|
On October 03 2013 01:20 ysnake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 00:46 KoinZell wrote:On October 02 2013 04:57 ETisME wrote:If baneling is supply efficient because it kils 4 marines, then mines are super efficient because it kills lings and Banelings without even needing to lose the mine? when the game is about constant trading like marine mine ling and baneling, it's about resource trading. And you don't understand mines, do you? I used the clip to tell you that mine hits are often lucky because of overlapping shots. read You cant avoid mine hit when you are engaging. You can't split against mine when you engage. Stop bringing up stupid comment like zerg not bothering to split up, they can't do that. When you engage the mine will just fire off randomly to everything, zerg and Terran alike. It is not about hard to control, it is impossible to have a mine targeted on your unit and split against it and isolate it from the clump. The delay is only 1.5, per mine. This is why there is no widow mine split micro. Even using units that out ranges the mines can get hit sometimes. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-M&desktop_uri=/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-MDo you even play zvt at all? Dude when have you seen a zerg go into a fight KNOWING that there are mines, without an overseer? Mines are at the front of the terrans army, with vision those mines DIE. It's ridiculous that you'd even think that ''Oh they don't die because of the explosion, OP'', and you're not the first zerg to say that. Mines WILL die after the first shot in an engagement. Unless of course the zerg disengages. Which means that the zerg didn't think things through. Do you see where I'm going with this? It's the zergs fault if the mines don't die. And again, banelings have an bigger AoE and more potential damage done. I wouldn't mind having my mine have like 30% bigger range and an actual targeting system, if it would die after each pop. Overlapping shot are usually stupidly bad. I've had many and I do mean many times where the mines shots overlapped because the zerg sent 10 zerglings in front of the army, and about 3 mines were useless because of that. Sure if you send your whole zerglings BALL over the mines, they will die. See again where I'm going? Zerg shouldn't send their whole army ball from the front against the mines. They should use flanks and split up the army to reduce the damage of the mines. You can split against the mine, even though it's hard for sure (As in make a pointy formation and the zerglings in the back that weren't at the front getting targeted by the mine should pull back a few cm's, than the mine effectiveness will be severly reduced.. And the delay is ONLY 1.5 seconds? Yeah.. 1.5 seconds is like a blink of an eye.. Totally.. The pros totally can't react to something in 1.5 seconds.. You're just being silly. The units that outrange the mines get hit because of poor micro fyi. You haven't seen times where the mutaballs corner mutas attack without the mines reacting, than because the pro player has all of the mutas on 1 hotkey or doesn't bother microing, there's some mutas from the mutaball that push the front mutas right into the mine range.. That's why the units that should outrange the mines get hit. Because of unit pathing and poor micro. If he'd send like 4 mutas to clean the mine up instead of the whole ball, than the mutas would quite easily kill off the mine without getting inside the range. I've off-raced zerg a couple of times, and if I pay attention to the mines, I can actually flank, etc to make the mines significantly less useful. My macro mechanics with zerg are awful of course, but there's a good amount of times where I manage to win the games by actually being cost effective against the terran player thanks to baneling flanks, and baiting out mines. I main Terran ofc. Most maps don't allow "flanking", also, Terran now decides where the fight takes place, instead of the Zerg. And let's say that Mines are the same after the patch. I HATE playing against them as Zerg, it is irritating, I actually stopped playing SC2 just because of that stupid Widow Mine (and I was an avid anti-Widow Mine poster on all forums). So, what's the next step? Maybe involve some tactics that makes the mines less efficient? I've tried Roach/Hydra, you either die to drops or Siege Tank count gets too high, and guess what? Mines are still GOOD against that. Let's take it one step further, maybe I can do something with my harassment units. Guess what? Mines are exceptionally good against them. What composition can Zerg choose to discard widow mines? Whatever composition I choose as Zerg, I will always have to face the annoying Widow Mine. Now don't come bashing in with "lol, you face Marines every game as well", they are the core of the army. No one ever complained about stimmed Marine drop, or a Zergling run-by, because they can be prevented and if you take major damage from it, it's mostly because you made a huge mistake. And what Terrans have their Widow Mines in front of the army? Unless they're already at your 3rd or 4th base. Every decent Terran I've faced kept Marines IN FRONT of the Widow Mines, my army comes rolling in, they run back to their Widow Mines. Job's done.
you know, you could just be like, I don't know. Not bad?
|
On October 03 2013 00:46 KoinZell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:57 ETisME wrote:If baneling is supply efficient because it kils 4 marines, then mines are super efficient because it kills lings and Banelings without even needing to lose the mine? when the game is about constant trading like marine mine ling and baneling, it's about resource trading. And you don't understand mines, do you? I used the clip to tell you that mine hits are often lucky because of overlapping shots. read You cant avoid mine hit when you are engaging. You can't split against mine when you engage. Stop bringing up stupid comment like zerg not bothering to split up, they can't do that. When you engage the mine will just fire off randomly to everything, zerg and Terran alike. It is not about hard to control, it is impossible to have a mine targeted on your unit and split against it and isolate it from the clump. The delay is only 1.5, per mine. This is why there is no widow mine split micro. Even using units that out ranges the mines can get hit sometimes. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-M&desktop_uri=/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-MDo you even play zvt at all? Dude when have you seen a zerg go into a fight KNOWING that there are mines, without an overseer? Mines are at the front of the terrans army, with vision those mines DIE. It's ridiculous that you'd even think that ''Oh they don't die because of the explosion, OP'', and you're not the first zerg to say that. Mines WILL die after the first shot in an engagement. Unless of course the zerg disengages. Which means that the zerg didn't think things through. Do you see where I'm going with this? It's the zergs fault if the mines don't die. And again, banelings have an bigger AoE and more potential damage done. I wouldn't mind having my mine have like 30% bigger range and an actual targeting system, if it would die after each pop. Overlapping shot are usually stupidly bad. I've had many and I do mean many times where the mines shots overlapped because the zerg sent 10 zerglings in front of the army, and about 3 mines were useless because of that. Sure if you send your whole zerglings BALL over the mines, they will die. See again where I'm going? Zerg shouldn't send their whole army ball from the front against the mines. They should use flanks and split up the army to reduce the damage of the mines. You can split against the mine, even though it's hard for sure (As in make a pointy formation and the zerglings in the back that weren't at the front getting targeted by the mine should pull back a few cm's, than the mine effectiveness will be severly reduced.. And the delay is ONLY 1.5 seconds? Yeah.. 1.5 seconds is like a blink of an eye.. Totally.. The pros totally can't react to something in 1.5 seconds.. You're just being silly. The units that outrange the mines get hit because of poor micro fyi. You haven't seen times where the mutaballs corner mutas attack without the mines reacting, than because the pro player has all of the mutas on 1 hotkey or doesn't bother microing, there's some mutas from the mutaball that push the front mutas right into the mine range.. That's why the units that should outrange the mines get hit. Because of unit pathing and poor micro. If he'd send like 4 mutas to clean the mine up instead of the whole ball, than the mutas would quite easily kill off the mine without getting inside the range. I've off-raced zerg a couple of times, and if I pay attention to the mines, I can actually flank, etc to make the mines significantly less useful. My macro mechanics with zerg are awful of course, but there's a good amount of times where I manage to win the games by actually being cost effective against the terran player thanks to baneling flanks, and baiting out mines. I main Terran ofc.
I didn't complain about widow mine not dying, when did I even say that?
and it's 1.5 game seconds...not real life seconds. you used widow mines, how can you think that is a 1.5 second delay in shooting...
terran doesn't only put widow mines at the front, they have some at front and some on the retreating path with some bio spread nearby. go watch any widow mine bio games... no pro ever put all the mines at the front. it's just silly, I can screen cap at least 10 different games with that positioning. but I won't because you just seems to think all terran does is put widow mine up front.
Do you even see how zerg engages into a widow mine push? they split some units to push back the poking bio and to bait the mines out. and then once the zerg has enough units, they bait the mines and flood in the units, flank or not.
and sigh, calling that widow mine shooting hydra is poor micro is just....a complete lack of understanding of the video. watch again. pathing was perfect, it was on the complete open space. it was only a move, how is that poor micro LOL
I guess you should just play and understand the matchup more before posting. way too much flaw in your arguments. especially the ones you say what zerg player should do.
you saying zerg should sent 4 mutas to clean up mines. well, do you know why zerg win games with muta ling banelings? Muta sniping mines and out trading once the momentum is there.
Muta one shot mines in a ball before the mines can fire off (i.e. within the 1.5 GAME second delay), this is also why some terrans research vehicle armor.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 03 2013 01:37 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 01:20 ysnake wrote:On October 03 2013 00:46 KoinZell wrote:On October 02 2013 04:57 ETisME wrote:If baneling is supply efficient because it kils 4 marines, then mines are super efficient because it kills lings and Banelings without even needing to lose the mine? when the game is about constant trading like marine mine ling and baneling, it's about resource trading. And you don't understand mines, do you? I used the clip to tell you that mine hits are often lucky because of overlapping shots. read You cant avoid mine hit when you are engaging. You can't split against mine when you engage. Stop bringing up stupid comment like zerg not bothering to split up, they can't do that. When you engage the mine will just fire off randomly to everything, zerg and Terran alike. It is not about hard to control, it is impossible to have a mine targeted on your unit and split against it and isolate it from the clump. The delay is only 1.5, per mine. This is why there is no widow mine split micro. Even using units that out ranges the mines can get hit sometimes. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-M&desktop_uri=/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-MDo you even play zvt at all? Dude when have you seen a zerg go into a fight KNOWING that there are mines, without an overseer? Mines are at the front of the terrans army, with vision those mines DIE. It's ridiculous that you'd even think that ''Oh they don't die because of the explosion, OP'', and you're not the first zerg to say that. Mines WILL die after the first shot in an engagement. Unless of course the zerg disengages. Which means that the zerg didn't think things through. Do you see where I'm going with this? It's the zergs fault if the mines don't die. And again, banelings have an bigger AoE and more potential damage done. I wouldn't mind having my mine have like 30% bigger range and an actual targeting system, if it would die after each pop. Overlapping shot are usually stupidly bad. I've had many and I do mean many times where the mines shots overlapped because the zerg sent 10 zerglings in front of the army, and about 3 mines were useless because of that. Sure if you send your whole zerglings BALL over the mines, they will die. See again where I'm going? Zerg shouldn't send their whole army ball from the front against the mines. They should use flanks and split up the army to reduce the damage of the mines. You can split against the mine, even though it's hard for sure (As in make a pointy formation and the zerglings in the back that weren't at the front getting targeted by the mine should pull back a few cm's, than the mine effectiveness will be severly reduced.. And the delay is ONLY 1.5 seconds? Yeah.. 1.5 seconds is like a blink of an eye.. Totally.. The pros totally can't react to something in 1.5 seconds.. You're just being silly. The units that outrange the mines get hit because of poor micro fyi. You haven't seen times where the mutaballs corner mutas attack without the mines reacting, than because the pro player has all of the mutas on 1 hotkey or doesn't bother microing, there's some mutas from the mutaball that push the front mutas right into the mine range.. That's why the units that should outrange the mines get hit. Because of unit pathing and poor micro. If he'd send like 4 mutas to clean the mine up instead of the whole ball, than the mutas would quite easily kill off the mine without getting inside the range. I've off-raced zerg a couple of times, and if I pay attention to the mines, I can actually flank, etc to make the mines significantly less useful. My macro mechanics with zerg are awful of course, but there's a good amount of times where I manage to win the games by actually being cost effective against the terran player thanks to baneling flanks, and baiting out mines. I main Terran ofc. Most maps don't allow "flanking", also, Terran now decides where the fight takes place, instead of the Zerg. And let's say that Mines are the same after the patch. I HATE playing against them as Zerg, it is irritating, I actually stopped playing SC2 just because of that stupid Widow Mine (and I was an avid anti-Widow Mine poster on all forums). So, what's the next step? Maybe involve some tactics that makes the mines less efficient? I've tried Roach/Hydra, you either die to drops or Siege Tank count gets too high, and guess what? Mines are still GOOD against that. Let's take it one step further, maybe I can do something with my harassment units. Guess what? Mines are exceptionally good against them. What composition can Zerg choose to discard widow mines? Whatever composition I choose as Zerg, I will always have to face the annoying Widow Mine. Now don't come bashing in with "lol, you face Marines every game as well", they are the core of the army. No one ever complained about stimmed Marine drop, or a Zergling run-by, because they can be prevented and if you take major damage from it, it's mostly because you made a huge mistake. And what Terrans have their Widow Mines in front of the army? Unless they're already at your 3rd or 4th base. Every decent Terran I've faced kept Marines IN FRONT of the Widow Mines, my army comes rolling in, they run back to their Widow Mines. Job's done. you know, you could just be like, I don't know. Not bad?
Shhh, do not reveal the secrets of being good player.
|
On October 03 2013 01:37 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 01:20 ysnake wrote:On October 03 2013 00:46 KoinZell wrote:On October 02 2013 04:57 ETisME wrote:If baneling is supply efficient because it kils 4 marines, then mines are super efficient because it kills lings and Banelings without even needing to lose the mine? when the game is about constant trading like marine mine ling and baneling, it's about resource trading. And you don't understand mines, do you? I used the clip to tell you that mine hits are often lucky because of overlapping shots. read You cant avoid mine hit when you are engaging. You can't split against mine when you engage. Stop bringing up stupid comment like zerg not bothering to split up, they can't do that. When you engage the mine will just fire off randomly to everything, zerg and Terran alike. It is not about hard to control, it is impossible to have a mine targeted on your unit and split against it and isolate it from the clump. The delay is only 1.5, per mine. This is why there is no widow mine split micro. Even using units that out ranges the mines can get hit sometimes. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-M&desktop_uri=/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-MDo you even play zvt at all? Dude when have you seen a zerg go into a fight KNOWING that there are mines, without an overseer? Mines are at the front of the terrans army, with vision those mines DIE. It's ridiculous that you'd even think that ''Oh they don't die because of the explosion, OP'', and you're not the first zerg to say that. Mines WILL die after the first shot in an engagement. Unless of course the zerg disengages. Which means that the zerg didn't think things through. Do you see where I'm going with this? It's the zergs fault if the mines don't die. And again, banelings have an bigger AoE and more potential damage done. I wouldn't mind having my mine have like 30% bigger range and an actual targeting system, if it would die after each pop. Overlapping shot are usually stupidly bad. I've had many and I do mean many times where the mines shots overlapped because the zerg sent 10 zerglings in front of the army, and about 3 mines were useless because of that. Sure if you send your whole zerglings BALL over the mines, they will die. See again where I'm going? Zerg shouldn't send their whole army ball from the front against the mines. They should use flanks and split up the army to reduce the damage of the mines. You can split against the mine, even though it's hard for sure (As in make a pointy formation and the zerglings in the back that weren't at the front getting targeted by the mine should pull back a few cm's, than the mine effectiveness will be severly reduced.. And the delay is ONLY 1.5 seconds? Yeah.. 1.5 seconds is like a blink of an eye.. Totally.. The pros totally can't react to something in 1.5 seconds.. You're just being silly. The units that outrange the mines get hit because of poor micro fyi. You haven't seen times where the mutaballs corner mutas attack without the mines reacting, than because the pro player has all of the mutas on 1 hotkey or doesn't bother microing, there's some mutas from the mutaball that push the front mutas right into the mine range.. That's why the units that should outrange the mines get hit. Because of unit pathing and poor micro. If he'd send like 4 mutas to clean the mine up instead of the whole ball, than the mutas would quite easily kill off the mine without getting inside the range. I've off-raced zerg a couple of times, and if I pay attention to the mines, I can actually flank, etc to make the mines significantly less useful. My macro mechanics with zerg are awful of course, but there's a good amount of times where I manage to win the games by actually being cost effective against the terran player thanks to baneling flanks, and baiting out mines. I main Terran ofc. Most maps don't allow "flanking", also, Terran now decides where the fight takes place, instead of the Zerg. And let's say that Mines are the same after the patch. I HATE playing against them as Zerg, it is irritating, I actually stopped playing SC2 just because of that stupid Widow Mine (and I was an avid anti-Widow Mine poster on all forums). So, what's the next step? Maybe involve some tactics that makes the mines less efficient? I've tried Roach/Hydra, you either die to drops or Siege Tank count gets too high, and guess what? Mines are still GOOD against that. Let's take it one step further, maybe I can do something with my harassment units. Guess what? Mines are exceptionally good against them. What composition can Zerg choose to discard widow mines? Whatever composition I choose as Zerg, I will always have to face the annoying Widow Mine. Now don't come bashing in with "lol, you face Marines every game as well", they are the core of the army. No one ever complained about stimmed Marine drop, or a Zergling run-by, because they can be prevented and if you take major damage from it, it's mostly because you made a huge mistake. And what Terrans have their Widow Mines in front of the army? Unless they're already at your 3rd or 4th base. Every decent Terran I've faced kept Marines IN FRONT of the Widow Mines, my army comes rolling in, they run back to their Widow Mines. Job's done. you know, you could just be like, I don't know. Not bad?
HAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAAHAAH One of the funniest posts I've seen in a long time LOLOLOLOLOL
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 03 2013 02:21 Pirfiktshon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 01:37 Chaggi wrote:On October 03 2013 01:20 ysnake wrote:On October 03 2013 00:46 KoinZell wrote:On October 02 2013 04:57 ETisME wrote:If baneling is supply efficient because it kils 4 marines, then mines are super efficient because it kills lings and Banelings without even needing to lose the mine? when the game is about constant trading like marine mine ling and baneling, it's about resource trading. And you don't understand mines, do you? I used the clip to tell you that mine hits are often lucky because of overlapping shots. read You cant avoid mine hit when you are engaging. You can't split against mine when you engage. Stop bringing up stupid comment like zerg not bothering to split up, they can't do that. When you engage the mine will just fire off randomly to everything, zerg and Terran alike. It is not about hard to control, it is impossible to have a mine targeted on your unit and split against it and isolate it from the clump. The delay is only 1.5, per mine. This is why there is no widow mine split micro. Even using units that out ranges the mines can get hit sometimes. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-M&desktop_uri=/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-MDo you even play zvt at all? Dude when have you seen a zerg go into a fight KNOWING that there are mines, without an overseer? Mines are at the front of the terrans army, with vision those mines DIE. It's ridiculous that you'd even think that ''Oh they don't die because of the explosion, OP'', and you're not the first zerg to say that. Mines WILL die after the first shot in an engagement. Unless of course the zerg disengages. Which means that the zerg didn't think things through. Do you see where I'm going with this? It's the zergs fault if the mines don't die. And again, banelings have an bigger AoE and more potential damage done. I wouldn't mind having my mine have like 30% bigger range and an actual targeting system, if it would die after each pop. Overlapping shot are usually stupidly bad. I've had many and I do mean many times where the mines shots overlapped because the zerg sent 10 zerglings in front of the army, and about 3 mines were useless because of that. Sure if you send your whole zerglings BALL over the mines, they will die. See again where I'm going? Zerg shouldn't send their whole army ball from the front against the mines. They should use flanks and split up the army to reduce the damage of the mines. You can split against the mine, even though it's hard for sure (As in make a pointy formation and the zerglings in the back that weren't at the front getting targeted by the mine should pull back a few cm's, than the mine effectiveness will be severly reduced.. And the delay is ONLY 1.5 seconds? Yeah.. 1.5 seconds is like a blink of an eye.. Totally.. The pros totally can't react to something in 1.5 seconds.. You're just being silly. The units that outrange the mines get hit because of poor micro fyi. You haven't seen times where the mutaballs corner mutas attack without the mines reacting, than because the pro player has all of the mutas on 1 hotkey or doesn't bother microing, there's some mutas from the mutaball that push the front mutas right into the mine range.. That's why the units that should outrange the mines get hit. Because of unit pathing and poor micro. If he'd send like 4 mutas to clean the mine up instead of the whole ball, than the mutas would quite easily kill off the mine without getting inside the range. I've off-raced zerg a couple of times, and if I pay attention to the mines, I can actually flank, etc to make the mines significantly less useful. My macro mechanics with zerg are awful of course, but there's a good amount of times where I manage to win the games by actually being cost effective against the terran player thanks to baneling flanks, and baiting out mines. I main Terran ofc. Most maps don't allow "flanking", also, Terran now decides where the fight takes place, instead of the Zerg. And let's say that Mines are the same after the patch. I HATE playing against them as Zerg, it is irritating, I actually stopped playing SC2 just because of that stupid Widow Mine (and I was an avid anti-Widow Mine poster on all forums). So, what's the next step? Maybe involve some tactics that makes the mines less efficient? I've tried Roach/Hydra, you either die to drops or Siege Tank count gets too high, and guess what? Mines are still GOOD against that. Let's take it one step further, maybe I can do something with my harassment units. Guess what? Mines are exceptionally good against them. What composition can Zerg choose to discard widow mines? Whatever composition I choose as Zerg, I will always have to face the annoying Widow Mine. Now don't come bashing in with "lol, you face Marines every game as well", they are the core of the army. No one ever complained about stimmed Marine drop, or a Zergling run-by, because they can be prevented and if you take major damage from it, it's mostly because you made a huge mistake. And what Terrans have their Widow Mines in front of the army? Unless they're already at your 3rd or 4th base. Every decent Terran I've faced kept Marines IN FRONT of the Widow Mines, my army comes rolling in, they run back to their Widow Mines. Job's done. you know, you could just be like, I don't know. Not bad? HAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAAHAAH One of the funniest posts I've seen in a long time LOLOLOLOLOL
This post actually has more truth in it, than every single post about SC2's design and balance posted on TL.net.
|
On October 01 2013 05:44 BlackPanther wrote:
I think a bigger issue than balance patching is the inherent flaws in the game design that make the game stale.
This. Holy shit, I cannot believe people blame this on too many patches. People just go with whatever the thread at hand is shitting at.
If there are no balance patches it'd be like GomTvT that everyone bitched about. They patched that before a "cycle" completed, and already people were super mad.
I think it's because things are a lot easier to execute than in BW, and so what separates a good build vs a great build in SC2 is very very minor things, because there is only so much you can do because the strategy is a lot more simplistic (yes, more builds, but much less to do with them). In Broodwar there is room for innovation for years and years after a certain patch... In SC2 after a patch things stabilize after a month or two, and now nothing changes, because the game has been figured out as to what works and what doesn't. Think Broodlord Infestor, 4 gate, Hell drops, etc.
Broodwar remains dynamic, a player 10% worse than another player is just not physically able to execute the strategy of that player in BW. A mid master player can execute pretty much what a pro can, just that they miss details here and there. A slightly worse player doing say Reaver/Sair on BW would get completely crushed.
Also in BW, maps are really able to change the dynamic of the game, while changing maps in SC2... just makes maps really imbalanced, because the skill ceiling is lower. Hence all SC2 maps looks more or less the same , besides the terrain color xP. Think how extreme outsider is? Nothing like that in SC2 would ever work, because SC2 balance is very fragile... Like damn, you require rocks on your ramp to balance the game? Serious? lmao.
So yes, the flaw design, which I would say happened to BW much by luck were not replicated by SC2, which in the long term does not make it nearly as interesting of a game. I also think that the way the SC2 esports scene was developed was more forced, and therefore people had on average less passion for the game than BW fans.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 03 2013 02:31 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:44 BlackPanther wrote:
I think a bigger issue than balance patching is the inherent flaws in the game design that make the game stale. This. Holy shit, I cannot believe people blame this on too many patches. People just go with whatever the thread at hand is shitting at. If there are no balance patches it'd be like GomTvT that everyone bitched about. They patched that before a "cycle" completed, and already people were super mad. I think it's because things are a lot easier to execute than in BW, and so what separates a good build vs a great build in SC2 is very very minor things, because there is only so much you can do because the strategy is a lot more simplistic (yes, more builds, but much less to do with them). In Broodwar there is room for innovation for years and years after a certain patch... In SC2 after a patch things stabilize after a month or two, and now nothing changes, because the game has been figured out as to what works and what doesn't. Think Broodlord Infestor, 4 gate, Hell drops, etc. Broodwar remains dynamic, a player 10% worse than another player is just not physically able to execute the strategy of that player in BW. A mid master player can execute pretty much what a pro can, just that they miss details here and there. A slightly worse player doing say Reaver/Sair on BW would get completely crushed. Also in BW, maps are really able to change the dynamic of the game, while changing maps in SC2... just makes maps really imbalanced, because the skill ceiling is lower. Hence all SC2 maps looks more or less the same , besides the terrain color xP. Think how extreme outsider is? Nothing like that in SC2 would ever work, because SC2 balance is very fragile... Like damn, you require rocks on your ramp to balance the game? Serious? lmao. So yes, the flaw design, which I would say happened to BW much by luck were not replicated by SC2, which in the long term does not make it nearly as interesting of a game. I also think that the way the SC2 esports scene was developed was more forced, and therefore people had on average less passion for the game than BW fans.
Stop using skill ceiling, you may make me want to draw a graph that shows scaling of in-game benefit from skill. Also, what rocks on ramp are you talking about?
|
On October 03 2013 02:42 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 02:31 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 01 2013 05:44 BlackPanther wrote:
I think a bigger issue than balance patching is the inherent flaws in the game design that make the game stale. This. Holy shit, I cannot believe people blame this on too many patches. People just go with whatever the thread at hand is shitting at. If there are no balance patches it'd be like GomTvT that everyone bitched about. They patched that before a "cycle" completed, and already people were super mad. I think it's because things are a lot easier to execute than in BW, and so what separates a good build vs a great build in SC2 is very very minor things, because there is only so much you can do because the strategy is a lot more simplistic (yes, more builds, but much less to do with them). In Broodwar there is room for innovation for years and years after a certain patch... In SC2 after a patch things stabilize after a month or two, and now nothing changes, because the game has been figured out as to what works and what doesn't. Think Broodlord Infestor, 4 gate, Hell drops, etc. Broodwar remains dynamic, a player 10% worse than another player is just not physically able to execute the strategy of that player in BW. A mid master player can execute pretty much what a pro can, just that they miss details here and there. A slightly worse player doing say Reaver/Sair on BW would get completely crushed. Also in BW, maps are really able to change the dynamic of the game, while changing maps in SC2... just makes maps really imbalanced, because the skill ceiling is lower. Hence all SC2 maps looks more or less the same , besides the terrain color xP. Think how extreme outsider is? Nothing like that in SC2 would ever work, because SC2 balance is very fragile... Like damn, you require rocks on your ramp to balance the game? Serious? lmao. So yes, the flaw design, which I would say happened to BW much by luck were not replicated by SC2, which in the long term does not make it nearly as interesting of a game. I also think that the way the SC2 esports scene was developed was more forced, and therefore people had on average less passion for the game than BW fans. Stop using skill ceiling, you may make me want to draw a graph that shows scaling of in-game benefit from skill. Also, what rocks on ramp are you talking about?
The thing where we used to place neutral supply depots.
And okay, let me put it in other words, economic terms:
SC2: As skill level increases, the marginal rate of benefit per unit of skill decreases
BW: As skill level increases, the marginal rate of benefit per unit of skill increases with relation to SC2 marginal rate of benefit.
And I don't have numbers to support this, but it's something that can be concluded quite easily by watching both games.
|
So the BW benefit vs skill graph may be a y=x, while SC2 benefit graph would be a sqrt(x) graph.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 03 2013 02:48 FiWiFaKi wrote:
So the BW benefit vs skill graph may be a y=x, while SC2 benefit graph would be a sqrt(x) graph.
Nah, it is function of 2 variables: strategic skill and mechanical skill. So graph is not most correct. And no, not really:
In both BW and SC2 until the certain point y~x, and after that certain point it starts to be something like y~[x/some_constant], where [x] is floor of x. X is mechanic skill here. On strategic skill however i can't really make a graph, as it depends on state of meta game way too much and thus is not something i can figure out on the fly. If under skill ceiling you mean that certain point, when you have good enough macro and micro to win a GSL i can agree with you, it is kinda lower in SC2. Strategic part of game however, when you are good enough to consistently win GSLs without being figured out (Mvp, i am looking at you) is IMO slightly higher in the grand scale of things in SC2 compared to BW.
|
On October 02 2013 17:28 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 01:38 Daswollvieh wrote:
#1 Leave SC2 alone --> It´s so unbalanced, RAAWWWRRR!
#2 Patch SC2 --> Forever Beta, RAAWWWRRRR! The problem is that the game play in sc2 is so shallow that it gets stuck in an imbalanced meta game and thus it needs to get fixed (ie zvt in the end of wol). In BW the meta game never got stale and all the percieved imbalances could be fixed by innovative play. BW was developping in a more rapid pace 10 years after release than hots is 7 months after release (if you don't count changes induced by balance tweaking).
No just no. It's the general mentality of the gamers and the developers that changed and is probably the main reason we have the constant "imbalance".
It probably started with WoW just like oov said, it's there that a game's playerbase had influence on game design and that's when it got bad.
|
iloveoov going full manmode. I like it.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 03 2013 02:56 IntoTheheart wrote:
iloveoov going full manmode. I like it.
I like it, especially considering that his manmode made loudest part of community to go full hypocritemode.
|
Having mines behind your marines have 2 clear disadvantages.
1. Friendly fire. When zerglings run into the marines face, the mine will trigger and all the marines will die.
2. The connections will be bad because the zerg army will already have a concave going to surround the marines.
Sure you usually have a small group of bio in front of the mines to stop the zerg from popping the mines with 1 zergling or something, but the bulk of the terran army will be behind the mines.
After the nerf, the mines will be useful? Sure they might have a use or two, but they will be like 1/4th of the banelings AoE. Killing 4-5 zerglings is not good for a mine.
And what harassment units are bad against widowmines? Are you talking about mutas that can kill the mines outside their range? Or zerglings that won't really all die because the mines will only hit the front of the zergling line (Unless ofc of overlapping shots.)
And mines are good against roach hydra? Sure they're good in conjunction with siege tanks because they soften up the attacking forces, but that's only if the immobile tanks, mines, and bio is all in position. Letting tanks get into is silly.
WIdowmines will be next to useless once the zerg gets out ultra-festor or broodlords. The ''annoying widowmines'' only serve to delay the zerg from reaching that point. The way to avoid is by carefully choosing the engagements, constant creep spread and constant harrasment,
And as much as I know, most of the maps have plenty of flanking positions. If not all of them.
|
On October 03 2013 02:59 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 02:56 IntoTheheart wrote:
iloveoov going full manmode. I like it. I like it, especially considering that his manmode made loudest part of community to go full hypocritemode.
Yeah but it's iloveoov. He's not the typical progamer-turned coach. He has really good insights into things. Not to say that we should just look at his advice and ideas and take them as law, obviously. But it seems like he knows where problems are and how to fix them. And his BOs are hilarious.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On October 03 2013 01:37 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 01:20 ysnake wrote:On October 03 2013 00:46 KoinZell wrote:On October 02 2013 04:57 ETisME wrote:If baneling is supply efficient because it kils 4 marines, then mines are super efficient because it kills lings and Banelings without even needing to lose the mine? when the game is about constant trading like marine mine ling and baneling, it's about resource trading. And you don't understand mines, do you? I used the clip to tell you that mine hits are often lucky because of overlapping shots. read You cant avoid mine hit when you are engaging. You can't split against mine when you engage. Stop bringing up stupid comment like zerg not bothering to split up, they can't do that. When you engage the mine will just fire off randomly to everything, zerg and Terran alike. It is not about hard to control, it is impossible to have a mine targeted on your unit and split against it and isolate it from the clump. The delay is only 1.5, per mine. This is why there is no widow mine split micro. Even using units that out ranges the mines can get hit sometimes. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-M&desktop_uri=/watch?v=lmiS1gM8B-MDo you even play zvt at all? Dude when have you seen a zerg go into a fight KNOWING that there are mines, without an overseer? Mines are at the front of the terrans army, with vision those mines DIE. It's ridiculous that you'd even think that ''Oh they don't die because of the explosion, OP'', and you're not the first zerg to say that. Mines WILL die after the first shot in an engagement. Unless of course the zerg disengages. Which means that the zerg didn't think things through. Do you see where I'm going with this? It's the zergs fault if the mines don't die. And again, banelings have an bigger AoE and more potential damage done. I wouldn't mind having my mine have like 30% bigger range and an actual targeting system, if it would die after each pop. Overlapping shot are usually stupidly bad. I've had many and I do mean many times where the mines shots overlapped because the zerg sent 10 zerglings in front of the army, and about 3 mines were useless because of that. Sure if you send your whole zerglings BALL over the mines, they will die. See again where I'm going? Zerg shouldn't send their whole army ball from the front against the mines. They should use flanks and split up the army to reduce the damage of the mines. You can split against the mine, even though it's hard for sure (As in make a pointy formation and the zerglings in the back that weren't at the front getting targeted by the mine should pull back a few cm's, than the mine effectiveness will be severly reduced.. And the delay is ONLY 1.5 seconds? Yeah.. 1.5 seconds is like a blink of an eye.. Totally.. The pros totally can't react to something in 1.5 seconds.. You're just being silly. The units that outrange the mines get hit because of poor micro fyi. You haven't seen times where the mutaballs corner mutas attack without the mines reacting, than because the pro player has all of the mutas on 1 hotkey or doesn't bother microing, there's some mutas from the mutaball that push the front mutas right into the mine range.. That's why the units that should outrange the mines get hit. Because of unit pathing and poor micro. If he'd send like 4 mutas to clean the mine up instead of the whole ball, than the mutas would quite easily kill off the mine without getting inside the range. I've off-raced zerg a couple of times, and if I pay attention to the mines, I can actually flank, etc to make the mines significantly less useful. My macro mechanics with zerg are awful of course, but there's a good amount of times where I manage to win the games by actually being cost effective against the terran player thanks to baneling flanks, and baiting out mines. I main Terran ofc. Most maps don't allow "flanking", also, Terran now decides where the fight takes place, instead of the Zerg. And let's say that Mines are the same after the patch. I HATE playing against them as Zerg, it is irritating, I actually stopped playing SC2 just because of that stupid Widow Mine (and I was an avid anti-Widow Mine poster on all forums). So, what's the next step? Maybe involve some tactics that makes the mines less efficient? I've tried Roach/Hydra, you either die to drops or Siege Tank count gets too high, and guess what? Mines are still GOOD against that. Let's take it one step further, maybe I can do something with my harassment units. Guess what? Mines are exceptionally good against them. What composition can Zerg choose to discard widow mines? Whatever composition I choose as Zerg, I will always have to face the annoying Widow Mine. Now don't come bashing in with "lol, you face Marines every game as well", they are the core of the army. No one ever complained about stimmed Marine drop, or a Zergling run-by, because they can be prevented and if you take major damage from it, it's mostly because you made a huge mistake. And what Terrans have their Widow Mines in front of the army? Unless they're already at your 3rd or 4th base. Every decent Terran I've faced kept Marines IN FRONT of the Widow Mines, my army comes rolling in, they run back to their Widow Mines. Job's done. you know, you could just be like, I don't know. Not bad?
Yeah, I'm done.
|
On October 02 2013 20:33 Zanzabarr wrote:These statements from iloveoov are pretty laughable considering how favoured terran was in BW during his time. iNcontroL's comments about this post on Inside The Game yesterday echoed my thoughts exactly on the matter, and in hilarious fashion to boot (for reference, http://www.twitch.tv/onemoregametv/c/3020042?t=102m36s). God forbid Sc2 strive towards a balanced state in which the races are able to win equally. What will we ever do without one race getting shit on, only for a player to heroically overcome the odds and win one tournament one time. Just think of the harrowing stories that will never be realized! Progamers in a lot of cases are not the people to talk to when it comes to balancing a game. All respect to Boxer and iloveoov, but most progamers are not only biased, but aren't all that bright either. Just imagine sc2 balanced on the recommendations of an Idra or an avilo. It would be an imbalanced zerg / terran favoured mess. But then.... at least..... the other inferior races could create a story by overcoming the odds and winning a tournament..... one time........... The reason why the game needs these balance adjustments is because of careless balancing to begin with. There were a lot of sweeping changes in HOTS beta that basically went in a month before release, and were never so much as tweaked since. DK seems to like to go big or go home. Rather than adjust unit stats slightly here and there, he makes massive changes. There is often, inexplicably, never a middle ground. It's like he thinks minor changes won't have a big enough impact on the game, when in reality, the only way to balance this game is with many such minor tweaks. Huge changes are not only clumsy and careless, they are also very damaging to any hope of true balance.
That was interesting from iNcontrol. I think one of the problems with this statement from iloveoov is that it is sparse on the details. Is he talking about no patches at all? Small patches? Major patches? Frequent patches? The whole patch for balance issue? The recent patch for diversity? Therefore, it is easy for everyone with their own point of view on the issue (me included) to take what he said, and use his authority as a respected figure as support for their particular argument.
The other thing, of course, is that even if he is comparing BW balancing to SC2 balancing, it may be difficult to have that approach in 2013 as opposed to 2003. SC2 is a full-on world wide competitive game with people making a living out of it. A large number of these people and a large number of the player base love to complain about basically any old thing, and expect Blizzard to fix it. From what I have gathered, even BW fans cried "imba! imba!" back in the day, but Blizzard did nothing about it (after the last major patch in 2001, I think). Not because, I think, they had a different approach to balance back then, but rather they were done with the game and diverted their resources to other games (like WoW).
If so, this is ironic. That one of the reasons BW was so great (player and map based solutions to issues of balance and design) was not because Blizzard intended to be disinterested. But, rather, because Blizzard really didn't give a fuck.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 03 2013 04:13 aZealot wrote:
If so, this is ironic. That one of the reasons BW was so great (player and map based solutions to issues of balance and design) was not because Blizzard intended to be disinterested. But, rather, because Blizzard really didn't give a fuck.
That paragraph is the greatest explanation of why BW ended up being great e-sport: Blizzard did not give a fuck.
|
Remember what Day9 said in a daily: "Hang on, I'll balance the game like Dustin Browder" (Nuclear Launch Detected x10)
|
Yet with the never ending crying, bitching and moaning of a lot of the community about balance, Blizzard has got to be feeling forced to patch stuff. It's really sad, this feeling of always having to patch stuff has also dripped off into other communities (for certain mods for example). People are just way too entitled, imo.
You figure out a strong strategy, people can't find a solution to it and after like a week or so of seeing it, they bring out the nerf-hammer... Q_Q
That being said, dayum, I love oov :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
