|
On September 29 2013 13:28 Kitaen wrote:tvz and especially tvp do not allow fancy (read: funto watch) openers since queens have been buffed into oblivion and the mothershipcore beeing the ultimate rush blocker in a low unit count situation  there is a reason every terran plays greedy as fuck vs zerg and things like double rax / hellion pressure or the infamous 1-1-1 are entirely gone vs protoss. i want to see 1 based play vs good scouting, its fun in tvt and would be fun in tvz and tvp aswell. we should not fear sc2 turning into a cheesefest, since thats soooooo easy to come by by making new maps a bit larger with more spawns but as a matter of fact blizzard FORCES (sometimes boring) macro games by creating defensive units / structures way way more powerful than they should be in the early stages remove the nexus canon and set the maximum number of queens per hatchery to one, reduce bunker salvage ratio or make it more expensive to build at first
Bunkers are fine, and aren't really the thing that stops allins vs Terran. The terran still needs to scout the allin, and make the bunkers. Honestly? Queens are also fine. Like oh no, their stats are slightly better than a Stalker for about the price of a stalker. 4-6 stalkers hold off light pressure, but not a dedicated allin. The complaints I've seen against queens is that they prevent players from poking while playing macro builds, not prevent serious allins like 2 fact blue flame hellion. It's more of a one fact 4-6 red flame hellion poke can't just outmicro the zerg and cause problems anymore.
No, the seriously problematic defensive units are the mothership core, and the widow mine. The widow mine is just...oh I'm sorry, did you want to attack before you got detection? Nope, your attack completely fails. Lol 4 gate. Lol 7 roach rush. Lol investing all your money into units and attacking. You seriously expect that to work? Not against Terran! And then the mothership core.... So like...nice 10 pool and/or proxy 8/8/8 reaper. I already have a flying unit noob. Also, pop quiz, let's say you go 5 rax marine allin; how many marines does it take to power through a planetary nexus + mothership core combo? (Alone, assuming toss has no units and doesn't attack with probes). By my calculations, it's at least 16 marines, probably a bit more than that due to range considerations. That's pretty ridiculous--being able to counter 1600 army value with 200 army value, while having defender's advantage.
On September 29 2013 19:13 Rabiator wrote:
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
I dunno, I was bad at BW, but at my level of play it did feel like whoever pulled the gun first usually won. 4 pool? I probably win. PvP and I get a nice timing with dragoons? I probably win. PvT and you don't catch me moving across the map? LOL I'm seiged up at your base, good luck with that. Reaver drop? Well, there goes my economy, and I don't think I'm going to counter through your front door when you have Reavers covering that too. ZvZ and I got the muta lead? I win. Oh, you just walked your bio army over my lurkers without scanning? k. I can probably just mass hydra and a-move then. Oh, you thought it would be cute to do a tank drop on the high ground on temple? Too bad I opened mutas, and you didn't seem to expect me to given my low APM so you have no turrets ready. Muta opening vs me? Well...see I don't have the APM to macro bio, so I was going mech and already had 10 goliaths. I think I'll walk across the map, siege your spine line, and win now.
Like...don't get me wrong, I was bad at BW, very, very bad, and sure in pro games people could engineer crazy comebacks. But just playing with and against friends? It usually came down to whoever swung first winning instantly, or whoever walked their army into a deathtrap losing instantly.
|
I wonder if this map is going to be released before blizzard includes additional changes
|
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.
And not only is there a defenders advantage in SC2, but in both BW and SC2 there are a variety of ways for a drawn out game to form despite a player maintaining a lead, and it's ultimately due to one player on either side not realizing this lead.
It might be the root of your own anxiety, but it has nothing to do with the core problem in the vast majority of the average players' anxiety, which has been discussed to death.
|
1129 Posts
On September 30 2013 02:56 rd 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. And not only is there a defenders advantage in SC2, but in both BW and SC2 there are a variety of ways for a drawn out game to form despite a player maintaining a lead, and it's ultimately due to one player on either side not realizing this lead. It might be the root of your own anxiety, but it has nothing to do with the core problem in the vast majority of the average players' anxiety, which has been discussed to death.
You're completely wrong. In SC2 if you're behind you mostly die (except tvt). In BW there was a lot of ways to fuck up the attack and lose the lead to mines/tanks/lurkers or storms. SC2 is mechanically easier, therefore attacker is more likely to secure his lead and win the game. Hence, the anxiety - one unlucky engagement -> your behind -> you die.
|
On September 30 2013 03:55 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 02:56 rd 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. And not only is there a defenders advantage in SC2, but in both BW and SC2 there are a variety of ways for a drawn out game to form despite a player maintaining a lead, and it's ultimately due to one player on either side not realizing this lead. It might be the root of your own anxiety, but it has nothing to do with the core problem in the vast majority of the average players' anxiety, which has been discussed to death. You're completely wrong. In SC2 if you're behind you mostly die (except tvt). In BW there was a lot of ways to fuck up the attack and lose the lead to mines/tanks/lurkers or storms. SC2 is mechanically easier, therefore attacker is more likely to secure his lead and win the game. Hence, the anxiety - one unlucky engagement -> your behind -> you die.
The mechanics have nothing to do with defenders advantage. In a ladder game there is always going to be a disparity in mechanics where one players' is weaker. If he happens to have the lead and doesn't know how to end it, it results in a drawn out game. ONTOP of the fact, there is defenders advantage in SC2. It's slightly less significant than it was in BW, but it definitely exists, even with Protoss, yet people will just exaggerate to the extreme and say "well it's minimal so it doesn't exist at all #fuckwarpgates."
And it's not why anxiety exists. Go make a poll and see who votes for "no defenders advantage" over "winning is stressful."
|
I really like the roach buff.. seems great.
|
1129 Posts
On September 30 2013 04:04 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 03:55 saddaromma wrote:On September 30 2013 02:56 rd 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. And not only is there a defenders advantage in SC2, but in both BW and SC2 there are a variety of ways for a drawn out game to form despite a player maintaining a lead, and it's ultimately due to one player on either side not realizing this lead. It might be the root of your own anxiety, but it has nothing to do with the core problem in the vast majority of the average players' anxiety, which has been discussed to death. You're completely wrong. In SC2 if you're behind you mostly die (except tvt). In BW there was a lot of ways to fuck up the attack and lose the lead to mines/tanks/lurkers or storms. SC2 is mechanically easier, therefore attacker is more likely to secure his lead and win the game. Hence, the anxiety - one unlucky engagement -> your behind -> you die. The mechanics have nothing to do with defenders advantage. In a ladder game there is always going to be a disparity in mechanics where one players' is weaker. If he happens to have the lead and doesn't know how to end it, it results in a drawn out game. ONTOP of the fact, there is defenders advantage in SC2. It's slightly less significant than it was in BW, but it definitely exists, even with Protoss, yet people will just exaggerate to the extreme and say "well it's minimal so it doesn't exist at all #fuckwarpgates." And it's not why anxiety exists. Go make a poll and see who votes for "no defenders advantage" over "winning is stressful."
1. Defender's advantage was far more significant in BW. I'm not gonna spend my time to explain. Just go and check liquipedia strategies.
2. Don't take it too literally, "no defenders advantage" is only part of the problem. For instance, people complain a lot about protoss deathball, if defenders advantage existed, like say tanks, spider mines and lurkers in BW, we would have less issues with deathball and less frustration with the game.
Another reason of game anxiety is speed of the game and terrible damage syndrome. But thats whole different topic and has no place in this thread.
|
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.
There is not such a thing as proper Terran T3. I think people missread Blizzard view.
Bli wants terran players to use as much units as they can, especially late game. They dislike mech style or such, as i read from them. Ideally speacking, Ideally speaking, "T3" would be more like a bio/mech style with air support (the shared mech/air upgrade will help).
A mobile bio force with tanks/mines in support and viking to deal with coloss or viper for instance.
|
|
|
On September 29 2013 07:48 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 07:34 DomeGetta wrote:On September 29 2013 02:55 foreign2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 29 2013 02:48 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
the problem with sc2 is that it's very frustrating if you win and even more if you lose. it's because of the gameplay you need to invest tons of energy into this game and still get punished for simple mistakes that can end the game. i hope with LOTV they make this game less apm intense because the apm required to be good in this game is hilarious and gets even worse the longer the game lasts or the better you are. Sorry but I really just can't stand this attitude - make it easier for me but imbalanced for people who do it professionally please. The only way I would deal with this as blizzard is to throw out 2 rev's of the game - the actual game and then the game with training wheels. It's so sad because this really also seems like what blizzard is saying in why they want to patch the game right now. The reason sc2 is on the map at all is because its professionally played. This is the exact attitude that is destroying the modern world -put training wheels on everything so I can lie to myself about being good at it. RTS is supposed to be hard - if it's just for fun for you then get over the fact that you won't be winning at a high level - or plead for a second more casual friendly rev but stop trying to ruin it for the people who dedicate their life to it as professionals. Or - go to a LOL or DOTA type game. While I do agree with your sentiment, I have to chime in a bit and say that SC2 needs to be more wholesome. SC2 needs more reward for strategy. Micro and micro (mechanics) are definitely important, but there is little strategic depth in most games we watch. The proof is in the pudding. Despite being a mirror-MU, TvT is a really popular matchup because it has the most strategic depth.
I think the strategic depth is hard to spot but it's there. Whether it's spotted really depends on who is observing and casting. If the casters or observers miss a cancelled building, don't know the history of how someone typically plays, the current meta, the previous meta, etc. you are going to miss the strategic depth. People like SoS and Soulkey show just how much depth there is in the non-TvT mirrors at present. It's just a little harder to spot there because P and Z units don't have the diversity of attacks that Terran units do, at least in the early game.
|
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
How dare you respond to Rabiator's theory crafting with examples from pro games! To make Rabiator happy Blizzard would need to redesign SC2 so that each player would only be able to select one unit at a time and a single siege tank could defend all of a Terran's bases simultaneously as long as it had high ground advantage. These simple fixes would solve most of the design flaws in SC2.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 01 2013 03:11 The_Darkness 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 How dare you respond to Rabiator's theory crafting with examples from pro games! To make Rabiator happy Blizzard would need to redesign SC2 so that each player would only be able to select one unit at a time and a single siege tank could defend all of a Terran's bases simultaneously as long as it had high ground advantage. These simple fixes would solve most of the design flaws in SC2.
I approve of those changes. Spoilered the magic words to make sure Blizzard hears us
+ Show Spoiler +
Putin, bomb, чечня, terrorism
Okay enough with jokes. I suppose the exaggeration you made shows the problems with the wise man's theories well.
|
United Kingdom1381 Posts
|
This might be a biased opinion. But I think the playerbase of both Zerg and Protoss is so massively huge, that Terrans are underrepresented in every discussion, tournament, ladder, live shows. Everytime a Terran comes up with a defensive opinion about his race (which can be true or not), 10 other zerg or protoss throw themselves over him with counter opinions (which are not true or true)
I've been around long time to notice this.
|
OneSpeed, if we disagree what you're saying, it will just confirme your theory, right?
|
On October 03 2013 17:19 OneSpeed wrote:
This might be a biased opinion. But I think the playerbase of both Zerg and Protoss is so massively huge, that Terrans are underrepresented in every discussion, tournament, ladder, live shows. Everytime a Terran comes up with a defensive opinion about his race (which can be true or not), 10 other zerg or protoss throw themselves over him with counter opinions (which are not true or true)
I've been around long time to notice this.
Perspective A makes a statement generally agreed by his respective group.
Perspective B and C respond, because they have differing opinions.
Result is statements by A will get more responses from B and C than it will get from other A's.
|
/Facepalm
User was warned for this post
|
All the changes seem minor other than the tank change. This will just emphisize tank use even more in TvT. They'll still be horrid in TvP and they will still be useless in TvZ. Attack speed doesn't change the fact that they can't attck under blinding cloud. The only thing that could happen is some weird 2 base all in revolving around tank count. Ground and air upgrades combined was attempted in the beta and didn't work, I'm not sure why they think it will now. Finally, the Oracle speed will just make proxy stargate better. Using Oracles late game won't change.
|
On October 28 2013 03:51 Keeve wrote:
Finally, the Oracle speed will just make proxy stargate better. Using Oracles late game won't change.
And any buff to the current oracle, which kills workers way too fast, will do the same thing (increasing early game use and not encouraging lategame use in any way). Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind a faster oracle that would need three hits to kill workers.
|
So like...nice 10 pool and/or proxy 8/8/8 reaper. I already have a flying unit noob. Also, pop quiz, let's say you go 5 rax marine allin; how many marines does it take to power through a planetary nexus + mothership core combo?
10 pool is still going to come before MS Core most of the time. Most people FFE in PvZ, so 10 pool works fine. If the opponent is Gateway expanding, 10 pooling sucks anyway, as a Zealot should be out in time to deal with it (assuming decent simcity). As for 8/8/8 Reaper, well, just don't do that build. It's not particularly viable in any matchup. Besides, good luck actually catching a Reaper with an MSC. There won't be any energy for Photon Overcharge when your all-in hits, so the MSC is just like a mosquito bite to your (numerous) Reapers (which heal absurdly fast if you just micro). 5 rax Marine all-ins were bad in WoL, and they're still bad in HotS. Yes, MSC counters them even harder (assuming a reasonably timed MSC and that the MSC is actually at the Protoss base/didn't have to recall out of the Terran's base, or something) but so what? Basic scouting countered it in WoL. Just add Gateways and use Sentries to delay if you have to and you'll be fine. Kite the push across the map with Stalkers. Whatever; it was easy, because 1Gate FE could defend it no problem just by adding 2 Gateways and hitting Warp cycles from early on (5rax is super obvious anyway, particularly in HotS where fewer people open gasless TvP).
I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape over 5raxing not being viable, given that it was a boring coinflip, but particularly when nobody used it even in WoL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
