|
On September 29 2013 03:30 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 03:08 Foxxan wrote:On September 29 2013 02:48 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote:
i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone. What? Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
|
On September 29 2013 15:21 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 03:30 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 03:08 Foxxan wrote:On September 29 2013 02:48 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote:
i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone. What? Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay. There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying. In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
|
Vatican City State431 Posts
You can't nerf WM without nerfing banelings...And you can't make mech work without nerfing Vipers. Vipers just demolish mech. David Kim is clueless, SC2 will never be good with David Kim in charge.
|
On September 29 2013 15:53 p14c wrote:
You can't nerf WM without nerfing banelings...And you can't make mech work without nerfing Vipers. Vipers just demolish mech. David Kim is clueless, SC2 will never be good with David Kim in charge.
And swarmhosts (in the case of pure mech, bio-mech can handle them) and especially also mutas.
If you play (bio-) mech you need to be alot more passive than 4M, you cannot keep rallying units forward. That means there is nothing to stop zerg from getting 30 mutas. 30 mutas which are alot better than in WoL.
|
The revelation buff could be nice, but why to let it so visible? ^^
Maybe let just a nice animation when the spell is launched but then, dont let thoose withe markers on the head of the ennemi unit please. Let the marker visible on the unit state (top-left of the "statu-cadre"), but not on the main screen.
Its could be a nice buff.
|
oh lets nerf the other new terran unit into oblivion, after we promised hellbat and mine would be core for all terrans when we deleted the warhound!
i know i should not say too much since i have not touched sc2 for a while now, but do they really think the most heavily countered unit by protoss and zerg, namely the siegetank, will change anything with a mere 10% attackspeedbuff? XD
and looking at the upgrades, sure you save money and time, but if you choose to go mech and air that money goes straight into a handful of starports and factories, and the units coming out of that did not get any better, apart from getting earlier upgrades now.
i predict no great changes for TvP and a landslide shift towards zerg in TvZ across all levels of play, should these changes go through.
|
it's hilarious how terran is terrible if you do not play super-greedy and rally units to the zerg map until you win or lose.
|
On September 29 2013 17:51 ImperialFist wrote:
it's hilarious how terran is terrible if you do not play super-greedy and rally units to the zerg map until you win or lose.
ssssssh, there's no place to fix the design flaws in this game. Praise the mighty fig-leaf balance patches !
|
On September 29 2013 02:29 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 00:47 Big J wrote:On September 28 2013 20:24 Zarahtra wrote:On September 28 2013 20:03 Big J wrote:On September 28 2013 19:33 Zarahtra wrote:On September 28 2013 18:36 Big J wrote:On September 28 2013 18:18 keglu wrote:On September 28 2013 17:48 Zheryn wrote:On September 28 2013 17:07 Big J wrote:On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote:
LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait.. Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen: HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point  "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!" Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite. I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup. I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity. I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes. I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one). I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it. Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1. I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th). But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme). Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities). Terran T3 is just down right bad. First issue is infrastructure and build time. Second is mobility. Even with these 2 huge downsides, they aren't really out right dominate in a head to head fight. This is similar to siege tanks in TvZ. If you get caught unsiege, you pretty much just lost the game. But even if you are sieged, the zerg can still trade evenly (especially on creep). So the risk and reward for tank play is very small. Having low mobility also means the zerg has enough time to harrass with mutas and then come back and engage if they need. And it is not a tiny cost efficiency issue. That would be saying that P gateway units only lack a tiny cost efficiency vs stimmed bio. The gap between terran T3 and zerg/protoss T3 is pretty huge.
Your comment is looking pretty off after Flash vs KangHo (and other Code S games).
Again, those hightier/tankbased Terran armies are on the brink of being a strong standard strategy. They lack a tiny bit of costefficiency to really make up for their disadvantages and become viable.
|
On September 29 2013 15:30 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 15:21 Rabiator wrote:On September 29 2013 03:30 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 03:08 Foxxan wrote:On September 29 2013 02:48 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote:
i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone. What? Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay. There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying. In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2. No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable. And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result.
This is how I see those two games:
BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings.
SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 29 2013 19:13 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 15:30 rd wrote:On September 29 2013 15:21 Rabiator wrote:On September 29 2013 03:30 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 03:08 Foxxan wrote:On September 29 2013 02:48 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote:
i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone. What? Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay. There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying. In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2. No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable. And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure. Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result. This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
You know what? After seeing games 2 and 3 in Maru vs Flash listening tales about lack of defender's advantage is just hilarious
|
On September 29 2013 19:17 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:13 Rabiator wrote:On September 29 2013 15:30 rd wrote:On September 29 2013 15:21 Rabiator wrote:On September 29 2013 03:30 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 03:08 Foxxan wrote:On September 29 2013 02:48 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote:
i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone. What? Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay. There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying. In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2. No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable. And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure. Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result. This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot. You know what? After seeing games 2 and 3 in Maru vs Flash listening tales about lack of defender's advantage is just hilarious
Without siege mode, maru would have lost or at the minimum lost lots of scvs. Its SC2 for you lol @_@
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 29 2013 19:27 YyapSsap wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:17 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 19:13 Rabiator wrote:On September 29 2013 15:30 rd wrote:On September 29 2013 15:21 Rabiator wrote:On September 29 2013 03:30 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 03:08 Foxxan wrote:On September 29 2013 02:48 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote:
i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone. What? Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay. There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying. In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2. No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable. And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure. Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result. This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot. You know what? After seeing games 2 and 3 in Maru vs Flash listening tales about lack of defender's advantage is just hilarious Without siege mode, maru would have lost or at the minimum lost lots of scvs. Its SC2 for you lol @_@
That is game 3. In game 2 siege would be done anyways and flash would still lose everything in that bumrush.
|
On September 29 2013 18:00 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 02:29 vthree wrote:On September 29 2013 00:47 Big J wrote:On September 28 2013 20:24 Zarahtra wrote:On September 28 2013 20:03 Big J wrote:On September 28 2013 19:33 Zarahtra wrote:On September 28 2013 18:36 Big J wrote:On September 28 2013 18:18 keglu wrote:On September 28 2013 17:48 Zheryn wrote:On September 28 2013 17:07 Big J wrote:
[quote]
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun
Lucifron beat Yugioh
Sjow beat Life People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!" Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite. I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup. I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity. I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes. I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one). I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it. Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1. I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th). But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme). Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities). Terran T3 is just down right bad. First issue is infrastructure and build time. Second is mobility. Even with these 2 huge downsides, they aren't really out right dominate in a head to head fight. This is similar to siege tanks in TvZ. If you get caught unsiege, you pretty much just lost the game. But even if you are sieged, the zerg can still trade evenly (especially on creep). So the risk and reward for tank play is very small. Having low mobility also means the zerg has enough time to harrass with mutas and then come back and engage if they need. And it is not a tiny cost efficiency issue. That would be saying that P gateway units only lack a tiny cost efficiency vs stimmed bio. The gap between terran T3 and zerg/protoss T3 is pretty huge. Your comment is looking pretty off after Flash vs KangHo (and other Code S games). Again, those hightier/tankbased Terran armies are on the brink of being a strong standard strategy. They lack a tiny bit of costefficiency to really make up for their disadvantages and become viable.
Hardly looking off.
If zerg goes for ling bling muta against mech he's dead. It's a build order/composition win for the terran. Aslong as the T doesn't completely fuck up, he can not loose the game, zerg can not tech switch into roaches,hydras,swarmhosts or tier 3 fast enough to stop a push.
+ Show Spoiler +G1, thankfully for KongHo he didn't actually make any mutas, but since he didn't Flash could've just walked over the map and killed him(or atleast cleared all the creep up). If anything Flash was surprisingly close to loosing an unloosable position since he didn't split his hellbats against the blings.
Game 2 is somewhat meaningless too, since Flash went 2 fact blueflame semi-allin which did nothing, so he was kind of screwed.
As a mech player, I dare say atleast mech is nowhere close to being on the brink of being standard play. It works mostly since everyone expects 4M and to lesser degree since no one has experience against it and doesn't know a lot of subtle moves that fuck mech up.
|
Widow Mine splash radius reduction. Yay!
|
On September 29 2013 21:01 NeThZOR wrote:
Widow Mine splash radius reduction. Yay!
The unit is practically dead. I don't know what you're happy about.
|
On September 26 2013 04:19 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 04:14 Plansix wrote:
And people say Blizzard doesn't listen. I like that this is a very fluid thing and they are taking feed back as it comes in. I like all these changes and I'm a little bummed there wasn't a little speed boost for the DTs. Still, all of the changes look like they will reward the player that controls better. My favorite suggestion on the DT change was to tie it to researching charge. That is, charge not only improves base Zealot speed, but also buffs base DT speed. That way they're slightly better in the lategame, without being any stronger early on.
That's actually brilliant, honestly.
|
On September 29 2013 18:00 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 02:29 vthree wrote:On September 29 2013 00:47 Big J wrote:On September 28 2013 20:24 Zarahtra wrote:On September 28 2013 20:03 Big J wrote:On September 28 2013 19:33 Zarahtra wrote:On September 28 2013 18:36 Big J wrote:On September 28 2013 18:18 keglu wrote:On September 28 2013 17:48 Zheryn wrote:On September 28 2013 17:07 Big J wrote:
[quote]
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun
Lucifron beat Yugioh
Sjow beat Life People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!" Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite. I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup. I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity. I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes. I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one). I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it. Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1. I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th). But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme). Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities). Terran T3 is just down right bad. First issue is infrastructure and build time. Second is mobility. Even with these 2 huge downsides, they aren't really out right dominate in a head to head fight. This is similar to siege tanks in TvZ. If you get caught unsiege, you pretty much just lost the game. But even if you are sieged, the zerg can still trade evenly (especially on creep). So the risk and reward for tank play is very small. Having low mobility also means the zerg has enough time to harrass with mutas and then come back and engage if they need. And it is not a tiny cost efficiency issue. That would be saying that P gateway units only lack a tiny cost efficiency vs stimmed bio. The gap between terran T3 and zerg/protoss T3 is pretty huge. Your comment is looking pretty off after Flash vs KangHo (and other Code S games). Again, those hightier/tankbased Terran armies are on the brink of being a strong standard strategy. They lack a tiny bit of costefficiency to really make up for their disadvantages and become viable.
What? We were all talking about bio-mech vs ling bling muta...
Plus your mech example was where LosirA didn't realise it was mech till it was too late. Yeah, roach/hydra/bane isn't going to do too well vs mech.
|
On September 29 2013 22:27 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 04:19 awesomoecalypse wrote:On September 26 2013 04:14 Plansix wrote:
And people say Blizzard doesn't listen. I like that this is a very fluid thing and they are taking feed back as it comes in. I like all these changes and I'm a little bummed there wasn't a little speed boost for the DTs. Still, all of the changes look like they will reward the player that controls better. My favorite suggestion on the DT change was to tie it to researching charge. That is, charge not only improves base Zealot speed, but also buffs base DT speed. That way they're slightly better in the lategame, without being any stronger early on. That's actually brilliant, honestly.
Kind of random, but this person was the first to post the idea, I remember commenting on it in the earlier thread. Gift him TL+ if Blizzard ever implements it, since even if maybe it's an obvious suggestion that everyone could have thought of it's still nice to be first. ^^
|
Disappointed that they're still trying to push some cruddy oracle buffs while ignoring the DT buff that could have been interesting for play and encouraged terrans to reconsider being as greedy as they can be.
Revelation is so underused and so dumb, why do people want it buffed?
"I'm too lazy to use it from 9 range! Please make it even easier to land a bigger map-hack than Scanner Sweeps and Creep!"
Is that why? Is it either that or just because oracles cost plenty of gas? :/
I think I'd be happier with it if they also decreased the energy cost to 50 but made it only last 30 seconds instead of 60.
Then, at least, you can't just cast it once from 10 range and sod off for 60 seconds with full vision of their army, or at least that unit. Big difference by the between the two, I realise, but you can build up enough for multiple casts of it (2 now, 4 if only 50 energy) on just one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
