often hellbat-thor which is the most boring 1A army there is. - Mech AA. Anti-air has always been a bit of a weak point for mech but in HotS zerg and protoss got serious air buffs while mech didn;t get aa buffs to keep up. There are easier upgrades now and widow mines help a little but better muta's, vipers, better voids, oracles and tempests make it very hard for mech to fight air still. Thors could use a small nudge to their AA capabilities, just 5-10% more damage for example or perhaps 1 more range.
Even more so thors, tanks and transformation servos see almost zero play in TvZ/TvP, in other words it's pretty much riskfree to buff these as they wold just gently impact the pro scene. Bio strats would remain the same, David Kim could easily just buff 1 or 2 of these things, watch to see how it pans out and then continue. I just can't understand why he hasn't done any of the sort yet... They are actively buffing units which see too little play like the warp prism, banshees etc. but nothing of the sort for mech. Instead it's only getting nerfs because small parts of it are broken, but never any real attempt to make it a viable style instead of the half-assed attempt to fix it during beta. It would just improve this games tons if there was more than one style in TvZ/TvP. The game is pigeonholed into the same strats at the moment, there are almost no deviations as far as unit compositions and playing styles go. Terran can just play 1 way and other races can pretty much only play 1 style against that because other units suck against bio.
On August 04 2013 01:57 Markwerf wrote: Even more so thors, tanks and transformation servos see almost zero play in TvZ/TvP, in other words it's pretty much riskfree to buff these as they wold just gently impact the pro scene. Bio strats would remain the same, David Kim could easily just buff 1 or 2 of these things, watch to see how it pans out and then continue. I just can't understand why he hasn't done any of the sort yet... They are actively buffing units which see too little play like the warp prism, banshees etc. but nothing of the sort for mech. Instead it's only getting nerfs because small parts of it are broken, but never any real attempt to make it a viable style instead of the half-assed attempt to fix it during beta.
But the problem is that those units do change the bio play and meta-game in pro-scene. Hellbat is the best example as it's drops got incorporated into bio just as hellions have. And not only has hellbat made bio stronger it would also completely dominate TvT. Buffing mech is not risk-free. Sheer amount of buffs/nerfs to other races would require expansion-level of changes.
On August 03 2013 18:32 Rabiator wrote: In case you didnt get it: The key to make mech / turtle interesting is to change your own attitude and expectations.
There is nothing to change regarding expectations as they have always been clear - turtling can be great fun to watch but only as long as only one side does it. There are good reasons why bio vs. mech TvTs are such a treat to watch. Currently successful mech results is both the terran and his opponent turtling with use of viper/sh/tempest.
And yes - this is a sad result of Blizzard not believing in mech and trying to turn it into bio with hellbat drops. But it's important to recognize that as things stand there is little hope of fixing mech in any capacity. The synergy of mech units have simply been weakened to the point that they work better incorporated into bio. Since speedivacs and mines are the only terran things Blizzard genuinely believes in we are stuck with things as they are.
The key to breaking up the boring "both sides do it and nothing moves for half an hour" is to give every race powers / attacks / units which are designed to break it or dislodge it without being overpowering.
Zerg - Abduct, Infested Terrans lobbed at Siege Tanks, free units which slowly nibble at stuff AND which provide decoy targets for Siege Tanks to shoot Protoss - Blink, Tempest Terran - Nuke, Seeker Missile
Since everyone has such powers there isnt any problem IMO.
On August 03 2013 18:49 SSVnormandy wrote: actually "mech " zerg is the only one working atm and its super hyper boring ! SH must be adressed as they are worst thing happening to zerg ! then try to fix terran mech
I have to agree with you here, but I also think the issue is FREE UNITS instead of "Zerg mech". You cant really make free units powerful and exciting, so they are actually the exact opposite of what Blizzard wants for the game.
There is one way to change the Swarm Host to make it more dynamic and that would be to give the unit energy and spawning locusts is an active ability which costs energy. This allows you to focus your power on one big push and then risk being vulnerable afterwards, BUT that design turns the unit into an "Infestor v2" ... so it is actually not so great.
While you aren't wrong about turtling, a large majority of fans hate these style of games.
As far as the SH goes, it served the 'role' blizzard wanted it to serve but it was a bad design. Free units that it spawns make it extremely hard to deal with if someone can get into a siege position. Conversely though a single SH is extremely weak, so there isn't much you can do with it. It's so one dimensional that it's uninteresting overall, you can either entrench or siege with it, there is not much else you can do with it.
While this is not BW, and I'm not saying it should be...the lurker for example worked in that game because it had more versatility. It could siege, it could defend, but it could also harass etc. It could do all of this with just 1 or 2 units. While the lurker likely wouldn't work with SC2, the SH wasn't a suitable replacement. It'd be much better to ditch a clunky free unit spawner and go with something that has an attack over some distance.
On August 03 2013 06:49 Rabiator wrote: The evasive "argument" listed under 5. really shows their absolute reluctance to make mech viable, because TvZ is the non-mirror matchup where mech can be made to work (although with a high "dont lose your army even once" risk factor). It is TvP where mech doesnt work ... at all. This really shows how much of a clue they have OR how much they want to play us for fools. Neither of these options is really acceptable.
But how can you make mech work without turning games into turtle-fest? Bad design introducing strong counters and nerfs have simply crippled any potential mech had. I really can't imagine making it work without some drastic changes. And those won't happen outside of a expansion.
The CHALLENGE of breaking into a full on turtled up player is more interesting IMO than having games decided by split second clicks and misclicks. That "turtling is boring to watch" is just Blizzard propaganda ... and they have added a lot of tools to break turtle positions with HotS (Abduct, Tempest, NOTHING for Terran) and yet they dont want to make mech viable. That logic is sooo beyond me that it almost hurts.
Terrans already had siege tanks and vikings. What a dumb comment to throw in.
On August 03 2013 18:32 Rabiator wrote: In case you didnt get it: The key to make mech / turtle interesting is to change your own attitude and expectations.
There is nothing to change regarding expectations as they have always been clear - turtling can be great fun to watch but only as long as only one side does it. There are good reasons why bio vs. mech TvTs are such a treat to watch. Currently successful mech results is both the terran and his opponent turtling with use of viper/sh/tempest.
And yes - this is a sad result of Blizzard not believing in mech and trying to turn it into bio with hellbat drops. But it's important to recognize that as things stand there is little hope of fixing mech in any capacity. The synergy of mech units have simply been weakened to the point that they work better incorporated into bio. Since speedivacs and mines are the only terran things Blizzard genuinely believes in we are stuck with things as they are.
The key to breaking up the boring "both sides do it and nothing moves for half an hour" is to give every race powers / attacks / units which are designed to break it or dislodge it without being overpowering.
Zerg - Abduct, Infested Terrans lobbed at Siege Tanks, free units which slowly nibble at stuff AND which provide decoy targets for Siege Tanks to shoot Protoss - Blink, Tempest Terran - Nuke, Seeker Missile
Since everyone has such powers there isnt any problem IMO.
On August 03 2013 18:49 SSVnormandy wrote: actually "mech " zerg is the only one working atm and its super hyper boring ! SH must be adressed as they are worst thing happening to zerg ! then try to fix terran mech
I have to agree with you here, but I also think the issue is FREE UNITS instead of "Zerg mech". You cant really make free units powerful and exciting, so they are actually the exact opposite of what Blizzard wants for the game.
There is one way to change the Swarm Host to make it more dynamic and that would be to give the unit energy and spawning locusts is an active ability which costs energy. This allows you to focus your power on one big push and then risk being vulnerable afterwards, BUT that design turns the unit into an "Infestor v2" ... so it is actually not so great.
While you aren't wrong about turtling, a large majority of fans hate these style of games.
As far as the SH goes, it served the 'role' blizzard wanted it to serve but it was a bad design. Free units that it spawns make it extremely hard to deal with if someone can get into a siege position. Conversely though a single SH is extremely weak, so there isn't much you can do with it. It's so one dimensional that it's uninteresting overall, you can either entrench or siege with it, there is not much else you can do with it.
While this is not BW, and I'm not saying it should be...the lurker for example worked in that game because it had more versatility. It could siege, it could defend, but it could also harass etc. It could do all of this with just 1 or 2 units. While the lurker likely wouldn't work with SC2, the SH wasn't a suitable replacement. It'd be much better to ditch a clunky free unit spawner and go with something that has an attack over some distance.
the swarm host was also never intended to be a replacement for the lurker. The role of the SH is OK, but just like many other units it's badly balanced. Not that it is over- or underpowered, but that it has a bad scaling and is only supplyefficient, but not costefficient - thus making it incredibly bad in premax play, while really strong in stale scenarios. The swarm host - as a T2 midgame unit - should work exactly the other way around. it should be damn scary in the midgame, but rather bad in the lategame. Something you could achieve with the design, but you'd have to play around more with the locust, e.g. even less range, (so less damage/square with mass locust) and then have stronger locusts. Or make them so fragile that any bigger army just doesn't care about them, not even low dps units like stalkers or roaches. Like semisuicidal units that just destroy small packs but don't do anything against reasonable firepower.
David Kim looks even more hilariously out of touch here now that this thread is out: July Winrates
Fortunately I'm not a GSL level player so I don't think it makes any sense to concern myself with balance as though there aren't plennnnnty of things for me to be working on with my gameplay
On August 03 2013 06:49 Rabiator wrote: The evasive "argument" listed under 5. really shows their absolute reluctance to make mech viable, because TvZ is the non-mirror matchup where mech can be made to work (although with a high "dont lose your army even once" risk factor). It is TvP where mech doesnt work ... at all. This really shows how much of a clue they have OR how much they want to play us for fools. Neither of these options is really acceptable.
But how can you make mech work without turning games into turtle-fest? Bad design introducing strong counters and nerfs have simply crippled any potential mech had. I really can't imagine making it work without some drastic changes. And those won't happen outside of a expansion.
The CHALLENGE of breaking into a full on turtled up player is more interesting IMO than having games decided by split second clicks and misclicks. That "turtling is boring to watch" is just Blizzard propaganda ... and they have added a lot of tools to break turtle positions with HotS (Abduct, Tempest, NOTHING for Terran) and yet they dont want to make mech viable. That logic is sooo beyond me that it almost hurts.
Terrans already had siege tanks and vikings. What a dumb comment to throw in.
(also you forgot to mention SH)
How can you break Siege Tanks with Siege Tanks of your own? How do Vikings break a siege line? That is quite stupid. Also I would advise you to actually READ what someone wrote, because I clearly said "added a lot of tools to break turtle positions with HotS" and everything you listed for Terrans was already part of WoL.
Terrans already had something to actually break an opponents siege line: the NUKE. Protoss already had something to break terran siege lines: Blink and hallucinations might be useful as decoys if there are no turrets to detect. Zerg already had something to break terran siege lines: Infested Terran (to be used with friendly fire) and Broodlords.
Swarm Hosts are really terrible at breaking Siege lines, because Locusts are slowly advancing and thus easily annihilated by Siege Tanks (well if they are buffed to "useful against non-armored units" again). The only job they can fill is "decoy", but an Infested Terran lobbed at a Siege Tank does that much better and for a smaller investment IMO.
On August 03 2013 18:32 Rabiator wrote: In case you didnt get it: The key to make mech / turtle interesting is to change your own attitude and expectations.
There is nothing to change regarding expectations as they have always been clear - turtling can be great fun to watch but only as long as only one side does it. There are good reasons why bio vs. mech TvTs are such a treat to watch. Currently successful mech results is both the terran and his opponent turtling with use of viper/sh/tempest.
And yes - this is a sad result of Blizzard not believing in mech and trying to turn it into bio with hellbat drops. But it's important to recognize that as things stand there is little hope of fixing mech in any capacity. The synergy of mech units have simply been weakened to the point that they work better incorporated into bio. Since speedivacs and mines are the only terran things Blizzard genuinely believes in we are stuck with things as they are.
The key to breaking up the boring "both sides do it and nothing moves for half an hour" is to give every race powers / attacks / units which are designed to break it or dislodge it without being overpowering.
Zerg - Abduct, Infested Terrans lobbed at Siege Tanks, free units which slowly nibble at stuff AND which provide decoy targets for Siege Tanks to shoot Protoss - Blink, Tempest Terran - Nuke, Seeker Missile
Since everyone has such powers there isnt any problem IMO.
On August 03 2013 18:49 SSVnormandy wrote: actually "mech " zerg is the only one working atm and its super hyper boring ! SH must be adressed as they are worst thing happening to zerg ! then try to fix terran mech
I have to agree with you here, but I also think the issue is FREE UNITS instead of "Zerg mech". You cant really make free units powerful and exciting, so they are actually the exact opposite of what Blizzard wants for the game.
There is one way to change the Swarm Host to make it more dynamic and that would be to give the unit energy and spawning locusts is an active ability which costs energy. This allows you to focus your power on one big push and then risk being vulnerable afterwards, BUT that design turns the unit into an "Infestor v2" ... so it is actually not so great.
While you aren't wrong about turtling, a large majority of fans hate these style of games.
It is my personal opinion from a few decades of experience that you can sell any kind of shit with the right propaganda and the current "oh I dont like mech" is the result of Blizzard trying to be clever and telling people that mech is bad in several interviews and also through their "buff the action style to outclass mech" actions. Mech used to be ok-ish until the Siege Tank AND Thor got nerfed and other stuff got buffed to make the style far less viable.
Blizzard *could* convince people that mech is cool with the right propaganda ... so I dont think that is a reason for not making the style viable.
On August 04 2013 01:57 Markwerf wrote: Even more so thors, tanks and transformation servos see almost zero play in TvZ/TvP, in other words it's pretty much riskfree to buff these as they wold just gently impact the pro scene. Bio strats would remain the same, David Kim could easily just buff 1 or 2 of these things, watch to see how it pans out and then continue. I just can't understand why he hasn't done any of the sort yet... They are actively buffing units which see too little play like the warp prism, banshees etc. but nothing of the sort for mech. Instead it's only getting nerfs because small parts of it are broken, but never any real attempt to make it a viable style instead of the half-assed attempt to fix it during beta.
But the problem is that those units do change the bio play and meta-game in pro-scene. Hellbat is the best example as it's drops got incorporated into bio just as hellions have. And not only has hellbat made bio stronger it would also completely dominate TvT. Buffing mech is not risk-free. Sheer amount of buffs/nerfs to other races would require expansion-level of changes.
Buffing the right units though can be done quite safely. Sure you can't just go about changing the hellion or the widowmine because those see play in conjunction with bio, as did the hellbat before. But you can quite safely change units or techs which are pretty much mech exclusive as long as you make the buff minor enough that it remains mech exclusive.
For example thors are never mixed in with bio now even when a lot of muta are faced. Why would you as widow mines just function better in every aspect as your factory addition to bio. Thus it's really quite safe to give a small nudge to thors AA capability. You wouldn't suddenly see Thor rushes, you wouldn't suddenly see bio + thor dominate in TvZ etc. because the thor is just far from viable in any support role for bio now. Thus it would really only affect mech play which is safe to say won;t suddenly be broken considering how weak it is now. Small nudges to units that are severely underused in non-mirrors is really just safe, at worst they slightly break the barrier of viability and open up the metagame a little bit but broken strats won't suddenly appear as those tactics would otherwise have been decent now already.. Transformation servos same thing, I;ve literally never seen it been used in a pro game. Of course I don;t see every game in a longshot but it;s safe to say it's extremely rare. A small buff would be perfectly safe yet still be interesting enough to entice a little more mech. Tank change is the most risky but honestly they don't really see much play either now. I only see them being used as a counter to some all-ins in TvZ, very rarely in TvP. A small nudge to their stats would be fine really, reintroducing siege tech is riskier as that potentially makes them unusable as this counter to all-ins but could counterbalance a slight buff to their stats nicely.
Mech doesn;t need to become completely dominant or a totally viable way to play on every map etc. It would just be nice if some small nudges would lift it's play just a little bit. For example I don;t even think it sees play in 1% of pro TvZ/TvP now if it could reach something like 5-10% that would already be an awesome gain and is really not that hard to achieve without breaking the game and getting into a period of disastrous balance. People always act like balancing is some super difficult tender act but it;s not. The game is fairly robust and they can definately make more changes. Just look at how little impact most patches have had especially when it concerns fringe units. Banshee change or warp prism change didn;t affect much at all, they should just do changes of that small magnitude more often, it keeps the game fresh when some matchups are being a bit stale, which TvP definately is at the moment for example.
On August 04 2013 09:37 Rickyvalle21 wrote: Im still waiting on them to say they will consider redesigning protoss.
they wont redesign protoss, that shit wont come untill starcraft 3. Taking out forcefields and buffing gateway units will mess up the entire game. It's to late to redesign toss.
On August 03 2013 06:49 Rabiator wrote: The evasive "argument" listed under 5. really shows their absolute reluctance to make mech viable, because TvZ is the non-mirror matchup where mech can be made to work (although with a high "dont lose your army even once" risk factor). It is TvP where mech doesnt work ... at all. This really shows how much of a clue they have OR how much they want to play us for fools. Neither of these options is really acceptable.
But how can you make mech work without turning games into turtle-fest? Bad design introducing strong counters and nerfs have simply crippled any potential mech had. I really can't imagine making it work without some drastic changes. And those won't happen outside of a expansion.
The CHALLENGE of breaking into a full on turtled up player is more interesting IMO than having games decided by split second clicks and misclicks. That "turtling is boring to watch" is just Blizzard propaganda ... and they have added a lot of tools to break turtle positions with HotS (Abduct, Tempest, NOTHING for Terran) and yet they dont want to make mech viable. That logic is sooo beyond me that it almost hurts.
Terrans already had siege tanks and vikings. What a dumb comment to throw in.
(also you forgot to mention SH)
How can you break Siege Tanks with Siege Tanks of your own? How do Vikings break a siege line? That is quite stupid. Also I would advise you to actually READ what someone wrote, because I clearly said "added a lot of tools to break turtle positions with HotS" and everything you listed for Terrans was already part of WoL.
Terrans already had something to actually break an opponents siege line: the NUKE. Protoss already had something to break terran siege lines: Blink and hallucinations might be useful as decoys if there are no turrets to detect. Zerg already had something to break terran siege lines: Infested Terran (to be used with friendly fire) and Broodlords.
Swarm Hosts are really terrible at breaking Siege lines, because Locusts are slowly advancing and thus easily annihilated by Siege Tanks (well if they are buffed to "useful against non-armored units" again). The only job they can fill is "decoy", but an Infested Terran lobbed at a Siege Tank does that much better and for a smaller investment IMO.
If we're to begin advising one another, I'd start on reading your own post before lecturing others to do the same. Your post (and every single nested post it quotes) don't say siege lines, they say "turtled up player." Why on Earth do you assume I suggest a Terran solution purely to TvT? That wouldn't even make sense to introduce a unit and completely break mech in TvT. Needless to say they already have it: the two cheapest, fastest produced units with the most range in the mid-game -- ontop of so many other things.
And I'd finish by advising that it's probably even more dumb to suggest Terran by default should receive more turtle breaking units because the other races got some. Terran already has some of the best tools among the races. You might as well should also demand Terran get a new tier 3 unit because Protoss and Zerg got one. That's literally the only premise your argument even has.
It really is that ridiculous that you HAVE to throw in "TERRAN GETS NONE" and amidst the tunnel vision you don't realize the implicit point I make in how biased and dumb that statement is.
On August 04 2013 08:20 Lumi wrote: David Kim looks even more hilariously out of touch here now that this thread is out: July Winrates
Fortunately I'm not a GSL level player so I don't think it makes any sense to concern myself with balance as though there aren't plennnnnty of things for me to be working on with my gameplay
Oh wow, I thought Zergs had found a way to get around Widow Mines being insanely cost-efficient (especially for a unit that's good against Lings, banelings and Muta). I guess not. Medivacs are a pain the ass to deal with if you don't have Muta. I thought that Zerg was doing poorly against Terran in macro games but I always assumed it was just bias on my part. o_o
But yeah, good job David Kim, those numbers back you up quite well.
On August 04 2013 18:19 Highways wrote: Redesigning warpgate will solve most of Protoss's problems.
Also ZvT is in a bad state, Zerg has like a 30% winrate in proleague.
If you get rid of warpgates you have to buff gateway units or else Protoss will really go to shit. But if you overbuff gateway units then sentries make Protoss way too ridiculous so it's kind of a deeper design flaw than that.
On August 04 2013 18:19 Highways wrote: Redesigning warpgate will solve most of Protoss's problems.
Also ZvT is in a bad state, Zerg has like a 30% winrate in proleague.
Never use proleague stats... They come from a very small pool of players who's main way to qualify is being part of some team. The stats there differ enormously from other events which is likely just the result of the selection, Kespa teams just happen to have many good protosses and few good zergs
On August 04 2013 18:19 Highways wrote: Redesigning warpgate will solve most of Protoss's problems.
Also ZvT is in a bad state, Zerg has like a 30% winrate in proleague.
If you get rid of warpgates you have to buff gateway units or else Protoss will really go to shit. But if you overbuff gateway units then sentries make Protoss way too ridiculous so it's kind of a deeper design flaw than that.
why do you have to buff gateway units for that? You have to buff the build times (because they are ridiculous without warpgate) and you have to buff Protoss harassment (as it is ridiculous without warpgate) and Protoss mapcontrol tools (as they are ridiculous without warpgate) and defenses (as they are ridiculous without warpgate). Of course you can also buff gateway units and force Protoss even more into bigass army play as they will be lacking all the things from above, but instead have an even stronger deathball.
On August 04 2013 18:19 Highways wrote: Redesigning warpgate will solve most of Protoss's problems.
Also ZvT is in a bad state, Zerg has like a 30% winrate in proleague.
If you get rid of warpgates you have to buff gateway units or else Protoss will really go to shit. But if you overbuff gateway units then sentries make Protoss way too ridiculous so it's kind of a deeper design flaw than that.
why do you have to buff gateway units for that? You have to buff the build times (because they are ridiculous without warpgate) and you have to buff Protoss harassment (as it is ridiculous without warpgate) and Protoss mapcontrol tools (as they are ridiculous without warpgate) and defenses (as they are ridiculous without warpgate). Of course you can also buff gateway units and force Protoss even more into bigass army play as they will be lacking all the things from above, but instead have an even stronger deathball.
On August 04 2013 18:19 Highways wrote: Redesigning warpgate will solve most of Protoss's problems.
Also ZvT is in a bad state, Zerg has like a 30% winrate in proleague.
If you get rid of warpgates you have to buff gateway units or else Protoss will really go to shit. But if you overbuff gateway units then sentries make Protoss way too ridiculous so it's kind of a deeper design flaw than that.
why do you have to buff gateway units for that? You have to buff the build times (because they are ridiculous without warpgate) and you have to buff Protoss harassment (as it is ridiculous without warpgate) and Protoss mapcontrol tools (as they are ridiculous without warpgate) and defenses (as they are ridiculous without warpgate). Of course you can also buff gateway units and force Protoss even more into bigass army play as they will be lacking all the things from above, but instead have an even stronger deathball.
And why, if I may ask? Protoss harassment will be inexistent. Protoss robo/stargate units will not add anything to what the buffed zealot, buffed stalker, buffed templar, buffed archon already do. Finally, stronger blink stalkers. No need to produce anything else but stalkers and zealots anymore. Is that what the game needs?
Stalkers don't have high dps for a reason, and it's not warpgate. It's that it is a fast, ranged, antiair-capable unit with a mighty blink ability, shields and a ton of HP. It's not particularily vulnerable to splash. Somewhere there need to be drawbacks to that unit, and it's that it's not a combat beast as well. Zealots have pretty high dps and health already. Templar? Do they need a buff? Archons? Finally more zealot/archon allins?
Just think about how TvP and ZvP play out and how often a Protoss sits in his bases and only defends and does not use the ability to warp in close to the opponent at all. Then he walks out with a bigass timing attack. And now you buff that timing attack, but make the reinforcements come in slower. Well, the initial attack will be just stronger. The reinforcements will be 30seconds delayed, but also stronger. I don't know why this would be such a great idea.
On August 04 2013 18:19 Highways wrote: Redesigning warpgate will solve most of Protoss's problems.
Also ZvT is in a bad state, Zerg has like a 30% winrate in proleague.
If you get rid of warpgates you have to buff gateway units or else Protoss will really go to shit. But if you overbuff gateway units then sentries make Protoss way too ridiculous so it's kind of a deeper design flaw than that.
why do you have to buff gateway units for that? You have to buff the build times (because they are ridiculous without warpgate) and you have to buff Protoss harassment (as it is ridiculous without warpgate) and Protoss mapcontrol tools (as they are ridiculous without warpgate) and defenses (as they are ridiculous without warpgate). Of course you can also buff gateway units and force Protoss even more into bigass army play as they will be lacking all the things from above, but instead have an even stronger deathball.
And why, if I may ask? Protoss harassment will be inexistent. Protoss robo/stargate units will not add anything to what the buffed zealot, buffed stalker, buffed templar, buffed archon already do. Finally, stronger blink stalkers. No need to produce anything else but stalkers and zealots anymore. Is that what the game needs?
Stalkers don't have high dps for a reason, and it's not warpgate. It's that it is a fast, ranged, antiair-capable unit with a mighty blink ability, shields and a ton of HP. It's not particularily vulnerable to splash. Somewhere there need to be drawbacks to that unit, and it's that it's not a combat beast as well. Zealots have pretty high dps and health already. Templar? Do they need a buff? Archons? Finally more zealot/archon allins?
Just think about how TvP and ZvP play out and how often a Protoss sits in his bases and only defends and does not use the ability to warp in close to the opponent at all. Then he walks out with a bigass timing attack. And now you buff that timing attack, but make the reinforcements come in slower. Well, the initial attack will be just stronger. The reinforcements will be 30seconds delayed, but also stronger. I don't know why this would be such a great idea.
Buff stalker and zealot, nerf forcefield (make it so opponent can kill it) and maybe give forcefield cooldown with no mana
, nerf colossous (make it no deathball materia, make it a more micro unit, nerf warpgate
BLink - nerf or redesign, someability which stalker can move up and down cliffs atleast Charge - remove it and give passive movement speed or redesign it, replace it with leap or why not give blink to zealot lol
This would accomplish alot of great and fun stuff for protoss and other races
1) Protoss can now move out with a smaller force and trade cost effeciently
2) With reduced colossous firepower, protoss do not wanna sit passive and wati for a big armee or have the correct unit composition
3) With unit composition removed, now terran do not need unit composition and zerg do not need unit composition, will make all matchups involvingprotoss more dynamic
4) with nerfed forcefield, especially zerg can now engage (properly), they can use micro and so can protoss, makes it alot more fun
Dunno what to do with storm, archon Maybe redesign archon? Its tanky with good damage now, its to all around You take a archon over stalker now, with buffed stalker if this doesnt change do something about archon
So all in all, it would do so much for starcraft2 overall
edit: Well you state robo and stargate will not get any use
Tbh, colossous would end up as a support unit which is good and not become the dominant unit it is now Immortal is still good vs armored units
You still need observer and warpprism
Andabout stargate, while i am at it redesign that phoenix. A flying antiflying unit with aoe but greater cost and micro unit
This just come on top of my head, i truly believe it would be so much morefun You worry about timing attack and stuff if it becomes a hardcore problem then do something about that
But imagine if terran doesnt need to worry about making tons of vikings. Hmm how many colossous do he have? 10? or 0? or 3? Dont worry now, instead terran can go barack mode, thats the main focus Widowmines might become good
And about ghost, if storm gets nerfed, so shouldthe ghost they should both be support units now ghost is supergood you want that unit over marauders and marines if u can afford it
Just think about tvp, instead of camp camp camp and look at eachother, and be scared to engage forterran because of defensive storms and protoss be scared of defensive emps, it will clash now and become actionpackedsciencefiction
On August 04 2013 18:19 Highways wrote: Redesigning warpgate will solve most of Protoss's problems.
Also ZvT is in a bad state, Zerg has like a 30% winrate in proleague.
If you get rid of warpgates you have to buff gateway units or else Protoss will really go to shit. But if you overbuff gateway units then sentries make Protoss way too ridiculous so it's kind of a deeper design flaw than that.
why do you have to buff gateway units for that? You have to buff the build times (because they are ridiculous without warpgate) and you have to buff Protoss harassment (as it is ridiculous without warpgate) and Protoss mapcontrol tools (as they are ridiculous without warpgate) and defenses (as they are ridiculous without warpgate). Of course you can also buff gateway units and force Protoss even more into bigass army play as they will be lacking all the things from above, but instead have an even stronger deathball.
And why, if I may ask? Protoss harassment will be inexistent. Protoss robo/stargate units will not add anything to what the buffed zealot, buffed stalker, buffed templar, buffed archon already do. Finally, stronger blink stalkers. No need to produce anything else but stalkers and zealots anymore. Is that what the game needs?
Stalkers don't have high dps for a reason, and it's not warpgate. It's that it is a fast, ranged, antiair-capable unit with a mighty blink ability, shields and a ton of HP. It's not particularily vulnerable to splash. Somewhere there need to be drawbacks to that unit, and it's that it's not a combat beast as well. Zealots have pretty high dps and health already. Templar? Do they need a buff? Archons? Finally more zealot/archon allins?
Just think about how TvP and ZvP play out and how often a Protoss sits in his bases and only defends and does not use the ability to warp in close to the opponent at all. Then he walks out with a bigass timing attack. And now you buff that timing attack, but make the reinforcements come in slower. Well, the initial attack will be just stronger. The reinforcements will be 30seconds delayed, but also stronger. I don't know why this would be such a great idea.
Buff stalker and zealot, nerf forcefield (make it so opponent can kill it) and maybe give forcefield cooldown with no mana
, nerf colossous (make it no deathball materia, make it a more micro unit, nerf warpgate
BLink - nerf or redesign, someability which stalker can move up and down cliffs atleast Charge - remove it and give passive movement speed or redesign it, replace it with leap or why not give blink to zealot lol
This would accomplish alot of great and fun stuff for protoss and other races
1) Protoss can now move out with a smaller force and trade cost effeciently
2) With reduced colossous firepower, protoss do not wanna sit passive and wati for a big armee or have the correct unit composition
3) With unit composition removed, now terran do not need unit composition and zerg do not need unit composition, will make all matchups involvingprotoss more dynamic
4) with nerfed forcefield, especially zerg can now engage (properly), they can use micro and so can protoss, makes it alot more fun
Dunno what to do with storm, archon Maybe redesign archon? Its tanky with good damage now, its to all around You take a archon over stalker now, with buffed stalker if this doesnt change do something about archon
So all in all, it would do so much for starcraft2 overall
edit: Well you state robo and stargate will not get any use
Tbh, colossous would end up as a support unit which is good and not become the dominant unit it is now Immortal is still good vs armored units
You still need observer and warpprism
Andabout stargate, while i am at it redesign that phoenix. A flying antiflying unit with aoe but greater cost and micro unit
This just come on top of my head, i truly believe it would be so much morefun You worry about timing attack and stuff if it becomes a hardcore problem then do something about that
But imagine if terran doesnt need to worry about making tons of vikings. Hmm how many colossous do he have? 10? or 0? or 3? Dont worry now, instead terran can go barack mode, thats the main focus Widowmines might become good
And about ghost, if storm gets nerfed, so shouldthe ghost they should both be support units now ghost is supergood you want that unit over marauders and marines if u can afford it
Just think about tvp, instead of camp camp camp and look at eachother, and be scared to engage forterran because of defensive storms and protoss be scared of defensive emps, it will clash now and become actionpackedsciencefiction
1) If Protoss trades costefficiently, what's keeping them back from doing 6gateway allins, just like they did 6warpgate allins? Just that the new 6gateway allins won't be as allin anymore, due to massing gateway units being a good thing.
2) Why? Protoss sit on Templartech without Colossi in TvP as well. They don't need Colossus now. And when the army is equally strong without them, what hinders Protoss from playing exactly the same way as right now?
3) You will always need the proper unit compositions in every matchup. Dunno what you are talking about. They will just change from "needing to counter colossi/sentries" to "needing to build the stronger counters for stalkers/zealots, as roach/hydra/zergling, or MMM won't cut it anymore". You'd be forced to bring out the hellbats, ghosts and infestors, ultralisks instead of the vipers, corruptors, mutas and vikings. It's just trading one counter vs another.
4) I don't know what micro you are talking about in PvZ. there is not a lot to micro for the zerg units without forcefields. They are much faster and have shorter range, thus the optimal way to engage is surround, amove. Right now a lot of the micro is avoiding getting forcefielded and forcefielding properly. And for Protoss, all that's left is blinking. You can't kite anything in either of those compositions once zerg speed upgrades are done, and there is no splash around which would force you to split. There are also no powerunits around (anymore) which you would need to snipe. It would be like those horrible roach/hydra vs MMM engagements. a move into each other, one side will come out ahead (and the other composition will usually not get played because it is underpowered).
Terrans not worrying about Colossi... why the fuck build Colossi if your opponent beats it with whatever? I partly agree for the sentry, but without a low tier splash option for Protoss there is no way around keeping it.
why would mines become good? mines get countered by stalkers, more stalkers means less mines. The phoenix is a great unit, great fun to play and watch. It should be kept as it is.
I mean, I'm playing starbow from time to time (it's a great game, you may wanna check it out). There, there are no sentries and warpgate is weaker. Still, gateway units could not be made stronger, as they just started to rape everything and Protoss is still dependend on tech units (like reavers). The balancing is a little different, but generally Gateway units cannot even be close to costefficient against barracks or hydralisk/zergling kind of tech, or Z/T early game is deeply in trouble and things like bio-play would be simply not viable.
1) Bad wording from my part, they can move out without being scared to death to get raped big time, so they trade even, with good engagements they can become cost effecient, but so can the other player
2) Hm this must be new, with equal armee against terran without colossous protoss die easy (if terran have ghost obviously) this has always been this case unless protoss has evolved , still if changes is made to redesign protoss take a deeper look at storm and emp, the role emp vs storm is to big imo, the tvp matchup turns out to be to focused around those two
3) Yes ofcourse but right now with protoss its 80% unit composition ( i took that number from my head) and with changes to protoss lets say 30% Also when i say protoss would become dynamic i obviously mean more dynamic inase u didnt understand, cuz right now its obviously 1% dynamic atleast. Same reason people like macro games, everything becomes to a bigger degree (decision making, engagement, multitasking) right now when someone goes super allin you still have all these things but to a much smaller degree
4) Right now, all zerg can do is bait forcefield, maybe rely on luck for protoss to do bad forcefields Its to much power for the protoss, and without forcefield now zerg gets the upperhand (if we imagine protoss goes 2base all-in) against 3base zerg
Its always cat and mouse as protoss Without forcefields or nerfed forcefields zerg can decide to do sustained pressure against protoss, so macrowar starts fast as hell
But u are right zerg is not like terran bio which can do plenty of micro, its as you said surround, amove mostly Only it would open up more power for zerg, right now if zergs gets trapped in forcefields he dies with plenty of units
So it opens up more room for kiteing, for hit and run for baiting etc I said pretty clear redesign or remove blink andfor zealot charge to to open up more micro for them, blink for stalker right now is pretty lame as zerg, zerg becomes powerless more or less (to a degree yo), just imagine if stalker is gonna blink it takes 3seconds for him to do that after u press blink button
Just one little sample
Terrans not worrying about Colossi... why the fuck build Colossi if your opponent beats it with whatever?
You seem to be so i dont know, so narrow minded, you try so hard to turn everything around I dont have this set in stone yet, but if it becomes a support unit then terran needs to worry but not in a degree as of now
If protoss needs aoe ability, make the immortal have two modes like the thor First mode: is the present one second mode: aoe ability ground
And mines would become good because protoss would rely more on zealots and stalkers and stalkers dont really counter widowmines ( a stalker needs to right click a wm to not make it shoot back) so imagine if terran focus on widowmines he plants 25 widowmines how can stalker counter now when bio force is there to?
I persoanlly think phoenix is kinda fun to, but it is to good unit if protoss gets redesigned and they come out so fast vs zerg, even if he goes plenty of spores he can still kill alot
I might check starbow out it seems to be arcade game in sc2 so i might
David Kim's balance talk with Chinese Casual Players (Not the same interview with the progamer) [simplified translation]
Q: SC2 is faster than Warcraft3, have you thought about changing game speed?
David Kim: It's hard to weight between causal and pro gamers. We have a speed option, but it seems like no one is using it, even the casual players. Maybe the fast speed like a progamer is why it is attractive to play SC2.
Q: Have you thought about free race every week? Like LoL's free heroes every week.
David Kim: Interesting thought. I can't guarantee anything. I will feedback this advice to the team. We hope that more players support our game. But changing from a singleplayer game to a multiplayer game is not easy.
Q: SC2 is hard for players of other games. How to improve the fun of the game?
David Kim: Our emphasis of fun is on arcade mode and 2v2/3v3/4v4. Not everyone likes 1v1, and not everything players 1v1.
Q: Shouldn't there be some limits of KR players in WCS NA/EU?
David Kim: This is first year of this system, so we don't want too many limitations. We will mostly not make change this year. Next year there may be some changes.
Q: Will SC2 get an ingame stream system like Dota2?
David Kim: We have been improving our observing system. Ingame stream system is great. But it's not the core of our development at the moment.
Q: As a girl, I am thinking whether there will be more female units?
David Kim: ...... this is the area of our art team. In fact, we want more female units.
Q: Will the campaign be about all three races in LotV?
David Kim: Good idea. We may do so in LotV.
Q: Have you thought about putting campaign units into 3v3 and 4v4?
David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker.
Q: Will there be some rewards for mapmakers?
David Kim: In fact, we are discussing this. But I can't reveal the details.
On August 05 2013 16:31 Incognoto wrote: Free race every week? I don't understand that one. LoL and Dota are free to play, SC2 is a paying game
The Starter Edition let's you play online only as Terran. Also for anyone with WoL only, you can get a buddy with HotS to party up with you and you will be able to play HotS together with him, but only as Terran.
The person suggested instead of being only able to play Terran, that every week/month/whatever Blizzard rotates through the one race you're forced to play. So maybe in July Starter Edition and people being spawned up can only play Terran, then in August they can only play Zerg, etc. That way people can try out all three races to find one they like, and if they get hooked they can buy the whole game.
On August 05 2013 16:31 Incognoto wrote: Free race every week? I don't understand that one. LoL and Dota are free to play, SC2 is a paying game
The Starter Edition let's you play online only as Terran. Also for anyone with WoL only, you can get a buddy with HotS to party up with you and you will be able to play HotS together with him, but only as Terran.
The person suggested instead of being only able to play Terran, that every week/month/whatever Blizzard rotates through the one race you're forced to play. So maybe in July Starter Edition and people being spawned up can only play Terran, then in August they can only play Zerg, etc. That way people can try out all three races to find one they like, and if they get hooked they can buy the whole game.
AH, that makes more sense, I guess indeed it's not a bad idea.
I will translate the Balance talk between David Kim, Jim and XY a little bit. Some I thought was interesting: Xy thinks that balancing terran based upon the best of korean terran is unfair since there is a huge skill difference in foreigners and korean top terran. David Kim said the balance issue is NOT about any region players, the balance will be studied through data across the globe
David Kim thinks widow mines encourages zerg micro which is fun to watch for specutators. Similarly, medivac speed boost will not likely to have a cooldown increase because harass units are more fun to watch for the game. He thinks right now Terran is NOT a weak race and will be weaker if a nerf is hit
Balance will happen if any of the two appears. If one race becomes too strong If one strategy becomes too easy (not sure if that is what he meant)
PvP is what they like now because there is variety of strategy available, late game option for protoss is minimal but not a lot of games get to late game.
(From Xy) TvZ is becoming stale because Terran don't have a lot of aggressive opening and has to go for economy management David Kim dislike games that are over too fast
How to change the banshee is still being looked at.
Any mechanical challenging but unobservable by the specutators will be changed. David Kim used the example of only having one production facility on one controlgroup. But it won't make the game too easy since this is a esport game
Why there is no specific matchup queuing on ladder is because they think it might increase the search time by a lot.
I think David needs to resign. He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work. e.g. More actions = more fun. RTS is a strategy, things like defender's advantage, army positioning and long-term decisions should be core part of the game, which are mostly ignored by DK.
He is not the right person for the game. We've been waiting for 3.5 years already, time to move on.
On August 05 2013 18:22 saddaromma wrote: I think David needs to resign. He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work. e.g. More actions = more fun. RTS is a strategy, things like defender's advantage, army positioning and long-term decisions should be core part of the game, which are mostly ignored by DK.
He is not the right person for the game. We've been waiting for 3.5 years already, time to move on.
It's too late for that, the damage has been done from the start. It would take a completely new game to make sc2 feel like brood war was AND to make it as popular as dota2/LoL. What you can do right now, if you hate the way sc2 is being balanced, is to play some of the custom alternatives like sc2:bw and starbow. If one of these gets really popular it will make the game itself more popular since people will buy sc2 to play starbow. Just like people bought wc3:tft to play dota.
Q: Have you thought about putting campaign units into 3v3 and 4v4?
David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker. .;............
I will not cry balance. I will not cry incompetence. But if your going to fucking use the excuse of not including the lurker because its roll overlaps with the baneling STICK WITH IT because its a better fucking argument than this crap just spewed.
Though i understand the context of his answer might have been scewed through translation.
ignoring my rage. What a stupid way to answer a question about 3v3 4v4
On August 05 2013 18:22 saddaromma wrote: I think David needs to resign. He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work. e.g. More actions = more fun. RTS is a strategy, things like defender's advantage, army positioning and long-term decisions should be core part of the game, which are mostly ignored by DK.
He is not the right person for the game. We've been waiting for 3.5 years already, time to move on.
Huh?
He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work
How is this a bad thing? Everyone has an idea of what the game should be. More actions (what does that even mean? higher apm requirements?) is just another way for a player to outplay the other and that's a good thing. It's part of what makes Starcraft what it is.
Defenders advantage, unit positioning and long term decisions are a core part of the game (well, ok, Protoss tries pretty fucking hard to dodge defenders advantage but I argue that keeping tabs on pylons and shutting them down is part of a defenders duty vs them! It's possible to get your defences in order against a protoss that has to move across the map and get a pylon down as long as you notice it early) and frequently games are dependent on that sort of thing. But so is good build orders and mindgames, a bit of risk taking, a bit of scouting, a bit of timing sense, good decisions and good macro.
Also, Strategy is just a term that means "overall plan on how to win the game". 6pool is a strategy.
Balance is in a pretty good spot in HotS so far, most people at IEM SH (as far as I know) were telling him this. Why should he resign?
But it now does friendly fire and only fires once every century... And sometimes ends a game in an instant just because "bam"... It's also a Terran unit.
On August 05 2013 19:30 Velr wrote: The Lurker actually is ingame.
But it now does friendly fire and only fires once every century... And sometimes ends a game in an instant just because "bam"... It's also a Terran unit.
are you talking about burrowed reaver?? WM is not like lurker at all, only burrow to attack is the same
On August 05 2013 18:22 saddaromma wrote: I think David needs to resign. He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work. e.g. More actions = more fun. RTS is a strategy, things like defender's advantage, army positioning and long-term decisions should be core part of the game, which are mostly ignored by DK.
He is not the right person for the game. We've been waiting for 3.5 years already, time to move on.
He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work
How is this a bad thing? Everyone has an idea of what the game should be. More actions (what does that even mean? higher apm requirements?) is just another way for a player to outplay the other and that's a good thing. It's part of what makes Starcraft what it is.
Defenders advantage, unit positioning and long term decisions are a core part of the game (well, ok, Protoss tries pretty fucking hard to dodge defenders advantage but I argue that keeping tabs on pylons and shutting them down is part of a defenders duty vs them! It's possible to get your defences in order against a protoss that has to move across the map and get a pylon down as long as you notice it early) and frequently games are dependent on that sort of thing. But so is good build orders and mindgames, a bit of risk taking, a bit of scouting, a bit of timing sense, good decisions and good macro.
Also, Strategy is just a term that means "overall plan on how to win the game". 6pool is a strategy.
Balance is in a pretty good spot in HotS so far, most people at IEM SH (as far as I know) were telling him this. Why should he resign?
I'm not talking about balance. Game is in a bad state, and the direction it is going (DK's view) is not very promising. Look, players are retiring, viewership is low and prize pool is decreasing. These are raw numbers and you can't argue with that. Its all due to low entertainment value of the game, which is exactly developers' fault.
Add micro transactions. I want damn pro player cards in it like in dota. I'd make unit skins consist of parts like 6 or 8, u need to collect all pieces and then skin unlocks, u get pieces by playing, randomly no matter u win or lose (longer game higher chance to unlock a piece), micro transactions can consist of tons of stuff like country flag at loading screen next to players, u can buy missing pieces for ur skin to complete (imagine how many would buy if they collect 7/8 pieces of skin, but can't get last one for many games). Team logos instead decals. There is so much that could be done, they just need to do it, add micro transactions.
On August 05 2013 16:55 ETisME wrote: David Kim thinks widow mines encourages zerg micro which is fun to watch for specutators. Similarly, medivac speed boost will not likely to have a cooldown increase because harass units are more fun to watch for the game. He thinks right now Terran is NOT a weak race and will be weaker if a nerf is hit
Does he realize that there's no way for a Zerg to truly efficiently defend against drop harass without actually having Mutalisk? The problem being Mutalisk is terrible unit againts Bio/Mine/Medivac.
It wouldn't be so bad if the speed boost required an energy cost, it might make Terrans use Speed boost a bit more carefully rather than speed boosting all the damn time like they do at the moment.
Mines are still (imo) too efficient. Either reducing the area of their splash or reducing splash damage so that lings and blings die in two shots instead of one might be a nice change, it might make Mutalisk a bit more viable against Bio/Mine.
The medivac nerf at least isn't that bad. thing is, i feel that Terrans have a single unit, namely the mine, that can shut down an entire unit composition, in this case Ling/bling/muta. that wasn't the case in wol. similarly, immortals are a single unit which pretty much completely shut down mech in TvP.
My 2 cents. Maybe DK knows something we don't, I wish he would justify his decisions better than with just 2 sentences. You could probably write a couple paragraphs about a certain nerf or boost.
On August 05 2013 18:22 saddaromma wrote: I think David needs to resign. He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work. e.g. More actions = more fun. RTS is a strategy, things like defender's advantage, army positioning and long-term decisions should be core part of the game, which are mostly ignored by DK.
He is not the right person for the game. We've been waiting for 3.5 years already, time to move on.
Huh?
He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work
How is this a bad thing? Everyone has an idea of what the game should be. More actions (what does that even mean? higher apm requirements?) is just another way for a player to outplay the other and that's a good thing. It's part of what makes Starcraft what it is.
Defenders advantage, unit positioning and long term decisions are a core part of the game (well, ok, Protoss tries pretty fucking hard to dodge defenders advantage but I argue that keeping tabs on pylons and shutting them down is part of a defenders duty vs them! It's possible to get your defences in order against a protoss that has to move across the map and get a pylon down as long as you notice it early) and frequently games are dependent on that sort of thing. But so is good build orders and mindgames, a bit of risk taking, a bit of scouting, a bit of timing sense, good decisions and good macro.
Also, Strategy is just a term that means "overall plan on how to win the game". 6pool is a strategy.
Balance is in a pretty good spot in HotS so far, most people at IEM SH (as far as I know) were telling him this. Why should he resign?
I'm not talking about balance. Game is in a bad state, and the direction it is going (DK's view) is not very promising. Look, players are retiring, viewership is low and prize pool is decreasing. These are raw numbers and you can't argue with that. Its all due to low entertainment value of the game, which is exactly developers' fault.
Prize pool is increasing (overall wcs adds more than it takes away), viewership has grown since hots release, and players will always retire in any sport ever.
On August 05 2013 16:55 ETisME wrote: David Kim thinks widow mines encourages zerg micro which is fun to watch for specutators. Similarly, medivac speed boost will not likely to have a cooldown increase because harass units are more fun to watch for the game. He thinks right now Terran is NOT a weak race and will be weaker if a nerf is hit
Does he realize that there's no way for a Zerg to truly efficiently defend against drop harass without actually having Mutalisk? The problem being Mutalisk is terrible unit againts Bio/Mine/Medivac.
It wouldn't be so bad if the speed boost required an energy cost, it might make Terrans use Speed boost a bit more carefully rather than speed boosting all the damn time like they do at the moment.
Mines are still (imo) too efficient. Either reducing the area of their splash or reducing splash damage so that lings and blings die in two shots instead of one might be a nice change, it might make Mutalisk a bit more viable against Bio/Mine. These nerfs aren't ground-breaking by any means.
My 2 cents. Maybe DK knows something we don't, I wish he would justify his decisions better than with just 2 sentences. You could probably write a couple paragraphs about a certain nerf or boost.
If mines not one shotting lings and banes isn't a ground-breaking nerf i don't know what to say. (from a Z player)
On August 05 2013 16:55 ETisME wrote: David Kim thinks widow mines encourages zerg micro which is fun to watch for specutators. Similarly, medivac speed boost will not likely to have a cooldown increase because harass units are more fun to watch for the game. He thinks right now Terran is NOT a weak race and will be weaker if a nerf is hit
Does he realize that there's no way for a Zerg to truly efficiently defend against drop harass without actually having Mutalisk? The problem being Mutalisk is terrible unit againts Bio/Mine/Medivac.
It wouldn't be so bad if the speed boost required an energy cost, it might make Terrans use Speed boost a bit more carefully rather than speed boosting all the damn time like they do at the moment.
Mines are still (imo) too efficient. Either reducing the area of their splash or reducing splash damage so that lings and blings die in two shots instead of one might be a nice change, it might make Mutalisk a bit more viable against Bio/Mine. These nerfs aren't ground-breaking by any means.
My 2 cents. Maybe DK knows something we don't, I wish he would justify his decisions better than with just 2 sentences. You could probably write a couple paragraphs about a certain nerf or boost.
If mines not one shotting lings and banes isn't a ground-breaking nerf i don't know what to say. (from a Z player)
eh no you're right, i was still thinking of medivacs having to use energy when i typed that. i edited to clarify
David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker.
that makes me so frustrated ... BW had Siege tanks, what about that ?
On August 05 2013 18:22 saddaromma wrote: I think David needs to resign. He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work. e.g. More actions = more fun. RTS is a strategy, things like defender's advantage, army positioning and long-term decisions should be core part of the game, which are mostly ignored by DK.
He is not the right person for the game. We've been waiting for 3.5 years already, time to move on.
Huh?
He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work
How is this a bad thing? Everyone has an idea of what the game should be. More actions (what does that even mean? higher apm requirements?) is just another way for a player to outplay the other and that's a good thing. It's part of what makes Starcraft what it is.
Defenders advantage, unit positioning and long term decisions are a core part of the game (well, ok, Protoss tries pretty fucking hard to dodge defenders advantage but I argue that keeping tabs on pylons and shutting them down is part of a defenders duty vs them! It's possible to get your defences in order against a protoss that has to move across the map and get a pylon down as long as you notice it early) and frequently games are dependent on that sort of thing. But so is good build orders and mindgames, a bit of risk taking, a bit of scouting, a bit of timing sense, good decisions and good macro.
Also, Strategy is just a term that means "overall plan on how to win the game". 6pool is a strategy.
Balance is in a pretty good spot in HotS so far, most people at IEM SH (as far as I know) were telling him this. Why should he resign?
I'm not talking about balance. Game is in a bad state, and the direction it is going (DK's view) is not very promising. Look, players are retiring, viewership is low and prize pool is decreasing. These are raw numbers and you can't argue with that. Its all due to low entertainment value of the game, which is exactly developers' fault.
Prize pool is increasing (overall wcs adds more than it takes away), viewership has grown since hots release, and players will always retire in any sport ever.
Viewership reached rock bottom a little after HotS Beta launch. That's when Destiny's "Starcraft is dying" thread got popular.
When HotS launched, viewership got the biggest in a lot of time. Two months latter, it's back to the pre-Beta status. Oscilating a little, but it's currently better than in the "Starcraft is dying" days and worse than just after HotS launch.
LoL and Dota2 are growing aggressively. SC2 only needs to keep the numbers stable. No need to grow right now: LoL is bringing new people into e-sports, and some of these people will eventually find their way into SC2 and stay because of the depth. It's Dota2 and futurely, Planetary Anihilation that SC2 should worry about.
On topic, this last interview was great, actually. OP, keep giving us content for the casual Starcraft players!
I have always admired these balance designers. In my opinion, as long as there is differences, it can't be balanced. We just need to make sure that the imbalance of the game does not overcome the skill gap between the players. My best wish to blizzard employee, hope you guys keep up the good work.
Its funny its just about 2012 -11 2012-12 where every final became zvz and I think ppl ( Ehermm!!! ME) Got fed up with it and just stopped playing and watching it alltogether LOL
1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused.
Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game?
I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job.
Nerf Terran because the best player in the world plays it!
Just what I expected out of the TL peanut gallery.
On August 05 2013 23:09 Grimmac wrote: David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker.
that makes me so frustrated ... BW had Siege tanks, what about that ?
give us lurker back, goddamnit :/
We got the lurker in campaign, and they really were useless.
1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused.
Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game?
I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job.
Nerf Terran because the best player in the world plays it!
Just what I expected out of the TL peanut gallery.
TL peanut gallery? Can you please attempt to read and understand what someone is trying to convey rather than putting words into peoples' mouths? I will clarify my post once.
Terran is not under-performing and DK saying Terran is "not strong atm" is ridiculous. Many genuinely good Terrans are doing really well. I cited Innovation as an example but there are others, such as Taeja, Bomber, Supernova, etc. You get the point. In Korea, the region where the players play a good notch above everyone else, Terran is doing just fine. I never said Terran should be nerfed in that post. I implied that they weren't weak. There's a difference.
1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused.
Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game?
I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job.
Nerf Terran because the best player in the world plays it!
Just what I expected out of the TL peanut gallery.
The whole "Terran players are just better" thing has been going ever since 2011 so excuse me if i am tired of that excuse.
1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused.
Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game?
I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job.
Nerf Terran because the best player in the world plays it!
Just what I expected out of the TL peanut gallery.
The whole "Terran players are just better" thing has been going ever since 2011 so excuse me if i am tired of that excuse.
On August 05 2013 23:09 Grimmac wrote: David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker.
that makes me so frustrated ... BW had Siege tanks, what about that ?
give us lurker back, goddamnit :/
We got the lurker in campaign, and they really were useless.
They would be amazing in the early game when Zerg is so trash because they have no ranged units. Instead of buffing the Queen a million times Zerg should have just gotten lurkers to defend against bullshit rushes.
On August 05 2013 23:09 Grimmac wrote: David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker.
that makes me so frustrated ... BW had Siege tanks, what about that ?
give us lurker back, goddamnit :/
We got the lurker in campaign, and they really were useless.
They would be amazing in the early game when Zerg is so trash because they have no ranged units. Instead of buffing the Queen a million times Zerg should have just gotten lurkers to defend against bullshit rushes
Ofcourse they were bad in campaign, every unit was different than in multiplayer statwise
1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end.
Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused.
Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game?
I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job.
Nerf Terran because the best player in the world plays it!
Just what I expected out of the TL peanut gallery.
TL peanut gallery? Can you please attempt to read and understand what someone is trying to convey rather than putting words into peoples' mouths? I will clarify my post once.
Terran is not under-performing and DK saying Terran is "not strong atm" is ridiculous. Many genuinely good Terrans are doing really well. I cited Innovation as an example but there are others, such as Taeja, Bomber, Supernova, etc. You get the point. In Korea, the region where the players play a good notch above everyone else, Terran is doing just fine. I never said Terran should be nerfed in that post. I implied that they weren't weak. There's a difference.
look at the GM statistics for every region and realize that terran is indeed underperforming. hint: there's significantly less terrans in every GM league.
not saying terran is actually underpowered. i can imagine TvZ isnt going so well right now because of strong Z allins while Ts play without tanks, and the fact that terrans are still not using ravens in lategame. but TvP might actually be unbalanced due to the MSC. not sure.
He uses ladder data to support balance, and zerg winning championships as support of good balance. However, when protoss isn't winning nearly as many championships it's not because of balance, it's because protoss players aren't as good. Really David Kim?
So many tourneys loaded with protoss in the round of 32 and 16 and they drop like flys before it gets to semi's.
On August 12 2013 00:53 Reborn8u wrote: He uses ladder data to support balance, and zerg winning championships as support of good balance. However, when protoss isn't winning nearly as many championships it's not because of balance, it's because protoss players aren't as good. Really David Kim?
So many tourneys loaded with protoss in the round of 32 and 16 and they drop like flys before it gets to semi's.
it's a perfectly legitimate point. IMO protoss in WoL was the least innovative race and i say this because of the sentry. Since protoss depends so heavily on the sentry early game, it's created a higher learning curve for protoss players. I think toss could use a buff though, one buff I'd like to see implemented is the oracle starting with 1 armor (+1).
On August 05 2013 23:09 Grimmac wrote: David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker.
that makes me so frustrated ... BW had Siege tanks, what about that ?
give us lurker back, goddamnit :/
We got the lurker in campaign, and they really were useless.
Oh come on ... it wasnt the BW lurker under BW conditions, so it cant have been as good ... on purpose, because the SC2 devs have to prove their superiority.
The "SC2 Lurker" deals 15 + 15 vs armored damage and this makes it shitty against every non-armored target especially with the cooldown of over 3 seconds. So it basically has the same problem as the Siege Tank.
The BW Lurker shoots roughly once every 1.8 seconds or so (cooldown 37 frames ... and the number of frames depend on game speed) and deals flat 20 splash damage against everything.
You also have to take into account that there are a lot more units in an SC2 game compared to BW due to the higher economy and production speed boosts and thus the units need to be BETTER at dealing damage and NOT WORSE to have equal performance.
On August 12 2013 00:53 Reborn8u wrote: He uses ladder data to support balance, and zerg winning championships as support of good balance. However, when protoss isn't winning nearly as many championships it's not because of balance, it's because protoss players aren't as good. Really David Kim?
So many tourneys loaded with protoss in the round of 32 and 16 and they drop like flys before it gets to semi's.
it's a perfectly legitimate point. IMO protoss in WoL was the least innovative race and i say this because of the sentry. Since protoss depends so heavily on the sentry early game, it's created a higher learning curve for protoss players. I think toss could use a buff though, one buff I'd like to see implemented is the oracle starting with 1 armor (+1).
Not necessarily a higher learning curve, let's just save it severely limited what viable openings a Protoss could use. Sentries are so powerful that if Gateway units were any good without them, Protoss would be broken early game. The same could actually be said for warp-gates really.
In the later stages of the game, Protoss are really too death-ball reliant, though Zealot drops and Dark Templars have become apparently valid forms of harassment.
On August 11 2013 22:53 Karpfen wrote: i would really give +damage vs light to mutas
= more pain for toss because their workers would die even faster. you have to remember that toss struggles vs mass muta and buffing it vs terran means that they will destroy toss.
Yeah dota 2 is really growing right now, and what is great is that the steam client itself is a free real time streaming tool with its observer mode oh so good you would throw sc2 away like diablo 3. I really wish blizz does something about this.
It is more exciting to see Sc2 improve its 2v2, 3v3, 4v4. Hell, they can just add the campain units in 3v3 and 4v4 and it would still be great for casual players to stay. The 1v1 ladder anxiety syndrome is really taking it's toll.
On August 12 2013 23:19 woreyour wrote: Yeah dota 2 is really growing right now, and what is great is that the steam client itself is a free real time streaming tool with its observer mode oh so good you would throw sc2 away like diablo 3. I really wish blizz does something about this.
It is more exciting to see Sc2 improve its 2v2, 3v3, 4v4. Hell, they can just add the campain units in 3v3 and 4v4 and it would still be great for casual players to stay. The 1v1 ladder anxiety syndrome is really taking it's toll.
It wouldn't even be hard to create a custom map that does 4v4 with campaign units, or even an option to pick what units you add to your tech tree at the start of the game. Problem is that Protoss doesn't have any campaign units.
On August 12 2013 00:53 Reborn8u wrote: He uses ladder data to support balance, and zerg winning championships as support of good balance. However, when protoss isn't winning nearly as many championships it's not because of balance, it's because protoss players aren't as good. Really David Kim?
So many tourneys loaded with protoss in the round of 32 and 16 and they drop like flys before it gets to semi's.
it's a perfectly legitimate point. IMO protoss in WoL was the least innovative race and i say this because of the sentry. Since protoss depends so heavily on the sentry early game, it's created a higher learning curve for protoss players. I think toss could use a buff though, one buff I'd like to see implemented is the oracle starting with 1 armor (+1).
Not necessarily a higher learning curve, let's just save it severely limited what viable openings a Protoss could use. Sentries are so powerful that if Gateway units were any good without them, Protoss would be broken early game. The same could actually be said for warp-gates really.
In the later stages of the game, Protoss are really too death-ball reliant, though Zealot drops and Dark Templars have become apparently valid forms of harassment.
yes protoss would be broken which is why i said toss depends heavily on sentrys early game. I attest that because protoss is so reliant on sentries at the beginning of the game, it has actually slowed down protoss innovation in the end game, especially since many pro protoss players were consumed with immortal sentry all ins for quite some time.
On August 12 2013 23:19 woreyour wrote: Yeah dota 2 is really growing right now, and what is great is that the steam client itself is a free real time streaming tool with its observer mode oh so good you would throw sc2 away like diablo 3. I really wish blizz does something about this.
It is more exciting to see Sc2 improve its 2v2, 3v3, 4v4. Hell, they can just add the campain units in 3v3 and 4v4 and it would still be great for casual players to stay. The 1v1 ladder anxiety syndrome is really taking it's toll.
I have to agree. The game needs to be more appealing to casual players in general and campaign units in team games seems like a pretty good way to do that.
On August 12 2013 23:19 woreyour wrote: Yeah dota 2 is really growing right now, and what is great is that the steam client itself is a free real time streaming tool with its observer mode oh so good you would throw sc2 away like diablo 3. I really wish blizz does something about this.
It is more exciting to see Sc2 improve its 2v2, 3v3, 4v4. Hell, they can just add the campain units in 3v3 and 4v4 and it would still be great for casual players to stay. The 1v1 ladder anxiety syndrome is really taking it's toll.
It wouldn't even be hard to create a custom map that does 4v4 with campaign units, or even an option to pick what units you add to your tech tree at the start of the game. Problem is that Protoss doesn't have any campaign units.
fair point. the lack of toss campaign units actually makes it a bad idea -_-
On August 14 2013 12:42 larse wrote: Looks like PlayXP translates all these articles into Korean. I am glad that the article helps out Korean readers to know more about David Kim.
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote: David Kim is an idiot.
David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed.
We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR.
Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near.
And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again.
David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games.
Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit.
Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
First and Rain are both relatively new to the top end scene (of SC2), and First still appears to have nerve issues. A lot of the Kespa protoss look great, which is why they are so strong in pro league. eSF protoss generally seem weak for some reason. You seem heavily biased in favor of protoss buffs.
I am very biased in favor of protoss buffs. I have been saying Protoss need to be redesign or needs a major buff since WOL days. Overall results doesn't favor Protoss. Doesn't mean a protoss winning in foreigner tournament means protoss is fine.
We have to look at major KR scene where the real top players came from and our local results. And this whining shit has gotten banned for a few times tho.
Yes, something needs to change. Protoss needs wins in Korea to be proven good. We haven't seen this. And the Kespa Protoss, the 6 dragons, are missing... Stork, Bisu, Best, Kal, Free. I only see JangBi once in a while.
Why is it that Flash, Fantasy, Innovation, Jaedong, and the like are doing just fine? Even Boxer did well before he went full coach. Could it be Protoss is the worst race, and unplayable by anybody who played Protoss in BW? Yes. It is the gimmick race. It is! MC was called SuicideToss in BW for a reason. And everybody will remember InCa for his embarrassing finals with Nestea. TL makes fun of him even in retirement.
Protoss can only win with gimmicks. It doesn't have to be this way. Blizzard needs to step up their design. Protoss needs agility and damage output. Protoss doesn't get harassment until the time Zerg and Terran can throw away workers in the form of spines and replacing them with MULES. Protoss has one unit that is slightly microable, and that is the stalker. THE WORST dps unit for cost in the game. Everything else is sluggish, unforgiving, high gas and high energy requirements. While Terran has unit control options in spades and econ flexibility to forgive the most atrocious errors. Terran can beat armies of banelings with marine splits, escape sure death with medevac boost, and heal an entire army back from red to win a game. Terran is so not based on econ the way P and Z are, they can scan 24 times in a game to kill 75 gas observers and never once consider making a raven. While Zerg just has larva inject to fall back on if they can make it to late game, and creep and floating supply to see the whole map.
Protoss is like a blind bull. Protoss listens from a distance with no vision, makes a best guess, then charges in hoping for the best.
Does Protoss need some love? You are damn fucking right they do.