|
On October 02 2013 00:53 Tchado wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 22:19 Spaylz wrote:On October 01 2013 14:27 Spaylz wrote:
I've been paying a lot of attention to the SC2 forums lately, and I have to wonder: is the game really in such a bad shape?
I'm a WC3 player, still loyal to the bone and although I bought SC2 I never liked it. It's just not fun to me in comparison to WC3. But Blizzard is investing a lot of money and effort into it, and there certainly is a decent amount of tournaments and media coverage.
However, when looking at the forums on TeamLiquid, the dwindling numbers in viewership and the lack of new tournaments in the scene, it really does seem like the game is beginning to strike out.
Is it really that bad? Shamelessly quoting myself. I'd like someone to answer me, please  I agree with the other replies to your post , but in wc3 terms think of it like this. (this also applies to what oov was saying) Imagine if back in 2005 David kim was working on wc3 , at the time sky was trashing every pro and noob in the globe , all of a sudden his Sky Push vs Orc and NE appears on the scene , he sees that humans are having very high success with it (which was statistically true) , David Kim would patch the game and literally obliterate that strategy within a few months of Sky's debut in WCG 2005 , the same could be said about moon's mass druid of the talon strategy vs orc , or even something more modern , Th000's mass tank + human tri hero strategy vs NE and UD Now imagine that same thing being done every time a new strategy or meta shows up that ruins david's "statistics" would wc3 be the success it was ? I'm gonna have to say HELL NO .
If you're going to compare TFT to SC2, then shouldn't you at least wait till LoV is out?
I love WC3 and BW, but the problem with your example (and oov's for that matter) is that it's a comparison of a final product, with one not (I absolutely hated the decision to split SC2 into 3 games but that's another discussion). RoC, IIRC, was terrible to play on ladder. It was either mass casters or some form of NE T1. Hell, I don't even remember there being a legitimate scene until TFT came around. Likewise, all the talk I remember of vanilla SC was all the broken shit you'd see.
While I agree that TFT/BW are way more enjoyable than SC2, can you honestly say that Roc/vanilla SC were the better games?
|
#1 Leave SC2 alone --> It´s so unbalanced, RAAWWWRRR!
#2 Patch SC2 --> Forever Beta, RAAWWWRRRR!
|
On October 02 2013 00:46 ETisME wrote:
what makes you think I don't play terran? I am diamond T/P/Z on NA (not random). Granted, I haven't finished any placement for this season because I just finished uni but I played a pure bio style in WoL and almost made it to master.
I never said mines are op, I said the way it operates is stupid. It shouldn't be an auto targetting unit. I personally think bio mine is super strong against ling baneling muta, but it wasn't my word who said zerg can beat bio mine with "high skill". That was coming from the terran forum pro like thedwf and naruto mainly which are also pretty terran biased.
zerg always split their banelings against bio, you need to watch zerg stream or play zerg to know it. the reason why they don't split up too much is because individual small groups of banelings get snipes too easily.
zerg rolls the banelings to the mine is because first, the mine can blow up the banelings which also blows up the mines. second, you can't engage and disengage once you see the mine, once you engage and that's it.
a lot of splitting from terran is pre spread, you engage with small group of marines or marauders and spread out the bio behind and then once the zerg engages, you spread even more. You only need to go through level 5 marine split challenge map to get a cost efficient trade.
if mine is not nerfed, do you honestly think people would use tank against muta ling baneling?
Umm like I previously explained terran is the race that needs to react to zerg. So why shouldn't lingblingmuta be nerfed instead of mines? Because if mines were nerfed, than the zerg could keep on going lingblingmuta. But if lingblingmuta were to be nerfed, than terran could go for a bigger variety of builds.
And tanks were used against lingblingmuta even in WoL. Marine tank was the primary way to win against lingblingmuta in WoL, and even back than the terran was struggling against that build.
Before the mine goes off, you can disengage fyi. You can spot the mines before you enter the range of the AoE, and even if you enter the range you can disengage. It takes about 1 second to go off once someone enters the mines range.
You can't make mines anything other than auto target. Do you want the terrans to aim the shots into the middle of the zerg army? And fyi more skilled terrans can stop the mines from shooting out the shot, and let it shoot once it gets the most out of the mine. Otherwise the mine will only do 50% of the aoe damage that it does, because it usually shoots the rocket into the corner of the zerglings.
And it's a fact that skilled zergs can avoid mines.
I know that zerg players don't usually split up the banelings too much. But it isn't possible to split up the banelings too much because there's no way to a terran could target fire every single one of those 30 split up banelings, even while there's zerglings in their face.
Anyway back on the topic.
You can't balance the game by completely nerfing 1 unit to the ground to tell the players to use another unit. The game is only interesting if the players have a wide variety of actually potential strategies. And innovating a scene with that many possibilities. Now that's interesting.
I wouldn't mind if the widowmine range would only be nerfed down by 20-25% while the tanks would be buffed like it was written in the possible patch notes. In that case I'd say that mines would still be a possible choice to use in conjunction with tanks.
|
On October 01 2013 22:19 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:27 Spaylz wrote:
I've been paying a lot of attention to the SC2 forums lately, and I have to wonder: is the game really in such a bad shape?
I'm a WC3 player, still loyal to the bone and although I bought SC2 I never liked it. It's just not fun to me in comparison to WC3. But Blizzard is investing a lot of money and effort into it, and there certainly is a decent amount of tournaments and media coverage.
However, when looking at the forums on TeamLiquid, the dwindling numbers in viewership and the lack of new tournaments in the scene, it really does seem like the game is beginning to strike out.
Is it really that bad? Shamelessly quoting myself. I'd like someone to answer me, please
The scene is very very stable with regular high viewership for WCS everyday. Blizzard's latching onto the system has allowed SC2 to have a tournament running morning and night 4-5 days a week.
The game is nowhere near close to dying, and during finals the numbers ratchet up immensely showing great support for the game.
The big change is that TL was used to X viewerbase looking Y matches each day during BW while in SC2 the Y has increased by LOT but the X has remained stagnant creating an illusion of "less viewers per match" despite there being more matches per day.
So no, it's not dying. Not even close. But Kespa pros have not been able to take over like people expect because the game is a lot more different than people realized. This causes people to get upset and blame the game for their faves leaving.
|
On October 02 2013 00:22 quebecman77 wrote:
someone should ask blizzard to release starcraft 1 HD with sc2 features , would play all my life ..... that where the money stach located blizzard , you failed .
But someone did release such a game. It's a mod called SC2BW. It's everything you asked for. It's got all the old units, you can turn automining on or off, turn 12-unit selection max on or off, whatever you want! It's essentially Broodwar in HD! The creator has even made an attempt to simulate the old BW pathing.
And nobody plays it.
|
The reason nobody plays SC2BW is because it is not a finished product and there are a lot of workarounds that don't work all the time and can be circumvented still. It simply lacks the sheer manpower to make it the true BW remake in HD with the amount of work still left to do, and the waning interest mostly because of that.
|
lol 8 months of watching WoL die to Broodlord Winfestor with David Kim saying "Zerg doesn't have a big advantage let it play out" begs to differ xD
|
Eh, yes and no. As much as the "old" players would want the old game back, bringing back old games into HD versions really isn't a very good move. Simply because people want novelty.
And quite frankly, sometimes it is just better to leave the good games as they are. Remaking them might ruin them in the eye of the player, and nobody wants that. For example, as much as I really love WC3, I truly believe that if Blizzard were to remake the game today, they would fail and mess it up.
|
On October 02 2013 01:36 ssxsilver wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 00:53 Tchado wrote:On October 01 2013 22:19 Spaylz wrote:On October 01 2013 14:27 Spaylz wrote:
I've been paying a lot of attention to the SC2 forums lately, and I have to wonder: is the game really in such a bad shape?
I'm a WC3 player, still loyal to the bone and although I bought SC2 I never liked it. It's just not fun to me in comparison to WC3. But Blizzard is investing a lot of money and effort into it, and there certainly is a decent amount of tournaments and media coverage.
However, when looking at the forums on TeamLiquid, the dwindling numbers in viewership and the lack of new tournaments in the scene, it really does seem like the game is beginning to strike out.
Is it really that bad? Shamelessly quoting myself. I'd like someone to answer me, please I agree with the other replies to your post , but in wc3 terms think of it like this. (this also applies to what oov was saying) Imagine if back in 2005 David kim was working on wc3 , at the time sky was trashing every pro and noob in the globe , all of a sudden his Sky Push vs Orc and NE appears on the scene , he sees that humans are having very high success with it (which was statistically true) , David Kim would patch the game and literally obliterate that strategy within a few months of Sky's debut in WCG 2005 , the same could be said about moon's mass druid of the talon strategy vs orc , or even something more modern , Th000's mass tank + human tri hero strategy vs NE and UD Now imagine that same thing being done every time a new strategy or meta shows up that ruins david's "statistics" would wc3 be the success it was ? I'm gonna have to say HELL NO . If you're going to compare TFT to SC2, then shouldn't you at least wait till LoV is out? I love WC3 and BW, but the problem with your example (and oov's for that matter) is that it's a comparison of a final product, with one not (I absolutely hated the decision to split SC2 into 3 games but that's another discussion). RoC, IIRC, was terrible to play on ladder. It was either mass casters or some form of NE T1. Hell, I don't even remember there being a legitimate scene until TFT came around. Likewise, all the talk I remember of vanilla SC was all the broken shit you'd see. While I agree that TFT/BW are way more enjoyable than SC2, can you honestly say that Roc/vanilla SC were the better games?
I'm gonna have to concede my point and agree to that 
My point was not to compare actually , it was just to give an idea on how David Kim's balance methods are viewed by OOV , in the context of a wc3 example
|
On October 02 2013 02:01 Incubus1993 wrote:
lol 8 months of watching WoL die to Broodlord Winfestor with David Kim saying "Zerg doesn't have a big advantage let it play out" begs to differ xD
The complain was more that Zergs were whining that it was hard to fight Hellions and hence the range buff was added. If it weren't added to tweak an inconvenience then WoLfester would never have happened.
That's what Oov is talking about. How even minor problems are fixed to cater to casuals. Top level players could already dodge mines--the WM did not need a nerf in the highest levels of play. But the patch was given with low level players in mind.
|
On October 02 2013 01:28 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 00:53 Tchado wrote:On October 01 2013 22:19 Spaylz wrote:On October 01 2013 14:27 Spaylz wrote:
I've been paying a lot of attention to the SC2 forums lately, and I have to wonder: is the game really in such a bad shape?
I'm a WC3 player, still loyal to the bone and although I bought SC2 I never liked it. It's just not fun to me in comparison to WC3. But Blizzard is investing a lot of money and effort into it, and there certainly is a decent amount of tournaments and media coverage.
However, when looking at the forums on TeamLiquid, the dwindling numbers in viewership and the lack of new tournaments in the scene, it really does seem like the game is beginning to strike out.
Is it really that bad? Shamelessly quoting myself. I'd like someone to answer me, please I agree with the other replies to your post , but in wc3 terms think of it like this. (this also applies to what oov was saying) Imagine if back in 2005 David kim was working on wc3 , at the time sky was trashing every pro and noob in the globe , all of a sudden his Sky Push vs Orc and NE appears on the scene , he sees that humans are having very high success with it (which was statistically true) , David Kim would patch the game and literally obliterate that strategy within a few months of Sky's debut in WCG 2005 , the same could be said about moon's mass druid of the talon strategy vs orc , or even something more modern , Th000's mass tank + human tri hero strategy vs NE and UD Now imagine that same thing being done every time a new strategy or meta shows up that ruins david's "statistics" would wc3 be the success it was ? I'm gonna have to say HELL NO . Truth be told I'm not familiar with how they balance SC2. People do seem to say all they do is nuke successful strategies into the ground, simply because Blizzard thinks the metagame should be ever changing. Which it should really, but not because Blizzard makes certain tactics obsolete. In WC3, the strategies weren't that numerous either. If you played against an Orc you pretty much knew what he was gonna do. Strategies evolved over time and some were the result of very ingenious play (think TH000's Paladin first against UD) and some were simply the result of common sense (as in the best option for Orc actually was to go grunt/raider/sw and stack claws on BM). But overall, the strategies didn't vary too much but that didn't really affect the quality of the game somehow, as the entertainment value of any WC3 game was the sheer exchange between players and the displays of micros and "big plays". The game had flaws for sure, it could have used a little more variety, a little more balance and a whole lot less RNG. In either case, I don't see Blizzard steering away from using David Kim as the main balance designer, and I don't foresee any major overhaul in LotV. I just don't think Blizzard has the guts to do that.
Commenting on Blizzard not trying to make certain tactics obsolete , Im gonna have to disagree with that , Blizzard had to learn to do that later on but certainly not at the beginning of sc2 , Blizzard didn't even give a chance for zergs to try and find a way to stop MVP's late game mass ghost strategy , they just destroyed it as soon as it started to affect david's "statistics" ( I assume ) , another example would be Thorzain's hellion + thor strategy vs protoss , it was nerfed after he annihilated protoss' in TSL 3 , most would argue that these strategies were OP , but we never had a chance to see if the other races could come up with a counter , and this is what OOV is arguing.
Blizzard did adapt a more "let them figure it out" approach later on , but to say that blizzard never did that is just false.
|
On October 02 2013 01:41 KoinZell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 00:46 ETisME wrote:
what makes you think I don't play terran? I am diamond T/P/Z on NA (not random). Granted, I haven't finished any placement for this season because I just finished uni but I played a pure bio style in WoL and almost made it to master.
I never said mines are op, I said the way it operates is stupid. It shouldn't be an auto targetting unit. I personally think bio mine is super strong against ling baneling muta, but it wasn't my word who said zerg can beat bio mine with "high skill". That was coming from the terran forum pro like thedwf and naruto mainly which are also pretty terran biased.
zerg always split their banelings against bio, you need to watch zerg stream or play zerg to know it. the reason why they don't split up too much is because individual small groups of banelings get snipes too easily.
zerg rolls the banelings to the mine is because first, the mine can blow up the banelings which also blows up the mines. second, you can't engage and disengage once you see the mine, once you engage and that's it.
a lot of splitting from terran is pre spread, you engage with small group of marines or marauders and spread out the bio behind and then once the zerg engages, you spread even more. You only need to go through level 5 marine split challenge map to get a cost efficient trade.
if mine is not nerfed, do you honestly think people would use tank against muta ling baneling? Umm like I previously explained terran is the race that needs to react to zerg. So why shouldn't lingblingmuta be nerfed instead of mines? Because if mines were nerfed, than the zerg could keep on going lingblingmuta. But if lingblingmuta were to be nerfed, than terran could go for a bigger variety of builds. And tanks were used against lingblingmuta even in WoL. Marine tank was the primary way to win against lingblingmuta in WoL, and even back than the terran was struggling against that build. Before the mine goes off, you can disengage fyi. You can spot the mines before you enter the range of the AoE, and even if you enter the range you can disengage. It takes about 1 second to go off once someone enters the mines range. You can't make mines anything other than auto target. Do you want the terrans to aim the shots into the middle of the zerg army? And fyi more skilled terrans can stop the mines from shooting out the shot, and let it shoot once it gets the most out of the mine. Otherwise the mine will only do 50% of the aoe damage that it does, because it usually shoots the rocket into the corner of the zerglings. And it's a fact that skilled zergs can avoid mines. I know that zerg players don't usually split up the banelings too much. But it isn't possible to split up the banelings too much because there's no way to a terran could target fire every single one of those 30 split up banelings, even while there's zerglings in their face. Anyway back on the topic. You can't balance the game by completely nerfing 1 unit to the ground to tell the players to use another unit. The game is only interesting if the players have a wide variety of actually potential strategies. And innovating a scene with that many possibilities. Now that's interesting. I wouldn't mind if the widowmine range would only be nerfed down by 20-25% while the tanks would be buffed like it was written in the possible patch notes. In that case I'd say that mines would still be a possible choice to use in conjunction with tanks.
I don't mind mine being an auto target unit. I mind it being a heavily game ending unit but the game ending blow (taking out banelings) are often dealt automatically. How is that supposed to differentiate good/bad Terran player? the room for micro because the engagement just goes too quickly. (comparing to the bio tank where we know the good terran spread out the tanks nicely and targetting the banelings manually).
The only micro we see is from the zerg side and terran burrow and unburrow the mines and some poking, prespread bio and pick up if engagement goes bad.
It is arguable which race is reactionary to which one. Ling baneling muta is used mainly because it stops drops from tearing zerg apart for example and it is easier to win games by building up a momentum.
I would argue it is more on T can contain zerg much easier and get into a much better position in all maps with bio mine compared to mech, thus leading to ling baneling muta which is an optimal counter. (while roach hydra play is certainly viable, it doesn't perform as well)
On the other hand if we look back to WoL, Terran could go mech and zerg had to options to go muta heavy, or broodlord infestors or ultra ling baneling or ling infestor bust etc.
Terran who went bio tank medivac, Zerg could go both infestors broodlords or ling baneling muta ultra or ling baneling ultra infestor.
and marine tank didn't struggle against ling baneling muta, in fact, the matchup was more terran favored if I remember correctly (metalopolis turns out to be a terran favored map etc) because terran 3-3 bio and thors was just too cost efficient and with some PFs to turtle behind, it was difficult for zerg to break the split map.
Anyhow, the matchup isn't the same anymore because of the faster muta making snipes on tanks and medivacs much easier. We don't quite know what will happen yet because marine tank is just so damn rare now.
Like you said, why not have the matchup more diversed? Why make tank an obsolete unit? Why not make mine to become what they are intended for, a support anti air and zone controlling unit instead of a role overlapping unit?
since the beta, bio mine is patched so that no one uses bio tank anymore, there were only mech (because of the combined upgrades) and bio mine (which was a much stronger unit).
That is the same as what you are saying, you can't balance the game by completely nerfing (marine tank indirectly) one unit and just replace it with a unit that outshines it almost in every way.
useless in 40 seconds doesn't mean anything because the engagement itself doesn't last 40 seconds long. you can at most bait out 2 to 3 mines up front and you will have more at the back that you can't bait out.
anyway, I feel like I have been repeating my points already. Either you get it or you don't.
Personally I just hope bio mine is nerfed because I have won and lost too many games due to the mine hit just was perfect or a complete miss.
I personally can't see ling baneling muta getting nerfed because bio mine is damn good against it. I can't see roach hydra getting buff'd either because it is crucial for ZvP. why not a mine nerf and tank buff so that mech might see some light for TvZ and even maybe TvP hopefully.
|
On October 02 2013 02:30 ETisME wrote:I don't mind mine being an auto target unit. I mind it being a heavily game ending unit but the game ending blow (taking out + Show Spoiler +banelings) are often dealt automatically. How is that supposed to differentiate good/bad Terran player? the room for micro because the engagement just goes too quickly. (comparing to the bio tank where we know the good terran spread out the tanks nicely and targetting the banelings manually).
The only micro we see is from the zerg side and terran burrow and unburrow the mines and some poking, prespread bio and pick up if engagement goes bad.
It is arguable which race is reactionary to which one. Ling baneling muta is used mainly because it stops drops from tearing zerg apart for example and it is easier to win games by building up a momentum.
I would argue it is more on T can contain zerg much easier and get into a much better position in all maps with bio mine compared to mech, thus leading to ling baneling muta which is an optimal counter. (while roach hydra play is certainly viable, it doesn't perform as well)
On the other hand if we look back to WoL, Terran could go mech and zerg had to options to go muta heavy, or broodlord infestors or ultra ling baneling or ling infestor bust etc.
Terran who went bio tank medivac, Zerg could go both infestors broodlords or ling baneling muta ultra or ling baneling ultra infestor.
and marine tank didn't struggle against ling baneling muta, in fact, the matchup was more terran favored if I remember correctly (metalopolis turns out to be a terran favored map etc) because terran 3-3 bio and thors was just too cost efficient and with some PFs to turtle behind, it was difficult for zerg to break the split map.
Anyhow, the matchup isn't the same anymore because of the faster muta making snipes on tanks and medivacs much easier. We don't quite know what will happen yet because marine tank is just so damn rare now.
Like you said, why not have the matchup more diversed? Why make tank an obsolete unit? Why not make mine to become what they are intended for, a support anti air and zone controlling unit instead of a role overlapping unit?
since the beta, bio mine is patched so that no one uses bio tank anymore, there were only mech (because of the combined upgrades) and bio mine (which was a much stronger unit).
That is the same as what you are saying, you can't balance the game by completely nerfing (marine tank indirectly) one unit and just replace it with a unit that outshines it almost in every way.
useless in 40 seconds doesn't mean anything because the engagement itself doesn't last 40 seconds long. you can at most bait out 2 to 3 mines up front and you will have more at the back that you can't bait out.
anyway, I feel like I have been repeating my points already. Either you get it or you don't.
Personally I just hope bio mine is nerfed because I have won and lost too many games due to the mine hit just was perfect or a complete miss.
I personally can't see ling baneling muta getting nerfed because bio mine is damn good against it. I can't see roach hydra getting buff'd either because it is crucial for ZvP. why not a mine nerf and tank buff so that mech might see some light for TvZ and even maybe TvP hopefully.
Heavily game ending unit? Are you sure you're not talking about banelings? Cause you do know that if banelings flank from the side, there's a chance that you'll lose your whole 100 supply army to 13 banelings.. And you do know that mines cannot move so you can choose your engagements, while banelings are mobile units and their speed is about equal to stimmed marines while on creep? So yeah. Heavily game ending units can be said about banelings really easily.
Mines don't AIM at banelings. They aim at the unit that enters the range first. So if you micro your banelings correctly, you'll be able to save most of the banelings, and if you flank, the flanking banelings will be able to avoid most of the mines as well.
And mines NEED good spread. If the spread isn't good. the mines have a chance to do tons of friendly fire damage, and they'll also be targeting the same units. So yeah. You need to position the mines and burrow them (Just like tanks.).
And like I said, buffing tanks WILL make the matchup more diverse.. It will add another choice for the terrans. Which is how things need to be. But why would you make the widowmines obsolite so that 1 mine can kill a max of 4-5 zerglings? Because that's what the mines will actually do after the nerf.
And mines aren't about luck. You do know that if the terran puts mines beneath their army, they'll do more damage through friendly fire for one thing. And for zergs, you need to realize that the FIRST unit that enters the mines range will be the target. You can control your formation so that it'd minimize the mine damage. So it's not about luck. If you engage with a huge ball of banelings in the front, no way in hell you wont get a big mine hit right on top of them.
Tanks will be FAR harder to use vs Z because of the muta buff. The Mutas are way too fast and effective at picking of tanks. And to get an effective tank placement, you need to spread the tanks out, which gives mutas the freedom to pick off anything they want. Because you can't spread your marines to cover every single tank that sieges up. Again another possible problem.
Mines can also be killed before doing anything if there's an overseer with the mutas. So you can't defend the tanks with the mines either.
|
OOV is still such a baller. Kudos
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 02 2013 01:46 Jeremy Reimer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 00:22 quebecman77 wrote:
someone should ask blizzard to release starcraft 1 HD with sc2 features , would play all my life ..... that where the money stach located blizzard , you failed .
But someone did release such a game. It's a mod called SC2BW. It's everything you asked for. It's got all the old units, you can turn automining on or off, turn 12-unit selection max on or off, whatever you want! It's essentially Broodwar in HD! The creator has even made an attempt to simulate the old BW pathing. And nobody plays it.
SC2BW is missing the AI from BW. You can't simply give the mod BW's AI and in turn, it doesn't feel like BW.
|
On October 02 2013 01:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 22:19 Spaylz wrote:On October 01 2013 14:27 Spaylz wrote:
I've been paying a lot of attention to the SC2 forums lately, and I have to wonder: is the game really in such a bad shape?
I'm a WC3 player, still loyal to the bone and although I bought SC2 I never liked it. It's just not fun to me in comparison to WC3. But Blizzard is investing a lot of money and effort into it, and there certainly is a decent amount of tournaments and media coverage.
However, when looking at the forums on TeamLiquid, the dwindling numbers in viewership and the lack of new tournaments in the scene, it really does seem like the game is beginning to strike out.
Is it really that bad? Shamelessly quoting myself. I'd like someone to answer me, please The scene is very very stable with regular high viewership for WCS everyday. Blizzard's latching onto the system has allowed SC2 to have a tournament running morning and night 4-5 days a week. The game is nowhere near close to dying, and during finals the numbers ratchet up immensely showing great support for the game. The big change is that TL was used to X viewerbase looking Y matches each day during BW while in SC2 the Y has increased by LOT but the X has remained stagnant creating an illusion of "less viewers per match" despite there being more matches per day. So no, it's not dying. Not even close. But Kespa pros have not been able to take over like people expect because the game is a lot more different than people realized. This causes people to get upset and blame the game for their faves leaving.
I liked everything up until you started talking about the pros because when I look at the results. They did pretty darn well if you ask me. Perhaps you meant the old power houses in Flash and Jaedong even though they put up decent results whether it be PL or coming in 2nd. It didn't take that long for them to start throwing their weight around and now that KeSPA is downsizing their SC2 departments.. well it's kind of trivial to talk about them now. I think they've done more than enough to prove that their tactics can create good players. These players like Sea (after being on TL for a while realized the game wasn't for him so he retired), Bisu (never really got going limited roster spots so he retires), JangBi (doing very well decides to retire regardless because he doesn't like the direction game/scene is going), etc. The reality is all these guys have their own reasons but a lot of the retirement is because there are only so few spots remaining on the KeSPA teams that they see no other choice but to quit.
|
On October 02 2013 02:39 KoinZell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 02:30 ETisME wrote:I don't mind mine being an auto target unit. I mind it being a heavily game ending unit but the game ending blow (taking out + Show Spoiler +banelings) are often dealt automatically. How is that supposed to differentiate good/bad Terran player? the room for micro because the engagement just goes too quickly. (comparing to the bio tank where we know the good terran spread out the tanks nicely and targetting the banelings manually).
The only micro we see is from the zerg side and terran burrow and unburrow the mines and some poking, prespread bio and pick up if engagement goes bad.
It is arguable which race is reactionary to which one. Ling baneling muta is used mainly because it stops drops from tearing zerg apart for example and it is easier to win games by building up a momentum.
I would argue it is more on T can contain zerg much easier and get into a much better position in all maps with bio mine compared to mech, thus leading to ling baneling muta which is an optimal counter. (while roach hydra play is certainly viable, it doesn't perform as well)
On the other hand if we look back to WoL, Terran could go mech and zerg had to options to go muta heavy, or broodlord infestors or ultra ling baneling or ling infestor bust etc.
Terran who went bio tank medivac, Zerg could go both infestors broodlords or ling baneling muta ultra or ling baneling ultra infestor.
and marine tank didn't struggle against ling baneling muta, in fact, the matchup was more terran favored if I remember correctly (metalopolis turns out to be a terran favored map etc) because terran 3-3 bio and thors was just too cost efficient and with some PFs to turtle behind, it was difficult for zerg to break the split map.
Anyhow, the matchup isn't the same anymore because of the faster muta making snipes on tanks and medivacs much easier. We don't quite know what will happen yet because marine tank is just so damn rare now.
Like you said, why not have the matchup more diversed? Why make tank an obsolete unit? Why not make mine to become what they are intended for, a support anti air and zone controlling unit instead of a role overlapping unit?
since the beta, bio mine is patched so that no one uses bio tank anymore, there were only mech (because of the combined upgrades) and bio mine (which was a much stronger unit).
That is the same as what you are saying, you can't balance the game by completely nerfing (marine tank indirectly) one unit and just replace it with a unit that outshines it almost in every way.
useless in 40 seconds doesn't mean anything because the engagement itself doesn't last 40 seconds long. you can at most bait out 2 to 3 mines up front and you will have more at the back that you can't bait out.
anyway, I feel like I have been repeating my points already. Either you get it or you don't.
Personally I just hope bio mine is nerfed because I have won and lost too many games due to the mine hit just was perfect or a complete miss.
I personally can't see ling baneling muta getting nerfed because bio mine is damn good against it. I can't see roach hydra getting buff'd either because it is crucial for ZvP. why not a mine nerf and tank buff so that mech might see some light for TvZ and even maybe TvP hopefully. Heavily game ending unit? Are you sure you're not talking about banelings? Cause you do know that if banelings flank from the side, there's a chance that you'll lose your whole 100 supply army to 13 banelings.. And you do know that mines cannot move so you can choose your engagements, while banelings are mobile units and their speed is about equal to stimmed marines while on creep? So yeah. Heavily game ending units can be said about banelings really easily. Mines don't AIM at banelings. They aim at the unit that enters the range first. So if you micro your banelings correctly, you'll be able to save most of the banelings, and if you flank, the flanking banelings will be able to avoid most of the mines as well. And mines NEED good spread. If the spread isn't good. the mines have a chance to do tons of friendly fire damage, and they'll also be targeting the same units. So yeah. You need to position the mines and burrow them (Just like tanks.). And like I said, buffing tanks WILL make the matchup more diverse.. It will add another choice for the terrans. Which is how things need to be. But why would you make the widowmines obsolite so that 1 mine can kill a max of 4-5 zerglings? Because that's what the mines will actually do after the nerf. And mines aren't about luck. You do know that if the terran puts mines beneath their army, they'll do more damage through friendly fire for one thing. And for zergs, you need to realize that the FIRST unit that enters the mines range will be the target. You can control your formation so that it'd minimize the mine damage. So it's not about luck. If you engage with a huge ball of banelings in the front, no way in hell you wont get a big mine hit right on top of them. Tanks will be FAR harder to use vs Z because of the muta buff. The Mutas are way too fast and effective at picking of tanks. And to get an effective tank placement, you need to spread the tanks out, which gives mutas the freedom to pick off anything they want. Because you can't spread your marines to cover every single tank that sieges up. Again another possible problem. Mines can also be killed before doing anything if there's an overseer with the mutas. So you can't defend the tanks with the mines either.
yea, the chance of getting 100 supply army to 13 banelings is almost as slim as unmicro-ed marines just standing there without tanks or mines and just so happened to stand there clumped up.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=206136
if you can pass to level 5, you are already trading cost efficient.
Yes, spreading out mines is important.
doesn't change the fact that widow mines are luck dependant.
+ Show Spoiler +
watch this.
The second widow mine could have fired or not. If this was a zerg all in and the first shot was fired and missed the banelings, and the second shot fired off overlapping, the zerg will get the banelings through. If the second shot didn't fire off or fired but didn't overlap with the first shot, zerg loses all the banelings.
or watch this:
+ Show Spoiler +
at 0:38:15
we saw how hyun goes for a bust and some widow mines killed the overseers and just look at how the widow mines interact. some could have gotten a much bigger hit and some overlapped and some just randomly killed off the big clumped of banelings and not targetting the roaches.
We know tanks will be harder to use, I have said that already. that is upto blizzard to do more patching and fix.
and enough with the basic function of the mines, I know how it works and stats. I probably know more about it than you do (you can't control your formation out from a targetted unit because it goes faster than you can micro it out. the most you can do is sent in a small pack of units and bait the mine shot and that's it)
honestly I am done arguing with you. I don't even understand how you can argue for banelings being the game ending units at top level and still complaining mine does friendly damage when baiting mines only hits the frontline bio which are healed by medivacs.
What are we now, WoL beta players where no one marine split anymore?
|
On October 02 2013 03:36 ETisME wrote:yea, the chance of getting 100 supply army to 13 banelings is almost as slim as unmicro-ed marines just standing there without tanks or mines and just so happened to stand there clumped up. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=206136if you can pass to level 5, you are already trading cost efficient. honestly I am done arguing with you. I don't even understand how you can argue for banelings being the game ending units at]top level and still complaining mine does friendly damage when baiting mines only hits the frontline bio which are healed by medivacs. What are we now, WoL beta players where no one marine split anymore?
Nuff said (link)
Not saying that banelings are OP, but you said something about ''heavily game ending'' .. Yeah try to deny that those banelings weren't silly.
And even if you presplit. Flanking banelings will have big enough aoe to still get really solid connections unless you manage to split units into groups of 2 with enough room between them. 1 banelings hitting a clump of 4 marines is already extremely cost effective. And if 1 baneling kills 4 supply worth of marines, than that's supply efficient.
And again, mine targeting works by simple principles. And knowing those principles is the way that you can counter them. And fyi you can see the mines even before you run into the mine range. Even without detection. So the first clip just showed how bad the zerg player was.
Terran has always had to do huge splits to avoid huge baneling damage. Now the zergs can't bother splitting their armies up more and splitting their army up enough to either cause huge friendly fire with the mines or avoid the mines hitting the banelings.. Even though they can do that. Complaining that ''but some units are faster, so it's hard to control it'' is just an excuse.
|
On October 01 2013 22:19 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 14:27 Spaylz wrote:
I've been paying a lot of attention to the SC2 forums lately, and I have to wonder: is the game really in such a bad shape?
I'm a WC3 player, still loyal to the bone and although I bought SC2 I never liked it. It's just not fun to me in comparison to WC3. But Blizzard is investing a lot of money and effort into it, and there certainly is a decent amount of tournaments and media coverage.
However, when looking at the forums on TeamLiquid, the dwindling numbers in viewership and the lack of new tournaments in the scene, it really does seem like the game is beginning to strike out.
Is it really that bad? Shamelessly quoting myself. I'd like someone to answer me, please
Short answer, no. This is a period where over-inflated expectations are finding it difficult to come to terms with reality.
The forums on TL are not indicative of the SC2 community as a whole. The vocal posters in SC2 General are not even indicative of the TL community as a whole. The viewer numbers are reasonably steady but tend to fluctuate due to the (over?) saturation of SC2 content. I certainly watch less than I used to in 2010 - 2011. I watch less streams and less tournaments. The streams I watch tend to be favourite Protoss like Nony. The tournaments I watch tend to be big name ones (such as DH) and some WCS. Even here, I may only watch the final day or final rounds or favourite players.
I still like to watch though, and I still enjoy watching. However, there is so much content that I am more choosy with what I watch. I also have more time constraints and have to be more particular. I am also trying to ladder more and watch less.
So no, it is not that bad. It may not be doing great either. But, it is doing alright and better than some make it seem.
|
On October 02 2013 02:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 02:01 Incubus1993 wrote:
lol 8 months of watching WoL die to Broodlord Winfestor with David Kim saying "Zerg doesn't have a big advantage let it play out" begs to differ xD The complain was more that Zergs were whining that it was hard to fight Hellions and hence the range buff was added. If it weren't added to tweak an inconvenience then WoLfester would never have happened. That's what Oov is talking about. How even minor problems are fixed to cater to casuals. Top level players could already dodge mines--the WM did not need a nerf in the highest levels of play. But the patch was given with low level players in mind.
Yes, I think so too. I think they did the same, iirc, in WOL with the old Void Rays. I still remember the cool "charge-up" tricks players were using (such as charging up on pylons, rocks or another Void Ray's shields) before attacking the enemy. This was nerfed, apparently, due to imbalances in team games. I miss that mechanism even if the original VR may have been a little OP. And, I was hoping some of that particular usage might return in HOTS with a revamped VR or the Oracle. Not to be.
I hope the WM change does not go ahead.
Blizzard did learn from WOL, though. They seemed to have an idea - in the early days of WOL - as to how the game should play out and were taken aback by how players adapted units and evolved strategies in unanticipated ways. A lot of early patching in WOL was the result of this line of thought, I think. That appears to have changed. They are more willing, at least thus far, to let things be and put the onus on players to find solutions to problems.
Unless, of course, the whining becomes so loud it appears they must do something...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
