|
On September 03 2013 13:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 13:00 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 12:55 Xiphos wrote:On September 03 2013 12:47 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 12:38 Pursuit_ wrote:On September 03 2013 11:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 11:49 Dfgj wrote:On September 03 2013 07:57 painkilla wrote:On September 03 2013 07:47 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On September 03 2013 07:45 painkilla wrote:
[quote]
Wonder if you wonder the same about people saying how bad SC2 is because of unit clumping and unlimited selection? No? Do you actually understand any of the things you're saying or are you just regurgitating recycled pieces of previous BW vs SC2 arguments? Recycling what ? I said BW interface compared to SC2 was backward and part of playing with BW is fighting against that interface. If I want to amove my 61 dragoons I have to make 6 selections and then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a instead of just double clicking and a click in SC2 and I think that the latter is better. It is progress. Unlike people like you who keep repeating unit clumping and unlimited selection make SC2 an inferior game to BW. iirc I read that the 12-unit limit was intentional to prevent people massing blobs of units. Given how SC2 plays, it might well be a solid point. I have already demonstrated that a 12 unit selection limit would not make units not blob. Also, please cite your sources. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=286075There was another blog in which a designer for Brood War (pretty sure it was Rob Pardo?) explicit states that limited unit selection was an intentional design feature in Brood War, but I'm having trouble finding it. The thread was a link to a blog iirc. Also curious how you demonstrated limited unit selection would not make units not blob? I know the blob effect has a lot to do with the game engine, but I find it hard to believe that say Terran would keep bio in a blob vs Protoss with limited unit selection, kiting zealots would be a nightmare. Even if it was possible to keep units in a blob, I feel like it would rarely be ideal... Having it being a design feature and it stopping the blob effect are different things entirely. How I demonstrated that units would still blob with only 12 selected: On September 03 2013 09:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 08:58 forumtext wrote:On September 03 2013 08:50 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 08:37 forumtext wrote:On September 03 2013 07:57 painkilla wrote:On September 03 2013 07:47 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
[quote]
No?
Do you actually understand any of the things you're saying or are you just regurgitating recycled pieces of previous BW vs SC2 arguments? Recycling what ? I said BW interface compared to SC2 was backward and part of playing with BW is fighting against that interface. If I want to amove my 61 dragoons I have to make 6 selections and then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a instead of just double clicking and a click in SC2 and I think that the latter is better. It is progress. Unlike people like you who keep repeating unit clumping and unlimited selection make SC2 an inferior game to BW. 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a in BW give you marching army in a line, 1a x 61 stalkers give you a ball. It only gave an army in a line because of pathing. What do we get if we select 6 x 12 in army in SC2 then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a, still ball? Also try this: Using 6 x 12 army in sc2, can we make a ball? is it worth the wait(for them to form a ball)? If we can't make a deathball in the first place, then deathball problem solved? Yes, they still ball. EDIT: You could engage in BW without them going by a line as long as they werent going down a ramp too btw. They wouldnt ball up like in SC2, but you would have a pretty good cluster. Positioning and setting up your concave before you engaged went a long ways. It helps in SC2 too (and is done from time to time) but it acts differently. EDIT2 Video proof that 1a-5a (60 stalkers) balls + Show Spoiler + I am not challenging the idea that limiting unit selection doesnt make things more difficult to do (like kiting, as you say) but that the blob still happens regardless. Okay, so we've established that it is not the fault of unlimited unit selection but rather the fault of the SC2 engine that renders the "blob effects". I think its time to re-introduce this idea: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=224272 If a remember, units still bunch up because players click really fast and often. The units only spread out if you tell the army to move a long distance. So it looks nice in a video, but might not work in the hands of a professional player.
I'm just saying this was a concept that never got off the ground because the project eventually died out. What you see there was just the beginning of the research possible. I'm sure they could've eventually addressed it for faster shorter movements since they were able to figure it out for longer paths already.
As for SC2:BW, that's still by far one of my favorite custom maps and personally (beware my bias is strong in this) I thought this is what SC2 should've been from the very beginning. Start where BW left off and build upon it even more through the expansions.
|
On September 03 2013 13:15 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 11:55 Schism wrote:
it's not just a match-up problem. With the wave of MOBA games, came the chance for any gamer to become elite. LoL, Dota/2 are simple games, easy to master mechanically. There is no pressure as it is not 1v1. The only thing that you need to become elite is elite team play and communication. Of course people will be drawn to this - they go from being a zero in SC2 to someone with hope of becoming an elite player in another game. Then they start watching streams. Then their friends move to the game. It is a snowballing effect.
SC2 is a victim of (don't get mad, i love SC2 and this site):
a) it's difficulty and learning curve;
b) severe elitism, from pros, high ladder players and (sometimes, not always) sites/forum like this (witness the whinging from some when the WCS replay pack released)
c) Blizzard not listening to pro's re: balance and units (MC was on the money with the broodlords/ultra remark, and imo it should be zerg who can tackle high tech compositions with masses of low tech units, not terran)
re: (B) - just look at the recent WCS finals, and the DOTA2 finals. Bomber wins, he looks like someone just told him his mother died. In DOTA 2, Alliance and the crowd go NUTS when they won. And DOTA2 has the same problems as SC2 - opening phase is boring, a bit of back and forth until someone makes a key mistake, then just treading water for another 20 minutes until the team that made the mistake dies a slow inevitable death. Yet LoL and Dota and no doubt BAS are rising rapidly.
There must be more engagement from the "top end" of SC2 with the plebs. Not only should people be HAPPY the replays were released, there should be pros and high level players on here and elsewhere going through the replays and explaining builds, teaching people why this works and how to execute that. Instead we have people worrying that some gold or diamond player might DARE to copy a pro build and elevate himself (and therefore the game and community)
Totally wrong. I play LoL/Dota 2 because I enjoy those games. SC2 just sucks. Before SC2, me and my friends used to play lots of bw until 2010. Eventhough bw was old and outdated, we still enjoyed it. You can find as many excuses as you can, but SC2 is a bad game. If you read why pros retire, its because they don't have fun with sc2 like they used to with bw.
Conformation bias is the best way to turn your opinion into fact. Just find some friends that agree with you and you will no longer be burdened by phrases like "In my opinion" and "I feel". Just find some people on the Internet who agree and your opinion can be fact today!
Jus cause you don't like it doesn't make your feelings fact.
|
On September 03 2013 13:20 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 13:10 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2013 13:00 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 12:55 Xiphos wrote:On September 03 2013 12:47 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 12:38 Pursuit_ wrote:On September 03 2013 11:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 11:49 Dfgj wrote:On September 03 2013 07:57 painkilla wrote:On September 03 2013 07:47 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
[quote]
No?
Do you actually understand any of the things you're saying or are you just regurgitating recycled pieces of previous BW vs SC2 arguments? Recycling what ? I said BW interface compared to SC2 was backward and part of playing with BW is fighting against that interface. If I want to amove my 61 dragoons I have to make 6 selections and then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a instead of just double clicking and a click in SC2 and I think that the latter is better. It is progress. Unlike people like you who keep repeating unit clumping and unlimited selection make SC2 an inferior game to BW. iirc I read that the 12-unit limit was intentional to prevent people massing blobs of units. Given how SC2 plays, it might well be a solid point. I have already demonstrated that a 12 unit selection limit would not make units not blob. Also, please cite your sources. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=286075There was another blog in which a designer for Brood War (pretty sure it was Rob Pardo?) explicit states that limited unit selection was an intentional design feature in Brood War, but I'm having trouble finding it. The thread was a link to a blog iirc. Also curious how you demonstrated limited unit selection would not make units not blob? I know the blob effect has a lot to do with the game engine, but I find it hard to believe that say Terran would keep bio in a blob vs Protoss with limited unit selection, kiting zealots would be a nightmare. Even if it was possible to keep units in a blob, I feel like it would rarely be ideal... Having it being a design feature and it stopping the blob effect are different things entirely. How I demonstrated that units would still blob with only 12 selected: On September 03 2013 09:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 08:58 forumtext wrote:On September 03 2013 08:50 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 08:37 forumtext wrote:On September 03 2013 07:57 painkilla wrote:
[quote]
Recycling what ? I said BW interface compared to SC2 was backward and part of playing with BW is fighting against that interface. If I want to amove my 61 dragoons I have to make 6 selections and then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a instead of just double clicking and a click in SC2 and I think that the latter is better. It is progress. Unlike people like you who keep repeating unit clumping and unlimited selection make SC2 an inferior game to BW. 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a in BW give you marching army in a line, 1a x 61 stalkers give you a ball. It only gave an army in a line because of pathing. What do we get if we select 6 x 12 in army in SC2 then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a, still ball? Also try this: Using 6 x 12 army in sc2, can we make a ball? is it worth the wait(for them to form a ball)? If we can't make a deathball in the first place, then deathball problem solved? Yes, they still ball. EDIT: You could engage in BW without them going by a line as long as they werent going down a ramp too btw. They wouldnt ball up like in SC2, but you would have a pretty good cluster. Positioning and setting up your concave before you engaged went a long ways. It helps in SC2 too (and is done from time to time) but it acts differently. EDIT2 Video proof that 1a-5a (60 stalkers) balls + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAeSZ5RNk9A&feature=youtu.be I am not challenging the idea that limiting unit selection doesnt make things more difficult to do (like kiting, as you say) but that the blob still happens regardless. Okay, so we've established that it is not the fault of unlimited unit selection but rather the fault of the SC2 engine that renders the "blob effects". I think its time to re-introduce this idea: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=224272 If a remember, units still bunch up because players click really fast and often. The units only spread out if you tell the army to move a long distance. So it looks nice in a video, but might not work in the hands of a professional player. I'm just saying this was a concept that never got off the ground because the project eventually died out. What you see there was just the beginning of the research possible. I'm sure they could've eventually addressed it for faster shorter movements since they were able to figure it out for longer paths already. As for SC2:BW, that's still by far one of my favorite custom maps and personally (beware my bias is strong in this) I thought this is what SC2 should've been from the very beginning. Start where BW left off and build upon it even more through the expansions.
Given how many complained about SC2, I was surprised it didnt take off. Even more surprised that kespa didnt switch to that instead of sc2.
|
On September 03 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 13:20 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 13:10 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2013 13:00 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 12:55 Xiphos wrote:On September 03 2013 12:47 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 12:38 Pursuit_ wrote:On September 03 2013 11:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 11:49 Dfgj wrote:On September 03 2013 07:57 painkilla wrote:
[quote]
Recycling what ? I said BW interface compared to SC2 was backward and part of playing with BW is fighting against that interface. If I want to amove my 61 dragoons I have to make 6 selections and then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a instead of just double clicking and a click in SC2 and I think that the latter is better. It is progress. Unlike people like you who keep repeating unit clumping and unlimited selection make SC2 an inferior game to BW. iirc I read that the 12-unit limit was intentional to prevent people massing blobs of units. Given how SC2 plays, it might well be a solid point. I have already demonstrated that a 12 unit selection limit would not make units not blob. Also, please cite your sources. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=286075There was another blog in which a designer for Brood War (pretty sure it was Rob Pardo?) explicit states that limited unit selection was an intentional design feature in Brood War, but I'm having trouble finding it. The thread was a link to a blog iirc. Also curious how you demonstrated limited unit selection would not make units not blob? I know the blob effect has a lot to do with the game engine, but I find it hard to believe that say Terran would keep bio in a blob vs Protoss with limited unit selection, kiting zealots would be a nightmare. Even if it was possible to keep units in a blob, I feel like it would rarely be ideal... Having it being a design feature and it stopping the blob effect are different things entirely. How I demonstrated that units would still blob with only 12 selected: On September 03 2013 09:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 08:58 forumtext wrote:On September 03 2013 08:50 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 08:37 forumtext wrote:
[quote]
1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a in BW give you marching army in a line, 1a x 61 stalkers give you a ball. It only gave an army in a line because of pathing. What do we get if we select 6 x 12 in army in SC2 then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a, still ball? Also try this: Using 6 x 12 army in sc2, can we make a ball? is it worth the wait(for them to form a ball)? If we can't make a deathball in the first place, then deathball problem solved? Yes, they still ball. EDIT: You could engage in BW without them going by a line as long as they werent going down a ramp too btw. They wouldnt ball up like in SC2, but you would have a pretty good cluster. Positioning and setting up your concave before you engaged went a long ways. It helps in SC2 too (and is done from time to time) but it acts differently. EDIT2 Video proof that 1a-5a (60 stalkers) balls + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAeSZ5RNk9A&feature=youtu.be I am not challenging the idea that limiting unit selection doesnt make things more difficult to do (like kiting, as you say) but that the blob still happens regardless. Okay, so we've established that it is not the fault of unlimited unit selection but rather the fault of the SC2 engine that renders the "blob effects". I think its time to re-introduce this idea: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=224272 If a remember, units still bunch up because players click really fast and often. The units only spread out if you tell the army to move a long distance. So it looks nice in a video, but might not work in the hands of a professional player. I'm just saying this was a concept that never got off the ground because the project eventually died out. What you see there was just the beginning of the research possible. I'm sure they could've eventually addressed it for faster shorter movements since they were able to figure it out for longer paths already. As for SC2:BW, that's still by far one of my favorite custom maps and personally (beware my bias is strong in this) I thought this is what SC2 should've been from the very beginning. Start where BW left off and build upon it even more through the expansions. Given how many complained about SC2, I was surprised it didnt take off. Even more surprised that kespa didnt switch to that instead of sc2.
Isn't it still one of the most-played custom maps? Also wtf at Blizzard including things like Lurker models and then going "LOLNOTUSINGTHEM".
|
On September 03 2013 13:31 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 13:20 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 13:10 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2013 13:00 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 12:55 Xiphos wrote:On September 03 2013 12:47 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 12:38 Pursuit_ wrote:On September 03 2013 11:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 11:49 Dfgj wrote:
[quote]
iirc I read that the 12-unit limit was intentional to prevent people massing blobs of units.
Given how SC2 plays, it might well be a solid point. I have already demonstrated that a 12 unit selection limit would not make units not blob. Also, please cite your sources. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=286075There was another blog in which a designer for Brood War (pretty sure it was Rob Pardo?) explicit states that limited unit selection was an intentional design feature in Brood War, but I'm having trouble finding it. The thread was a link to a blog iirc. Also curious how you demonstrated limited unit selection would not make units not blob? I know the blob effect has a lot to do with the game engine, but I find it hard to believe that say Terran would keep bio in a blob vs Protoss with limited unit selection, kiting zealots would be a nightmare. Even if it was possible to keep units in a blob, I feel like it would rarely be ideal... Having it being a design feature and it stopping the blob effect are different things entirely. How I demonstrated that units would still blob with only 12 selected: On September 03 2013 09:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 08:58 forumtext wrote:On September 03 2013 08:50 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
It only gave an army in a line because of pathing. What do we get if we select 6 x 12 in army in SC2 then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a, still ball? Also try this: Using 6 x 12 army in sc2, can we make a ball? is it worth the wait(for them to form a ball)? If we can't make a deathball in the first place, then deathball problem solved? Yes, they still ball. EDIT: You could engage in BW without them going by a line as long as they werent going down a ramp too btw. They wouldnt ball up like in SC2, but you would have a pretty good cluster. Positioning and setting up your concave before you engaged went a long ways. It helps in SC2 too (and is done from time to time) but it acts differently. EDIT2 Video proof that 1a-5a (60 stalkers) balls + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAeSZ5RNk9A&feature=youtu.be I am not challenging the idea that limiting unit selection doesnt make things more difficult to do (like kiting, as you say) but that the blob still happens regardless. Okay, so we've established that it is not the fault of unlimited unit selection but rather the fault of the SC2 engine that renders the "blob effects". I think its time to re-introduce this idea: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=224272 If a remember, units still bunch up because players click really fast and often. The units only spread out if you tell the army to move a long distance. So it looks nice in a video, but might not work in the hands of a professional player. I'm just saying this was a concept that never got off the ground because the project eventually died out. What you see there was just the beginning of the research possible. I'm sure they could've eventually addressed it for faster shorter movements since they were able to figure it out for longer paths already. As for SC2:BW, that's still by far one of my favorite custom maps and personally (beware my bias is strong in this) I thought this is what SC2 should've been from the very beginning. Start where BW left off and build upon it even more through the expansions. Given how many complained about SC2, I was surprised it didnt take off. Even more surprised that kespa didnt switch to that instead of sc2. Isn't it still one of the most-played custom maps? Also wtf at Blizzard including things like Lurker models and then going "LOLNOTUSINGTHEM".
It isnt in the top 120 or so of most played in the arcade
|
On September 03 2013 13:31 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 13:20 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 13:10 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2013 13:00 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 12:55 Xiphos wrote:On September 03 2013 12:47 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 12:38 Pursuit_ wrote:On September 03 2013 11:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 11:49 Dfgj wrote:
[quote]
iirc I read that the 12-unit limit was intentional to prevent people massing blobs of units.
Given how SC2 plays, it might well be a solid point. I have already demonstrated that a 12 unit selection limit would not make units not blob. Also, please cite your sources. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=286075There was another blog in which a designer for Brood War (pretty sure it was Rob Pardo?) explicit states that limited unit selection was an intentional design feature in Brood War, but I'm having trouble finding it. The thread was a link to a blog iirc. Also curious how you demonstrated limited unit selection would not make units not blob? I know the blob effect has a lot to do with the game engine, but I find it hard to believe that say Terran would keep bio in a blob vs Protoss with limited unit selection, kiting zealots would be a nightmare. Even if it was possible to keep units in a blob, I feel like it would rarely be ideal... Having it being a design feature and it stopping the blob effect are different things entirely. How I demonstrated that units would still blob with only 12 selected: On September 03 2013 09:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 08:58 forumtext wrote:On September 03 2013 08:50 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
It only gave an army in a line because of pathing. What do we get if we select 6 x 12 in army in SC2 then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a, still ball? Also try this: Using 6 x 12 army in sc2, can we make a ball? is it worth the wait(for them to form a ball)? If we can't make a deathball in the first place, then deathball problem solved? Yes, they still ball. EDIT: You could engage in BW without them going by a line as long as they werent going down a ramp too btw. They wouldnt ball up like in SC2, but you would have a pretty good cluster. Positioning and setting up your concave before you engaged went a long ways. It helps in SC2 too (and is done from time to time) but it acts differently. EDIT2 Video proof that 1a-5a (60 stalkers) balls + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAeSZ5RNk9A&feature=youtu.be I am not challenging the idea that limiting unit selection doesnt make things more difficult to do (like kiting, as you say) but that the blob still happens regardless. Okay, so we've established that it is not the fault of unlimited unit selection but rather the fault of the SC2 engine that renders the "blob effects". I think its time to re-introduce this idea: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=224272 If a remember, units still bunch up because players click really fast and often. The units only spread out if you tell the army to move a long distance. So it looks nice in a video, but might not work in the hands of a professional player. I'm just saying this was a concept that never got off the ground because the project eventually died out. What you see there was just the beginning of the research possible. I'm sure they could've eventually addressed it for faster shorter movements since they were able to figure it out for longer paths already. As for SC2:BW, that's still by far one of my favorite custom maps and personally (beware my bias is strong in this) I thought this is what SC2 should've been from the very beginning. Start where BW left off and build upon it even more through the expansions. Given how many complained about SC2, I was surprised it didnt take off. Even more surprised that kespa didnt switch to that instead of sc2. Isn't it still one of the most-played custom maps? Also wtf at Blizzard including things like Lurker models and then going "LOLNOTUSINGTHEM".
They made the model, tried to put them in the game for WoL, and found they didn't work out especially well in the new game space. They tried again in internal testing for HotS, found they still didn't work very well. What's not to understand?
|
Wow, that was just....sublime. Lots of ideas I've had but couldn't quite put together and/or state in words. He does have more faith than I, and I hope his sentiments and hopes end up helping the scene come back some ><
|
Jus cause you don't like it doesn't make your feelings fact.
Something being good or bad is always feeling, or opinion, and never a fact, hence there's no need to explicitly state it.
Lots of people do not like SC2 hence the need for casters to hyperhype mediocre games, constantly ask to advertise them on social networks and so on. SC2 is not good enough for the proscene to grow organically. People, gamers and viewers alike, are leaving it, and it won't do much good to talk about how it being not good is "not a fact"
|
In TvZ, every so often we saw the Zerg go Roach-Hydra and it was very, very strong. However in the last few months, I don't think I've played against a Zerg who goes this unit composition anymore. Why aren't more Zergs using Roach-Hydra? It counters 4M fairly well. The only downside is that it doesn't do very well against Medivac drops, but that's where static defense and great map awareness comes in. Then once Zerg gets to Hive, they can use Blinding Cloud and can potentially force the Terran army out of position.
And for people, including MC, saying that TvZ is played only one way, isn't that the same for TvP as well? TvP has always been relatively different openings into Bio vs Protoss deathball, whether they're going for Colossi or Storms. I honestly feel TvP has changed the least in HOTS compared to WOL. In the mid game, TvP in HOTs feels the same as TvP in WOL.
|
On September 03 2013 13:53 Sejanus wrote:Something being good or bad is always feeling, or opinion, and never a fact, hence there's no need to explicitly state it. Lots of people do not like SC2 hence the need for casters to hyperhype mediocre games, constantly ask to advertise them on social networks and so on. SC2 is not good enough for the proscene to grow organically. People, gamers and viewers alike, are leaving it, and it won't do much good to talk about how it being not good is "not a fact"
The pro scene has grown almost exclusively in an organic manner. Valve and Riot do much more obvious things to promote their games as eSports, like in-game tournament streams and hosting their own million dollar tournaments. If a caster asking people to follow them on twitter is representative of artificial growth then there's no such thing in the whole world as an organic movement.
|
On September 03 2013 14:00 geokilla wrote:
In TvZ, every so often we saw the Zerg go Roach-Hydra and it was very, very strong. However in the last few months, I don't think I've played against a Zerg who goes this unit composition anymore. Why aren't more Zergs using Roach-Hydra? It counters 4M fairly well. The only downside is that it doesn't do very well against Medivac drops, but that's where static defense and great map awareness comes in. Then once Zerg gets to Hive, they can use Blinding Cloud and can potentially force the Terran army out of position.
And for people, including MC, saying that TvZ is played only one way, isn't that the same for TvP as well? TvP has always been relatively different openings into Bio vs Protoss deathball, whether they're going for Colossi or Storms. I honestly feel TvP has changed the least in HOTS compared to WOL. In the mid game, TvP in HOTs feels the same as TvP in WOL.
Roach/hydra is pretty good for early game. But drops utterly DESTROY the composition. Without 10+ mutalisks positioned to receive incoming medivacs, the drops are endless and costly for the Zerg while being essentially risk free for the Terran (hell, they're low risk when mutas are on the map, so I guess they're basically free when mutas aren't).
I have been a big proponent of Roach/hydra in ZvT. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work past the early stages.
As far as the whole "TvP is just the same" argument, the big difference is that there are a HUGE number of opening options on both sides. While the midgame and lategame can appear stale at times, the fact that the early game is so varied keeps it interesting because you never know how the midgame will look as a result, and it can be a struggle gettting to the lategame stages from there.
The major problem in TvZ by comparison is that Zerg lacks aggressive options. Attacking before lair timings is essentially pointless in ZvT as you can only hurt yourself compared to where you should be vs a Terran economy. This means anything earlier than a roach bane timing is a waste, and even roach bane timings have always been risky and seem less effective these days.
Throw in the fact that ling runbys typically do 0 damage and bane runbys are expensive enough and ineffective enough to generally be lackluster, and this leads to a situation where Zergs only good move is to expand and defend.
Blizzard needs to either give better options to Zerg in harassing the Terran economy (I don't even know how they could possibly accomplish this with Bunkers, PFs, MULEs, and the general effectiveness of rallied bio for defense anyway), or give a better means of defense. Terran being able to force Zerg to trade away his army all game long is annoying and boring to watch.
It's no surprise to me that SC2 is waning in popularity HARD right now. Shit like this is just not entertaining.
|
On September 03 2013 14:00 geokilla wrote:
In TvZ, every so often we saw the Zerg go Roach-Hydra and it was very, very strong. However in the last few months, I don't think I've played against a Zerg who goes this unit composition anymore. Why aren't more Zergs using Roach-Hydra? It counters 4M fairly well. The only downside is that it doesn't do very well against Medivac drops, but that's where static defense and great map awareness comes in. Then once Zerg gets to Hive, they can use Blinding Cloud and can potentially force the Terran army out of position.
And for people, including MC, saying that TvZ is played only one way, isn't that the same for TvP as well? TvP has always been relatively different openings into Bio vs Protoss deathball, whether they're going for Colossi or Storms. I honestly feel TvP has changed the least in HOTS compared to WOL. In the mid game, TvP in HOTs feels the same as TvP in WOL.
Main couple of reasons I won't go roach/hydra anymore after trying it a few games is it's too hard to trim down the medivac count, range attack upgrades don't lead to a good late game and tanks.
|
On September 03 2013 13:53 Sejanus wrote:Something being good or bad is always feeling, or opinion, and never a fact, hence there's no need to explicitly state it. Lots of people do not like SC2 hence the need for casters to hyperhype mediocre games, constantly ask to advertise them on social networks and so on. SC2 is not good enough for the proscene to grow organically. People, gamers and viewers alike, are leaving it, and it won't do much good to talk about how it being not good is "not a fact"
"I dislike SC2" is stated as an opinion (well, not even an opinion, but a preference). "SC2 is a bad game" is stated as a fact. Casters hyping the game and trying to grow the scene is not evidence of a bad game. They do those things because they want the scene to grow, which they would want whether the game was good or bad.
People leaving the scene is not proof of a bad game any more than it was proof of a good game when the scene was growing. Everybody just got some bad news regarding the SC2 scene, which a) does not prove the scene is dead, and b) does not prove that it is a bad game. It's pretty stupid for people to be saying "Look, bad news for the scene! See, I was right! Brood War is a better game," or "See, I was right! Force field [b]is[b] a stupid spell," or for that matter "See, I was right! The unit pathing and unlimited unit selection in SC2 are bad design decisions!" The causal relationship is unproven, making your evidence incredibly flimsy
|
On September 03 2013 14:13 alexanderzero wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 13:53 Sejanus wrote:
Jus cause you don't like it doesn't make your feelings fact.
Something being good or bad is always feeling, or opinion, and never a fact, hence there's no need to explicitly state it. Lots of people do not like SC2 hence the need for casters to hyperhype mediocre games, constantly ask to advertise them on social networks and so on. SC2 is not good enough for the proscene to grow organically. People, gamers and viewers alike, are leaving it, and it won't do much good to talk about how it being not good is "not a fact" The pro scene has grown almost exclusively in an organic manner. Valve and Riot do much more obvious things to promote their games as eSports, like in-game tournament streams and hosting their own million dollar tournaments. If a caster asking people to follow them on twitter is representative of artificial growth then there's no such thing in the whole world as an organic movement.
GomTV launching huge prize tournament right after the game's release is not an organic growth. Dreamhack, MLG, IEM, IPL all started tournaments not organically but because starcraft franchise was popular, however two of them already dropped out "organically" MLG and IPL. WCS is a great idea, same as LCS, but I doubt SC2 can pull it off. Playerbase and viewership is very low. WC3L of warcraft 3 started great, but died off due to low popularity.
|
On September 03 2013 14:19 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 13:53 Sejanus wrote:
Jus cause you don't like it doesn't make your feelings fact.
Something being good or bad is always feeling, or opinion, and never a fact, hence there's no need to explicitly state it. Lots of people do not like SC2 hence the need for casters to hyperhype mediocre games, constantly ask to advertise them on social networks and so on. SC2 is not good enough for the proscene to grow organically. People, gamers and viewers alike, are leaving it, and it won't do much good to talk about how it being not good is "not a fact" "I dislike SC2" is stated as an opinion (well, not even an opinion, but a preference). "SC2 is a bad game" is stated as a fact. Casters hyping the game and trying to grow the scene is not evidence of a bad game. They do those things because they want the scene to grow, which they would want whether the game was good or bad. People leaving the scene is not proof of a bad game any more than it was proof of a good game when the scene was growing. Everybody just got some bad news regarding the SC2 scene, which a) does not prove the scene is dead, and b) does not prove that it is a bad game. It's pretty stupid for people to be saying "Look, bad news for the scene! See, I was right! Brood War is a better game," or "See, I was right! Force field [b]is[b] a stupid spell," or for that matter "See, I was right! The unit pathing and unlimited unit selection in SC2 are bad design decisions!" The causal relationship is unproven, making your evidence incredibly flimsy
Well I know my wording was harsh. Maybe I should've said something along "SC2 is below our expectations" or "Not great as it should be" or "Is a dissapointment". Just ignore my post, its too flamy.
|
On September 03 2013 14:00 geokilla wrote:
In TvZ, every so often we saw the Zerg go Roach-Hydra and it was very, very strong. However in the last few months, I don't think I've played against a Zerg who goes this unit composition anymore. Why aren't more Zergs using Roach-Hydra? It counters 4M fairly well. The only downside is that it doesn't do very well against Medivac drops, but that's where static defense and great map awareness comes in. Then once Zerg gets to Hive, they can use Blinding Cloud and can potentially force the Terran army out of position.
And for people, including MC, saying that TvZ is played only one way, isn't that the same for TvP as well? TvP has always been relatively different openings into Bio vs Protoss deathball, whether they're going for Colossi or Storms. I honestly feel TvP has changed the least in HOTS compared to WOL. In the mid game, TvP in HOTs feels the same as TvP in WOL.
Because roach/hydra cant deal with drops very well and has no transition. Roach/hydra upgrades ranged attack... what late game unit uses ground range attack? None. So you go into the late game with 0-3 upgrades vs 4M at 3-3. People use mutalingbling not just because it kills drops and kind of handles 4M, but also because all of the upgrades go towards late game.
BL? Melee attack + air attack (same as lings/mutas)
Ultralisks? Melee attack
Infestors get no upgrades anymore
You could argue for SH, but good luck using SH against 4M.
|
On September 03 2013 14:26 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 14:19 ChristianS wrote:On September 03 2013 13:53 Sejanus wrote:
Jus cause you don't like it doesn't make your feelings fact.
Something being good or bad is always feeling, or opinion, and never a fact, hence there's no need to explicitly state it. Lots of people do not like SC2 hence the need for casters to hyperhype mediocre games, constantly ask to advertise them on social networks and so on. SC2 is not good enough for the proscene to grow organically. People, gamers and viewers alike, are leaving it, and it won't do much good to talk about how it being not good is "not a fact" "I dislike SC2" is stated as an opinion (well, not even an opinion, but a preference). "SC2 is a bad game" is stated as a fact. Casters hyping the game and trying to grow the scene is not evidence of a bad game. They do those things because they want the scene to grow, which they would want whether the game was good or bad. People leaving the scene is not proof of a bad game any more than it was proof of a good game when the scene was growing. Everybody just got some bad news regarding the SC2 scene, which a) does not prove the scene is dead, and b) does not prove that it is a bad game. It's pretty stupid for people to be saying "Look, bad news for the scene! See, I was right! Brood War is a better game," or "See, I was right! Force field [b]is[b] a stupid spell," or for that matter "See, I was right! The unit pathing and unlimited unit selection in SC2 are bad design decisions!" The causal relationship is unproven, making your evidence incredibly flimsy Well I know my wording was harsh. Maybe I should've said something along "SC2 is below our expectations" or "Not great as it should be" or "Is a dissapointment". Just ignore my post, its too flamy.
Well good for you on cooling down the tone. But my point is that if you say "I don't like SC2 as much as I expected," you're perfectly correct. But if you say "SC2 did not live up to the community's expectations," now you're trying to speak for a lot of people who may or may not agree. "SC2 is below our expectations" hasn't really been sufficiently justified unless you clarify that the antecedent of "our" is limited to yourself and any other people that think SC2 was lackluster in design, because you're not really speaking for everyone with that statement.
For instance, I liked BW well enough, but I like SC2 a hell of a lot more. And there's plenty of people like me that agree.
|
On September 03 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 13:20 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 13:10 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2013 13:00 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 12:55 Xiphos wrote:On September 03 2013 12:47 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 12:38 Pursuit_ wrote:On September 03 2013 11:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 11:49 Dfgj wrote:On September 03 2013 07:57 painkilla wrote:
[quote]
Recycling what ? I said BW interface compared to SC2 was backward and part of playing with BW is fighting against that interface. If I want to amove my 61 dragoons I have to make 6 selections and then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a instead of just double clicking and a click in SC2 and I think that the latter is better. It is progress. Unlike people like you who keep repeating unit clumping and unlimited selection make SC2 an inferior game to BW. iirc I read that the 12-unit limit was intentional to prevent people massing blobs of units. Given how SC2 plays, it might well be a solid point. I have already demonstrated that a 12 unit selection limit would not make units not blob. Also, please cite your sources. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=286075There was another blog in which a designer for Brood War (pretty sure it was Rob Pardo?) explicit states that limited unit selection was an intentional design feature in Brood War, but I'm having trouble finding it. The thread was a link to a blog iirc. Also curious how you demonstrated limited unit selection would not make units not blob? I know the blob effect has a lot to do with the game engine, but I find it hard to believe that say Terran would keep bio in a blob vs Protoss with limited unit selection, kiting zealots would be a nightmare. Even if it was possible to keep units in a blob, I feel like it would rarely be ideal... Having it being a design feature and it stopping the blob effect are different things entirely. How I demonstrated that units would still blob with only 12 selected: On September 03 2013 09:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 08:58 forumtext wrote:On September 03 2013 08:50 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 08:37 forumtext wrote:
[quote]
1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a in BW give you marching army in a line, 1a x 61 stalkers give you a ball. It only gave an army in a line because of pathing. What do we get if we select 6 x 12 in army in SC2 then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a, still ball? Also try this: Using 6 x 12 army in sc2, can we make a ball? is it worth the wait(for them to form a ball)? If we can't make a deathball in the first place, then deathball problem solved? Yes, they still ball. EDIT: You could engage in BW without them going by a line as long as they werent going down a ramp too btw. They wouldnt ball up like in SC2, but you would have a pretty good cluster. Positioning and setting up your concave before you engaged went a long ways. It helps in SC2 too (and is done from time to time) but it acts differently. EDIT2 Video proof that 1a-5a (60 stalkers) balls + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAeSZ5RNk9A&feature=youtu.be I am not challenging the idea that limiting unit selection doesnt make things more difficult to do (like kiting, as you say) but that the blob still happens regardless. Okay, so we've established that it is not the fault of unlimited unit selection but rather the fault of the SC2 engine that renders the "blob effects". I think its time to re-introduce this idea: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=224272 If a remember, units still bunch up because players click really fast and often. The units only spread out if you tell the army to move a long distance. So it looks nice in a video, but might not work in the hands of a professional player. I'm just saying this was a concept that never got off the ground because the project eventually died out. What you see there was just the beginning of the research possible. I'm sure they could've eventually addressed it for faster shorter movements since they were able to figure it out for longer paths already. As for SC2:BW, that's still by far one of my favorite custom maps and personally (beware my bias is strong in this) I thought this is what SC2 should've been from the very beginning. Start where BW left off and build upon it even more through the expansions. Given how many complained about SC2, I was surprised it didnt take off. Even more surprised that kespa didnt switch to that instead of sc2.
The problem is that it is only a mod ...
BW only works with ALL the "limitations" like limited unit selection and the funky movement which kept the units spread out. Most BW mods dont have that last part and for some limited unit selection is optional. People simply dont understand that the "lid" which limited unit selection and the funky unit movement put on unit density is important to game balance and how the game plays out.
The most exciting and awesome battles in SC2 for me are 2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings ... and if one player wins with both of his Zerglings alive it shows real skill. Moving a clump of Zerglings/Banelings into a bunch of Marines isnt as exciting for me ... even though there are the graphical "fireworks" of "wooohooo green blobs".
|
On September 03 2013 14:00 geokilla wrote:
In TvZ, every so often we saw the Zerg go Roach-Hydra and it was very, very strong. However in the last few months, I don't think I've played against a Zerg who goes this unit composition anymore. Why aren't more Zergs using Roach-Hydra? It counters 4M fairly well. The only downside is that it doesn't do very well against Medivac drops, but that's where static defense and great map awareness comes in. Then once Zerg gets to Hive, they can use Blinding Cloud and can potentially force the Terran army out of position.
And for people, including MC, saying that TvZ is played only one way, isn't that the same for TvP as well? TvP has always been relatively different openings into Bio vs Protoss deathball, whether they're going for Colossi or Storms. I honestly feel TvP has changed the least in HOTS compared to WOL. In the mid game, TvP in HOTs feels the same as TvP in WOL.
Can't understand why I keep seeing this. Roach/hydra is awful if it's not against mech. At the dawn of HotS, it wasn't even every so often we'd see it, but fairly frequently...and nearly every pro game I saw with it the Zerg would lose. I had a little more success in my own games with it but my opponents obviously aren't pro-level. Still, even when I'd win with it, I would feel like I shouldn't have.
Probably one of the best examples was an old SPL game between Effort and Fantasy on Whirlwind. I was shocked Effort even went for it on that map, and against Fantasy of all people. Still, Effort managed to get into a good position and even, like you suggested put up copious amounts of static defense to compensate for the army immobility. Surprisingly, for most of the game he wasn't getting torn apart by drops. Now, granted he did make SHs which didn't help much, Fantasy also assisted Effort by taking an eternity to build siege tanks (which own this comp). Effort even got up to infestors, and guess what? He still lost.
You can judge for yourself here in the VOD
+ Show Spoiler +
Immobility against drops is the most glaring weakness of that comp but there really are several others:
- It doesn't retreat well unless on creep. If you lose an encounter stimmed bio is likely to pick off a lot of strays.
- If the terran is mindful of his medivacs, you won't be getting them with hydras alone. You need infestors, and by that time he'll have a medivac cloud.
- Bio is more cost-efficient against it in general.
- You're focusing on range upgrades which transition poorly into the hive units.
- It's difficult to harass the terran effectively. Usually you need to keep your units together unlike with ling comps.
Overall, I think it's strengths are that it can be really strong in the early stages but it rapidly declines as the game goes on. Plus it's quite straightforward to play.
|
On September 03 2013 14:37 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 13:20 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 13:10 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2013 13:00 sCCrooked wrote:On September 03 2013 12:55 Xiphos wrote:On September 03 2013 12:47 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 12:38 Pursuit_ wrote:On September 03 2013 11:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 11:49 Dfgj wrote:
[quote]
iirc I read that the 12-unit limit was intentional to prevent people massing blobs of units.
Given how SC2 plays, it might well be a solid point. I have already demonstrated that a 12 unit selection limit would not make units not blob. Also, please cite your sources. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=286075There was another blog in which a designer for Brood War (pretty sure it was Rob Pardo?) explicit states that limited unit selection was an intentional design feature in Brood War, but I'm having trouble finding it. The thread was a link to a blog iirc. Also curious how you demonstrated limited unit selection would not make units not blob? I know the blob effect has a lot to do with the game engine, but I find it hard to believe that say Terran would keep bio in a blob vs Protoss with limited unit selection, kiting zealots would be a nightmare. Even if it was possible to keep units in a blob, I feel like it would rarely be ideal... Having it being a design feature and it stopping the blob effect are different things entirely. How I demonstrated that units would still blob with only 12 selected: On September 03 2013 09:06 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 03 2013 08:58 forumtext wrote:On September 03 2013 08:50 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
It only gave an army in a line because of pathing. What do we get if we select 6 x 12 in army in SC2 then 1a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a, still ball? Also try this: Using 6 x 12 army in sc2, can we make a ball? is it worth the wait(for them to form a ball)? If we can't make a deathball in the first place, then deathball problem solved? Yes, they still ball. EDIT: You could engage in BW without them going by a line as long as they werent going down a ramp too btw. They wouldnt ball up like in SC2, but you would have a pretty good cluster. Positioning and setting up your concave before you engaged went a long ways. It helps in SC2 too (and is done from time to time) but it acts differently. EDIT2 Video proof that 1a-5a (60 stalkers) balls + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAeSZ5RNk9A&feature=youtu.be I am not challenging the idea that limiting unit selection doesnt make things more difficult to do (like kiting, as you say) but that the blob still happens regardless. Okay, so we've established that it is not the fault of unlimited unit selection but rather the fault of the SC2 engine that renders the "blob effects". I think its time to re-introduce this idea: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=224272 If a remember, units still bunch up because players click really fast and often. The units only spread out if you tell the army to move a long distance. So it looks nice in a video, but might not work in the hands of a professional player. I'm just saying this was a concept that never got off the ground because the project eventually died out. What you see there was just the beginning of the research possible. I'm sure they could've eventually addressed it for faster shorter movements since they were able to figure it out for longer paths already. As for SC2:BW, that's still by far one of my favorite custom maps and personally (beware my bias is strong in this) I thought this is what SC2 should've been from the very beginning. Start where BW left off and build upon it even more through the expansions. Given how many complained about SC2, I was surprised it didnt take off. Even more surprised that kespa didnt switch to that instead of sc2. The problem is that it is only a mod ... BW only works with ALL the "limitations" like limited unit selection and the funky movement which kept the units spread out. Most BW mods dont have that last part and for some limited unit selection is optional. People simply dont understand that the "lid" which limited unit selection and the funky unit movement put on unit density is important to game balance and how the game plays out. The most exciting and awesome battles in SC2 for me are 2 slow Zerglings vs 2 other slow Zerglings ... and if one player wins with both of his Zerglings alive it shows real skill. Moving a clump of Zerglings/Banelings into a bunch of Marines isnt as exciting for me ... even though there are the graphical "fireworks" of "wooohooo green blobs".
You sure that SC2:BW didnt have funky movement?
In regards to your comment about "the problem is that it is only a mod", have you SEEN what people modded? SC:Universe (think that is what it is called)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
