SC2 is too easy to be "good" at. Blizzard "fixed" all the bugs and flaws with BW, and with it, got rid of all the intrinsic details that made people go "Wow." For instance, when we asked for a unit that could "shoot and move at the same time,"Blizzard took that too literally and made the phoenix and the collosi. What we really meant was "We would like a unit that could shoot and move at the same time if you used the attack and move command in certain way."
Or when we asked for more micro intensive battles with large armies, they just gave us more spells to smartcast. What we really meant was "If you could get to a location first and set up a good position, you would have a better chance of winning the fight because the if the other side just A-moved to your army, half of their army would not be able to attack you before you attacked them." Instead, we have smart zerglings that will auto-surround you like a swarm of bees.
I don't mind these fixes, but by taking away the strategy and tactics from the game, all we're left with is a speed contest that is boring to watch and boring to play. In real sports, people can appreciate skill and speed because no one else can do what kobe or lebron do. Comparatively, it's easy to 1a, fungal, and watch your army run over someone else. Any e-sport needs to have some combination of strategy and tactics that is difficult to emulate.
Sorry for the BW/SC2 reference, but this is just the simplest way to put it.
On October 14 2013 15:46 ETisME wrote: hmmmm I am not sure if the bw split is more impressive. JD timed that split perfectly well as he saw the infestors coming. A lot like how dragon dodge storm just as the HTs are closing in and predicting where the storm/fungal will land, you have to calculate the range of the fungal etc.
I mean I dun really find that video to be that fast, there are engagements that he can just look away like cleaning up mines etc I dont know, maybe it's just me, engagements are slower. there are clumpes of units just lying around after they are built etc
building the units from a lineup building is supposed to be hard? maybe, but I have seen Terran sniping banelings which is a moving target while kiting back though.
I can't quite remember what I was arguing for lol but changing control groups etc sound cool, just that it isn't really anything a spectator would know from a non-fpv video
he splits in more directions at once and he won the game because of that split since he saved 2-3 mutas then rallied with his other air units. Jaedong could've gotten those mutas fungals, he was far ahead if I remember correctly. Point was to show that the same split was done before in BW with even more units. BTW, take a look at where the mutas stopped in the SCII one then the BW one. In SCII, they stopped just outside fungal range so he splits them a short distance but in BW one, they traveled a crazy distance before they stopped(if even). Why is that relevant? It shows just how much fast he had to move and act to make them travel the longer distance. Either way, it doesn't matter. Still Jaedong we are talking about XD
If he looks away when clearing mines, the observer can lag behind and the dragoons eat the mines. I know since it happens to me all the time whenever I try to do it so I have to babysit the dragoons. Dragoons aren't stalkers, you can't just tell them to do something because sometimes they'll bug out or do random crap but their micro potential is through the roof. There are no rally points like in SCII in the sense that you have to manually click each building then set a rally point so you have to use camera keys to set 12 gate to another location each time. In SCII, you just click control group then a mouse click lol. No comparison on which is more time intensive. He didn't rally them forward because he wasn't going to attack yet and if he left his exp open, vultures can get in and shred his mineral lines. Also the reason why he had a pylon wall with a hole in it for his units to exit.
At bolded, back when I first switched to terran in SCII, marine kiting was something I loved so I made a custom game and my own map. It was pretty simple. I had 10 marines and 18 or so zerglings all over the map so that I didn't have to reload the map a gazillion times lol. I originally thought I had to manually target the zerglings so I practiced this for a long time. Eventually, I was hitting each zerglings every single time, not missing anything. Once I realized how to actually kite with marine, I stopped doing this odd targetting lol. My point is if a silver noob like me was able to target zerglings, I'm sure in comparison to the pros who grind games and have good micro, it's not crazy hard to do. It's mostly about precision. Most cases, at least in WoL, you'll have tanks so you can use those to take out the banes instead of targetting. Is it impressive? it's really subjective. I think it's cool but I also think reaver micro, storm drops and all the arbiter play that Bisu does is just as cool if not cooler.
Control group thing was to demonstrate just how fast he was playing to do all he did in such a short period of time. From what you've been writing, it sounds to me like you haven't tried BW. How about this then. Just give the game a try. You don't have to play thousands or even hundreds of games, just enough to at least try the very mechanics and units I'm talking about then tell me what you think. You can play protoss like Bisu so that we don't give you a mechanically harder race like terran. I think you would hate me if you play bio in TvZ then lol. I've played both SCII and BW and to me at least, I find BW mechanics are on another level. You can't even change hotkeys in BW. Marines aren't A like SCII, they are M etc... Anyways, this is going off topic. Let me know if you will consider it. It can't hurt and at least, you can say you tried it and your opinion will be stronger.
I just remembered this: This is honestly the craziest micro I've ever seen in BW and nothing that I've seen in SCII will even hold a candle to it. This if Flash vs Bisu. Flash is pushing in with vultures+tanks and trying to lay mines around Bisu's dragoons but Bisu's sick micro prevents him from winning that. Since I figure your BW knowledge might be lacking, vultures are laying spider mines which are like widow mines but they don't have a timer. Once they detonate, they are gone but they have a wide area of damage. Bisu is microing his dragoons to try and snipe the tanks but avoid the spider mines and in a lot of cases, target them before they explode on his units.
it doesnt matter how many examples you post if people never played bw they dont know how hard it is to actually do that kind of stuff. bisus micro in your example is really scary but what makes it even better is the fact that he did it with dragoons which have the dumbest ai there is...
On October 14 2013 13:11 Xiphos wrote: Some of you guys are confused with RTS game and strategy games.
REAL-TIME meaning doing a certain specific tasks FASTER than your opponents.
You shouldn't dumb that aspect down.
You are completely ignoring the last letter of "RTS" ... and strategy has something to do with THINKING. You should also be able to OUTTHINK your opponent and win by making better decisions and not just win by "clicking contest" (which is a stupid contest). Making better decisions should be far more important than clicking faster and what you want is an "RTA" (real time ACTION game) ... which SC2 is. It is NOT an RTS anymore like BW was and which SC2 should have been.
The more prominent mechanics are, the more you can outplay your opponents with strategy. That's because the number of players that can compete at the top will be very low, but they are still your main competition, and since they are selected based on mechanics at least some of them are likely to be strategically naive, which means that as a player with good strategic knowledge you can take advantage of that. (see iloveoov probably, great mechanics but wins his games due to strategy) On the other hand, if everyone was equal mechanically you'd have a huge pool of players and the ones with the best decision making and such would rise to the top, and since (unless you're playing chess) distinguishing yourself strategically is so difficult the game would become more like poker, with 90% luck factor where it's only money or wins over a long period that shows your consistency and skill.
The problem is that they attached ASYMMETRIC production AND economy boosters on top of already asymmetric production styles. That is far too much and it FORCES timings (such as Warp Gate, OC-first-MULE, ...) and thus puts artificial constraints on the races. These constraints come in the form of limited boost capability for Protoss and especially Terrans. Why else do you think we have sooooooooooo many MARINES all the time? Because they can be boosted and high tech stuff can not. This dumbs down the game by limiting the available choices and since this limitation for Terrans (plus the MULE, which is potentially VERY powerful) it is better to take all that shit out of the game instead.
XvZ can only win by harrassing the Zerg early and keeping their production down. They cant just play defensively and win with their own strong units. Protoss could do that while they still had the Archon toilet, but Terran high tech units suck against Zerg and are too easily killed and far too hard to reproduce. That FORCES the rushing gameplay and that is bad. Sure enough they added the Widow Mine, but then that unit had to be nerfed due to complaints from the community. So anything that punishes masses of Zerg is not allowed and yet they dont limit the Zerg "late-game power up".
David Kims remarks in his interview with Apollo really showed that they have no interest in allowing mech to become viable and this attitude of "WE decide how players can play competitively" really proves to me where the boring limits come from. The game should have ALL units as viable as they can be made to give as many options to the players as possible ...
On October 14 2013 13:11 Xiphos wrote: Some of you guys are confused with RTS game and strategy games.
REAL-TIME meaning doing a certain specific tasks FASTER than your opponents.
You shouldn't dumb that aspect down.
It got nothing to do with faster lol. It's called real-time because there is no turn based system or equivalent system.
And in those allocated amount time, whoever performs the most tasks as efficiently as possible gets the win. Its common logic. How can you be so blind to not see this point? I'm quite disappointed.
lol. I don't think he's considering the full picture, only the definition. Regardless, I agree with your definition. It's why fpv of players like Bisu(game I linked) will always be amazing to watch. Being able to do everything with that level of difficulty is just insane. It makes me wonder if its even possible to replicate that speed if you practice as much as he does :/
I didn't really find that fpv to be that fast. I am sure it is supposed to be fast because of the 12unit limitation suppose to make it hard but the fpv doesn't feel that fast I find zerg stream in sc2 to be a lottttt faster, creep spread, ling splitting etc
sadly I can't find JD vod, you can only imagine him playing a sc2 game with this kind of micro:
now that is fast. his zvz during early hots is crazy to watch on stream, ling run by everywhere, muta positioning etc
Jaedong said in an interview that he thought sc2 was harder than BW because in BW he could just micro his units and win, which he can't in sc2 because of the lack of micro potential.
zvz in the beginning of hots felt BW-esque. I was very sad that they nerfed it to the stale mu that it is today. (For example, I can't imagine a worse game than soO vs Soulkey code S ro 4 game two: http://www.gomtv.net/2013wcs3/vod/80872. They basically rally roaches back and forth from minute 6 until the end of the game 10 minutes later.)
On October 14 2013 18:11 imBLIND wrote: SC2 is too easy to be "good" at. Blizzard "fixed" all the bugs and flaws with BW, and with it, got rid of all the intrinsic details that made people go "Wow." For instance, when we asked for a unit that could "shoot and move at the same time,"Blizzard took that too literally and made the phoenix and the collosi. What we really meant was "We would like a unit that could shoot and move at the same time if you used the attack and move command in certain way."
I really dislike revisionist history like this. There is no proof that the phoenix change was in any way a response to this thread. For all we know someone read the words "moving shot" and was inspired to change the phoenix, but that's merely drawing on something for inspiration, that's not a response. This conspiracy theory that Blizzard was either condescending or plainly incompetent and thought we would be placated with the phoenix attack change after we demanded moving shot is just a fantasy that reveals your biases.
On October 14 2013 18:11 imBLIND wrote: SC2 is too easy to be "good" at. Blizzard "fixed" all the bugs and flaws with BW, and with it, got rid of all the intrinsic details that made people go "Wow." For instance, when we asked for a unit that could "shoot and move at the same time,"Blizzard took that too literally and made the phoenix and the collosi. What we really meant was "We would like a unit that could shoot and move at the same time if you used the attack and move command in certain way."
I really dislike revisionist history like this. There is no proof that the phoenix change was in any way a response to this thread. For all we know someone read the words "moving shot" and was inspired to change the phoenix, but that's merely drawing on something for inspiration, that's not a response. This conspiracy theory that Blizzard was either condescending or plainly incompetent and thought we would be placated with the phoenix attack change after we demanded moving shot is just a fantasy that reveals your biases.
Dont focus on the example with which you disagree, look at the big argument he makes instead. I would say that one is one of the core problems of SC2 and the perfect example is the Infestor and smartcast. The problem of Infestors in WoL started only when people realized that they could just build 25+ of them and then lock everything the opponent throws at them down to be killed by Broodlords or a handful of Roaches. The problem wasnt really the "instacast Fungal" (although a lockdown spell is ALWAYS far too powerful if there are many casters on the battlefield) but rather the "haha, I dont need to look for an Infestor with enough energy and just select them all and cast the spell ... ONCE". With 25 casters you ALWAYS have enough energy for a Fungal and even a handful of Infested Terrans too. So the general game mechanics - so-called "improvements over the tedious BW mechanics" - are the real problem. The same example is true for Storm, Forcefield, Feedback and EMP ..
You should also look at which units had which spells in BW and you will notice that Feedback and Maelstrom were only available on the Dark Archon - which wasnt built by anyone apart from fun games - and EMP was in the repertoire of the Science Vessel. All of these units were pretty expensive and never mass produced and the best example for that is the Arbiter with Stasis Field.
Spellcasting is far too easy in SC2, but it has to be due to the huge masses of units involved in any mid-late game batte. Another design flaw of SC2 ... far too many units which are far too easily/fast to (re)produce and this changes the game into an economic simulation where the one with the more efficient production wins easily.
I don't think SC2 is easy. The controls are no longer holding players down like they did in BW, but overall the game is much, much harder. It reminds me of Ghosts'n'Goblins for NES. It's frustratingly difficult and the only way to improve is to play, play, play and continue playing till everything is engraved at the back of your brain.
On October 14 2013 18:11 imBLIND wrote: SC2 is too easy to be "good" at. Blizzard "fixed" all the bugs and flaws with BW, and with it, got rid of all the intrinsic details that made people go "Wow." For instance, when we asked for a unit that could "shoot and move at the same time,"Blizzard took that too literally and made the phoenix and the collosi. What we really meant was "We would like a unit that could shoot and move at the same time if you used the attack and move command in certain way."
Or when we asked for more micro intensive battles with large armies, they just gave us more spells to smartcast. What we really meant was "If you could get to a location first and set up a good position, you would have a better chance of winning the fight because the if the other side just A-moved to your army, half of their army would not be able to attack you before you attacked them." Instead, we have smart zerglings that will auto-surround you like a swarm of bees.
I don't mind these fixes, but by taking away the strategy and tactics from the game, all we're left with is a speed contest that is boring to watch and boring to play. In real sports, people can appreciate skill and speed because no one else can do what kobe or lebron do. Comparatively, it's easy to 1a, fungal, and watch your army run over someone else. Any e-sport needs to have some combination of strategy and tactics that is difficult to emulate.
Sorry for the BW/SC2 reference, but this is just the simplest way to put it.
This is basically revisionist bullshit. So tired of seeing people post this kind of rambling rubbish.
Its obvious to even a casual viewer when someone gets outplayed in SC2. Just spend five minutes watching Life and try to tell me otherwise. Yes parts of the game are easier to handle, but great players still clearly demonstrate their skill. The only part where you have a slight point is with protoss being somewhat gimmicky and easier to 'master' (yet harder to dominate with), but thats hardly different to BW. And it adds an interesting dimension to the game. 'SC2 doesn't have strategy and tactics' = Bullshit. Plain and simple.
People really need to get over BW, christ. The rose-tinted spectacles are pathetic, it was not a 'perfect game', just as SC2 isn't either. Its popularity in Korea was a freak event due to various different circumstances. SC2 is not a great game but its still the only decent RTS around. If you really want large scale changes to the game, then make an alternative. Blizzard have no direct competitors for SC2, therefore they don't really need to give a fuck.
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Forcefields are still terrible game design, people complain less because FF' wont be changed this late in the game.
We have had splitting since the game came out, the problem is that no matter how good you split or arc your army the battle will still be over in less than 10 seconds and will probably decide the game right there. That is a huge design flaw aka Terrible Terrible damage.
Maps are about the only thing that has been fixed with SC2 and a lot of people theorized that would fix the games problems and it did not.
Maps actually exasperate the problems with the game. Bigger maps better enable the problems of the game's economy model. Typically, Mass Expand > Turtle > Harass > Mass Expand. This doesn't hold in SC2, because of the three-base cap and the game actually routinely reaching 200/200. It means the optimal strategy is to turtle or to all-in to stop the opponent from turtling into a deathball. Smaller maps with hard-to-take thirds that force you to stretch yourself and games being played out at sub-200 pop numbers would actually help the game's strategic diversity by making the game's economic model work again.
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw.
That is your subjective opinion just like I feel those things make the races even more diverse than before, and I am pretty sure Blizzard injected these macro abilities for one reason. It speeds up gameplay. They also added 6 vs 4 workers.
This makes spectating much more exciting early on since we can tell a players strategy a few minutes faster than in Broodwar. It also allows for tournaments to hold and cast more games, instead of only showing maybe 6-7 games we can see 10-20. More bang for your buck.
The macro mechanics were put in because people cried that omagerdd newbies might be able to do stuff, we need to make macro harder.
The macro mechanics technically make the races more diverse, but in reality polarize the game a good bit because they play a part in enabling production+terribleterribledamage ruling the game. They're also a very big reason as to why the game is played at 200/200 and not 100-160 or so, and thus closing out the whole "Mass Expand + meatgrinder style counters turtling into OP units" strategy.
On October 14 2013 13:11 Xiphos wrote: Some of you guys are confused with RTS game and strategy games.
REAL-TIME meaning doing a certain specific tasks FASTER than your opponents.
You shouldn't dumb that aspect down.
Or maybe to each their own?
Some want to emphasize Strategy, leaning on Real-Time mostly because they feel turn based is boring. Some want to emphasize Real-Time, leaning on strategy as a way to add intellectual stimulation to a physical game.
RTS really should boil down like this:
You want to win in a certain way huh?
Well you found how to do it? Good
Can you execute it perfectly?
What if this happens?
Can your mechanics be good enough to get yourself out that one?
So ofc someone with better mechanics should win every time.
Even a cheeser who strategically outsmarted their opponent have to the one conducting it, the one moving the units. And catch opponents off guard who can't follow it up.
Speaking as a player whose favorite character to play in Streetfighter is Blanka, trust me when I say that I know what being a twitchy player means
I like mechanically demanding games. When I lose I always think to myself "I should have been faster, should have been quicker, maybe I could position my hand differently, get more precise with my keystrokes, etc..." I like having randomization be part of a game, something that *could* tip the scales in your favor assuming you have the balls to risk it. Doesn't matter if its magic the gathering, BW high ground, Saving throws, etc...
But I also know that for every blanka out there, there is a the slower and more precise Dhalsim player, leaning on good timings, precision mechanics, and good zoning. Sure he doesn't take up as much APM, but he is a legitimate option anyway.
All respect lost (For those not in the know, Blanka is a pretty bad character with pretty bad fundamentals and a bunch of pretty bad gimmicks. Said gimmicks are a bitch to deal with online, though, because beating them relies on reaction and fast punishes, something that online play hinders. Predictably, most online Blankas just abuse the hard-to-deal-with gimmicks and don't know how to play. Not that most people playing online know how to play)
A good Dhalsim probably presses more buttons than a good Blanka, actually. Good Sim play is very active, while good fundamentals-style Blanka (which is the better style in the end) is a lot more reserved.
I think many of these complains about unit design and death ball, a-move stuff is getting so old. Saying that Colossus+Forcefield require no skill, disables skill, when they really do. We see sick Terran splitting because of AoE from Colossus, we see pull backs with Colossus, we see Vikings trying to find angles and storms and stalkers, trying to catch these Vikings. We see small squads stimming up trying to get a good angle on Colossus. We see pre-splitting to disable the strength of Forcefields and sometimes make them work against the Protoss, to be able to put down Forcefields perfectly is such a feat to master, since sometimes you want to block the retreat path for units, but other times you want to hold them back, if vs melee for example. They also work really good in synergy, lining units up to make it fit the way that Colossus make splash damage; in lines. This makes Sentries and Colossus, some of the most well designed units. A badly designed unit would be that of the Corruptor/Roach/Hydra/Voidray, boring units with no abilities to make it, so a guy controlling them can make good decisions.
On October 14 2013 18:57 ReMinD_ wrote: I don't think SC2 is easy.
It is too easy to play a good game. The most difficult part is winning the game. You can lose your games although you played very very well. I dont feel the difference if I win or lose the game, because I got a unexpected win or unexpected lose. Too many things happened suddenly and unexpected, even you scouted very well. FF and fungal prevent you to micro your units. Build orders should have a lot lesser value to decide the game.
On October 14 2013 19:37 ejozl wrote: I think many of these complains about unit design and death ball, a-move stuff is getting so old. Saying that Colossus+Forcefield require no skill, disables skill, when they really do. We see sick Terran splitting because of AoE from Colossus, we see pull backs with Colossus, we see Vikings trying to find angles and storms and stalkers, trying to catch these Vikings. We see small squads stimming up trying to get a good angle on Colossus. We see pre-splitting to disable the strength of Forcefields and sometimes make them work against the Protoss, to be able to put down Forcefields perfectly is such a feat to master, since sometimes you want to block the retreat path for units, but other times you want to hold them back, if vs melee for example. They also work really good in synergy, lining units up to make it fit the way that Colossus make splash damage; in lines. This makes Sentries and Colossus, some of the most well designed units. A badly designed unit would be that of the Corruptor/Roach/Hydra/Voidray, boring units with no abilities to make it, so a guy controlling them can make good decisions.
I am glad that only few ppl like these units tbh. I find the design of both units really questionable
On October 14 2013 18:57 ReMinD_ wrote: I don't think SC2 is easy.
It is too easy to play a good game. The most difficult part is winning the game. You can lose your games although you played very very well. I dont feel the difference if I win or lose the game, because I got a unexpected win or unexpected lose. Too many things happened suddenly and unexpected, even you scouted very well. FF and fungal prevent you to micro your units. Build orders should have a lot lesser value to decide the game.
This is because you're bad at the game, and don't recognize the difference between "playing well" and "outplaying your opponent."
In fact, this entire mentality is pretty much the number one complaint about SC2 in this thread. "The game is random because my opponent beat me and I can't accept that he was better than me that game! Make it more like BW!"
On October 14 2013 18:57 ReMinD_ wrote: I don't think SC2 is easy.
It is too easy to play a good game. The most difficult part is winning the game. You can lose your games although you played very very well. I dont feel the difference if I win or lose the game, because I got a unexpected win or unexpected lose. Too many things happened suddenly and unexpected, even you scouted very well. FF and fungal prevent you to micro your units. Build orders should have a lot lesser value to decide the game.
This is because you're bad at the game, and don't recognize the difference between "playing well" and "outplaying your opponent."
In fact, this entire mentality is pretty much the number one complaint about SC2 in this thread. "The game is random because my opponent beat me and I can't accept that he was better than me that game! Make it more like BW!"
Yeah tell me how it isnt unexpected if you P melted Z easily a fight , then Zerg popped suddenly 17 ultras (strong macro I know lol) to outplay me (if you see the 17 Ultras, you cant react and make 3 or more immortals at one time, there no time there to have a nice number of immortals). I was Zerg in sc2 WoL since Release, in HotS I switched to Random to understand many many unexpected things better, but this hasnt worked and I love to play Random more than only Zerg.
On October 14 2013 18:57 ReMinD_ wrote: I don't think SC2 is easy.
It is too easy to play a good game. The most difficult part is winning the game. You can lose your games although you played very very well. I dont feel the difference if I win or lose the game, because I got a unexpected win or unexpected lose. Too many things happened suddenly and unexpected, even you scouted very well. FF and fungal prevent you to micro your units. Build orders should have a lot lesser value to decide the game.
This is because you're bad at the game, and don't recognize the difference between "playing well" and "outplaying your opponent."
In fact, this entire mentality is pretty much the number one complaint about SC2 in this thread. "The game is random because my opponent beat me and I can't accept that he was better than me that game! Make it more like BW!"
Yeah tell me how it isnt unexpected if you P melted Z easily a fight , then Zerg popped suddenly 17 ultras (strong macro I know lol) to outplay me (if you see the 17 Ultras, you cant react and make 3 or more immortals at one time, there no time there to have a nice number of immortals). I was Zerg in sc2 WoL since Release, in HotS I switched to Random to understand many many unexpected things better, but this hasnt worked and I love to play Random more than only Zerg.
"suddenly" -> 55 seconds
5,100 minerals and 3,400 gas banked.
Do you see how retarded your example is? If the Zerg has that big of a bank, and is making a counter to you with that much resources, you deserve to lose. This game isn't NR20.
On October 14 2013 19:37 ejozl wrote: I think many of these complains about unit design and death ball, a-move stuff is getting so old. Saying that Colossus+Forcefield require no skill, disables skill, when they really do. We see sick Terran splitting because of AoE from Colossus, we see pull backs with Colossus, we see Vikings trying to find angles and storms and stalkers, trying to catch these Vikings. We see small squads stimming up trying to get a good angle on Colossus. We see pre-splitting to disable the strength of Forcefields and sometimes make them work against the Protoss, to be able to put down Forcefields perfectly is such a feat to master, since sometimes you want to block the retreat path for units, but other times you want to hold them back, if vs melee for example. They also work really good in synergy, lining units up to make it fit the way that Colossus make splash damage; in lines. This makes Sentries and Colossus, some of the most well designed units. A badly designed unit would be that of the Corruptor/Roach/Hydra/Voidray, boring units with no abilities to make it, so a guy controlling them can make good decisions.
I agree that Colossus and Sentry are not inherently bad. But I believe both of those units do have quite huge downsides. For the Colossus it is that it can stand on top of units + that air units can also stand on top of the Colossus (and in general on top of each other). Making it so that you can concentrate a ball of 100+ army supply in a tiny space, which forces the opponent to engage with a huge ball at once, as this ball cannot be wittled down.
With the sentry my main beef is very simply that in ZvP (and ZvP exclusively), sentry gameplay is way too volatile defensively (because you use energy to lock out units, but not harming them at all. You just store out and if you miss FFs you often lose instantenously). And offensively (so when you can concentrate on one spot alone), it's way too easy to get perfect forcefields, which again lead to "overwhealm or don't engage" gameplay. Both of those units work best when you ball up and are only really beatable when the opponent balls up too.
But yes, I think those units could get tweaked to really be very interesting.
On October 14 2013 19:37 ejozl wrote: I think many of these complains about unit design and death ball, a-move stuff is getting so old. Saying that Colossus+Forcefield require no skill, disables skill, when they really do. We see sick Terran splitting because of AoE from Colossus, we see pull backs with Colossus, we see Vikings trying to find angles and storms and stalkers, trying to catch these Vikings. We see small squads stimming up trying to get a good angle on Colossus. We see pre-splitting to disable the strength of Forcefields and sometimes make them work against the Protoss, to be able to put down Forcefields perfectly is such a feat to master, since sometimes you want to block the retreat path for units, but other times you want to hold them back, if vs melee for example. They also work really good in synergy, lining units up to make it fit the way that Colossus make splash damage; in lines. This makes Sentries and Colossus, some of the most well designed units. A badly designed unit would be that of the Corruptor/Roach/Hydra/Voidray, boring units with no abilities to make it, so a guy controlling them can make good decisions.
I am glad that only few ppl like these units tbh. I find the design of both units really questionable
I'd say colossus is probably the worst designed in the game.
The massive long range ground damage is undodgeable and as a result heavily colossus based armies are almost impossbile to fight from the ground. The unit walking makes colossus positioning almost irrelevant and effortless as long as you don't walk to the enemy. The cliff walking allows colossus to move alongside any kind of army composition without any extra challenge. The characteristics of a colossus make it an ideal unit to be used in deathballs, but far too expensive and weak to be used anywhere outside the ball.
The enemy interactions with colossus are limited. You can't really engage colossus with your ground forces because the massive range makes positioning easy and unitwalking allows colossus to fall back through the protoss army even if it was mispositioned.
The only reliable response is to produce the flying anti air unit (viking, corruptor) or simply have more colossi than your opponent. The fights are mostly about the antiair trying to take out colossi before colossi take out the ground army. The micro interactions are mostly limited to focusing colossi fire, focusing down colossus or pulling back a colossus that's being focused (all this with units that have no collision with other units or terrain).
What are the good sides of colossus? They looked cool on trailer and I definitely found the firepower amusing for the first few hours I fielded them in early WoL. After that I don't really know.
On October 14 2013 18:57 ReMinD_ wrote: I don't think SC2 is easy.
It is too easy to play a good game. The most difficult part is winning the game. You can lose your games although you played very very well. I dont feel the difference if I win or lose the game, because I got a unexpected win or unexpected lose. Too many things happened suddenly and unexpected, even you scouted very well. FF and fungal prevent you to micro your units. Build orders should have a lot lesser value to decide the game.
This is because you're bad at the game, and don't recognize the difference between "playing well" and "outplaying your opponent."
In fact, this entire mentality is pretty much the number one complaint about SC2 in this thread. "The game is random because my opponent beat me and I can't accept that he was better than me that game! Make it more like BW!"
Yeah tell me how it isnt unexpected if you P melted Z easily a fight , then Zerg popped suddenly 17 ultras (strong macro I know lol) to outplay me (if you see the 17 Ultras, you cant react and make 3 or more immortals at one time, there no time there to have a nice number of immortals). I was Zerg in sc2 WoL since Release, in HotS I switched to Random to understand many many unexpected things better, but this hasnt worked and I love to play Random more than only Zerg.
"suddenly" -> 55 seconds
5,100 minerals and 3,400 gas banked.
Do you see how retarded your example is? If the Zerg has that big of a bank, and is making a counter to you with that much resources, you deserve to lose. This game isn't NR20.
You know nothing about the 55sec. It can come 200sup pure roaches (hide somewhere until he has 200/200) or suddenly 17 ultras came out of the eggs. and the big bank isnt uncommon, I see it nearly everytime if PvZ goes into a macro-game at highest level.
On October 14 2013 18:57 ReMinD_ wrote: I don't think SC2 is easy.
It is too easy to play a good game. The most difficult part is winning the game. You can lose your games although you played very very well. I dont feel the difference if I win or lose the game, because I got a unexpected win or unexpected lose. Too many things happened suddenly and unexpected, even you scouted very well. FF and fungal prevent you to micro your units. Build orders should have a lot lesser value to decide the game.
This is because you're bad at the game, and don't recognize the difference between "playing well" and "outplaying your opponent."
In fact, this entire mentality is pretty much the number one complaint about SC2 in this thread. "The game is random because my opponent beat me and I can't accept that he was better than me that game! Make it more like BW!"
Yeah tell me how it isnt unexpected if you P melted Z easily a fight , then Zerg popped suddenly 17 ultras (strong macro I know lol) to outplay me (if you see the 17 Ultras, you cant react and make 3 or more immortals at one time, there no time there to have a nice number of immortals). I was Zerg in sc2 WoL since Release, in HotS I switched to Random to understand many many unexpected things better, but this hasnt worked and I love to play Random more than only Zerg.
"suddenly" -> 55 seconds
5,100 minerals and 3,400 gas banked.
Do you see how retarded your example is? If the Zerg has that big of a bank, and is making a counter to you with that much resources, you deserve to lose. This game isn't NR20.
You know nothing about the 55sec. It can come 200sup pure roaches (hide somewhere until he has 200/200) or suddenly 17 ultras came out of the eggs. and the big bank isnt uncommon, I see it nearly everytime if PvZ goes into a macro-game at highest level.
a 55 seconds when: you still have a huge army (you said your army melt zerg's easily), zerg building 17 ultras (which is102 supply along with 70 supply of drones, only 28 supply worth of unit to defend anything along with spines and spores)
You are telling me you can't snipe at least 3 of his base while getting void rays or colossus or archons????
On October 14 2013 18:23 Elroi wrote: Jaedong said in an interview that he thought sc2 was harder than BW because in BW he could just micro his units and win, which he can't in sc2 because of the lack of micro potential.
zvz in the beginning of hots felt BW-esque. I was very sad that they nerfed it to the stale mu that it is today. (For example, I can't imagine a worse game than soO vs Soulkey code S ro 4 game two: http://www.gomtv.net/2013wcs3/vod/80872. They basically rally roaches back and forth from minute 6 until the end of the game 10 minutes later.)
Well, when SC2 WoL beta was running, I think it was ret that was infamous for saying there was no micro in SC2. I think people were bashing him for this opinion.
EPT
