"The vibe of venues has changed a lot. I saw a girl wandering around in the venue so I thought she was a reporter but turned out to only be a fan. I once saw somebody who I thought was a fan walking around while scraping his slippers along the floor, not picking up his feet. He turned out to be a coach. Things seemed very amateurish(?) but during my two hear hiatus I just figured that these things will be fixed as time goes on."
Reporter: What are your thoughts on SC2?
"Before my military service, I played SC2 a lot. After a while of playing it, I felt nostalgic and loaded up SC1 and had more fun. This is me telling the truth. But after playing HOTS I have not loaded SC1 again. All in all, HOTS is better than WOL"
Reporter: what do you think is the biggest problem with SC2?
"I have played all blizzard games with the exception of WC3. In WoW, there was a character called the Warlock. He could win 2:1 and 3:1. But blizzard kept releasing balance patches. WoW has 10 classes but I saw as blizzard kept releasing buffs and nerfs. So what ended up happening was, people started playing Warlock when it was powerful but soon jumped to Hunter when that was proven to be powerful. One day I awoke to see that they were also doing the same thing to SC2."
Reporter: I think you're referring to something other than balance.
"Let's compare the two games; In SC1, they only released bug patches and was relatively untouched for ten years. We would do starleagues where at times there would only be one or two protosses. Terrans would occupy more than half the pool. If David Kim were there at that time he would have buffed protoss. That would have meant that we would have been without the exciting and awe-inspiring play of Bisu's prime. Protoss was the minority race and difficult. Thus, its play was given birth to by players like Reach and Nal_Ra. To be frank, I think it is David Kim who creates the winner when it is the gamer who must create the game. It doesn't matter what I say though; the truth is David Kim will keep on tweaking the game. I don't know what his true motives are. Is it to create a 5:5:5 of balance? I truly do not know." How good would you say your players are at the moment?
"Honestly, about average. I asked them individually about this and they seemed to agree. If proleague were to open now, I don't think we would get very far. We're in a situation where we must try harder.
-You had a nickname as the old build cutter because of your prowess at making them. What about SC2?
"SC2 is an easier game so I think it is easier to make builds. I have made about two Terran strategies. I gathered the players and gave them a preview not too long ago telling them that it was only the first part of my return to the scene. But, what I have realized during this job is that it's not about making builds but making it so that the players will/can use them. Pro-gamers are surprisingly conservative. They'll stick to their winning ways. Of course, if a player is truly out of ideas and wins using a build the coach told them to do, they will become reliant on you. Coaches have to be careful while also forming strategies based on the current trend. That's my belief."
"It was just hard to do transitions in SC1 but in SC2, you can do them on a whim. Thus, it is easier to make builds until it is stopped by the balance patch. For example, I made a build with emphasis on the widow mine until it was nerfed. I have made one with the banshee in mind but I fear for it getting nerfed as well."
"In SC1, even builds had a history. It was on a course of innovation. If you look at PvZ, there was 2 Gate, 1 Gate, and they even came up with forge double nexus. Protosses were so bent on being safe from early lings until came the Bisu build. If you keep balancing a game saying that it's too hard without even going through these cycles then your game ends up being a never ending beta test. I even heard that Boxer had emailed David Kim about this. Judging from his skepticism, I don't think David Kim ever replied.
OOV sounds like a Boss. I Just have this good tingly feeling people like him and boxer will wind up pushing and pushing until David Kim asks their opinion and we will have an amazing game again!!!!!! anyways awesome Interview ILOVEOOV!!!! <3
Balance is never the problem of SC2, I always believed that SC2 is more balanced than BW. Those constant balance patches ruins players and fans' passion. Just like he said, they release balance patches before one single cycle completes, usually not even half a cycle.
That last sentence is very disheartening to read. My heart sank, honestly. If they cannot contact them then who can? Such horrendous support from Blizzard.
I love oov, and this interview is a clear demonstration of those with the strongest dedication to not only the game, but the team SKT. I very much look forward to the return of the best KT ! With his drive they can accomplish even more!! gogogo~
He is right about a lot of things but at the same time he dismisses the fact sc2 doesn't have 8 years of time for build innovations and map making. Blizzard went global with SC2 and foreigners just lose/move their interest whenever they see game commercials on the TV. There's just no time for SC2 to become scbw naturally.
Well it seems like he's enjoying the game at least. I completely agree with him when he says that Blizzard is patching the game like they're patching WoW, patching overpowered things out just makes people go do something else that's overpowered instead of having people learn to deal with imbalance.
Also holy shit, did David Kim really not respond to Boxer, the emperor himself? Who does this guy think he is?
On October 01 2013 05:40 disciple wrote: He is right about a lot of things but at the same time he dismisses the fact sc2 doesn't have 8 years of time for build innovations and map making. Blizzard went global with SC2 and foreigners just lose/move their interest whenever they see game commercials on the TV. There's just no time for SC2 to become scbw naturally.
On your point about map making: It's not like the people who made the maps for leagues all quit - though some have admittedly. The part that kind of irks me when people mention something like this is that the map making community in SC2 is working completely separate from the ideas that created such incredible maps in BW. Have you ever actually compared map structures or the ideas behind the natural progression of bases and their unit/environment interaction between the games? Sure SC2 has not had 8 years, but let us not forget that it is the fact that the editors have already had 8 years to learn ways to apply similar knowledge to HotS. Yet, this has been done on very, very few occasions. His point about build innovation is that you cannot have that innovation if the game is constantly changing beyond your own control.
David Kim ruining the game. I think it's too late now... He should keep balancing SC2, finish what he started.. He has already killed off so many super risky and suspense driven builds like the WoL reaper, Queen rush, Thor drops, etc. He should just continue to kill everything off because that is what Blizzard pay him to do.
iloveoov seems like a boss. But what is David Kim supposed to do. There are always people complaining, either about balance or about too many patches. It doesn't really matter now anyways. Until LotV is released sc2 is in fact a never ending beta test, so let's wait for 2 years after it has been released. Then the balance patches will stop and the real meta starts.
On October 01 2013 05:45 GhostFiber wrote: David Kim ruining the game. I think it's too late now... He should keep balancing SC2, finish what he started.. He has already killed off so many super risky and suspense driven builds like the WoL reaper, Queen rush, Thor drops, etc. He should just continue to kill everything off because that is what Blizzard pay him to do.
I would love it if David Kim lost a bet sometime and promised to sit down and listen (and also obey) to a guy like Oov. I think SC2 is a great game, but Oov (maybe not right now but in a month or two) and co. are the kind of guys that know how to make it even better without the sometimes unbearable bias progamers will try to bury you with ^^
On October 01 2013 05:40 disciple wrote: He is right about a lot of things but at the same time he dismisses the fact sc2 doesn't have 8 years of time for build innovations and map making. Blizzard went global with SC2 and foreigners just lose/move their interest whenever they see game commercials on the TV. There's just no time for SC2 to become scbw naturally.
It wouldn't become SC:BW naturally either way lmao. 8 years? Give me a break, we were stuck playing maps like Lost Temple for ages man (remember when everyone used to think that was the most balanced map! :V). We were playing that shit for several years before shit broke out and then you have maps that stuck around for several years as well like Luna, so give me a break. The patches for vanilla SC were short and sweet. They got a lot of things right in a fast amount of time and people losing interest in games is not new. It's been like that since my early NES/Super NES games where the really good ones were billed $120 a pop and people say games are so expensive these days, HA!
I am not envious of David Kim/Dustin Browder's position. You have an entire pro-scene to support, people are asking for everything in the spectrum of no changes all the way to massive game changes. Really a screwed if you do screwed if you don't position. It's no wonder that they do whatever they feel is good for the game and don't really listen to progamers or the community.
In my opinion, it isn't the changes to blame. LoL changes every month and it is still huge. If anything it was just the way they handled the BW to SC2 transition that caused the lowered interest.
Unsurprising that a Terran player/coach would have that opinion. Gom TvT and the 1/1/1 turned my enthusiasm to bitterness. Keeping the high health scvs would hae embittered me even faster.
I really doubt just leaving the game alone would result in any more popularity. More than likely everyone would switch to warlock and just stay on warlock til the game died (or Orc rather?).
Honestly I would love to see some counter post from DK and the blizzard team about oovs post and Boxer's email.... LOL the fact that he didn't answer him is astonishing to me LOL
On October 01 2013 05:49 RifleCow wrote: I am not envious of David Kim/Dustin Browder's position. You have an entire pro-scene to support, people are asking for everything in the spectrum of no changes all the way to massive game changes. Really a screwed if you do screwed if you don't position. It's no wonder that they do whatever they feel is good for the game and don't really listen to progamers or the community.
In my opinion, it isn't the changes. LoL changes every month and it is still huge.
People need to stop comparing changes/patches from MOBA games to RTS. It's nothing alike. Heck, we have Blizzard on record stating they wanted to show more restraint and let the players figure shit out for themselves, ha.
On October 01 2013 05:47 Musicus wrote: iloveoov seems like a boss. But what is David Kim supposed to do. There are always people complaining, either about balance or about too many patches. It doesn't really matter now anyways. Until LotV is released sc2 is in fact a never ending beta test, sso let's wait for 2 years after it has been released. Then the balance patches will stop and the real meta starts.
I agree. DK is in a lose-lose situation.
Just look back at the end of WOL and months w/o a balance patch. The end result was leading to people retire and a drop in viewership, not innovation. People are always going to compare with the development of BW, but times are just different. Unfortunately, it's an era of immediacy.
On September 04 2013 01:00 XiaoJoyce- wrote: I think, Blizzard is trying too hard?
Trying to make the most competitive game, using advanced statistic, carefully designed units, create specific for specific roles. Putting balance in top priority as design, viability comes 2nd.
Then you get SC2 design. Things like, Ghost snipe change only so it is only strong to snipe spellcaster, all those hard counter things.
In BW, let my imagination run, I can imagine the way they come up terran army design, mech for example. Cheap and effective scout unit ->Vulture coupled Spider mine to make unit more interesting and stretegic?
Then comes the core unit ->Siege tank, High damage &Range, with drawback such as no air attack and require siege + friendly fire, slow rate of fire and minimum range
Then comes the ultimate mech army, the robot Goliath . Require Armory, with good anti air to compliment siege tank? As ultimate unit of terran mech, it has ground twin cannon doing respectable dmg. 12 dmg with good rate of fire. Better than unstim marine.
I feel Broodwar design is to design a viable looking army, with each unit able to support one another with specific role to compliment one another. Balance is important, but is not the core of the design.
Then u get a very well designed superiority fighter such as wraith equipped with air - ground weapon in case they need to fire against land unit. With cloak as upgrade to make it even more stretegy.
Science vessal too, with 1 defensive ability, and 2 offensive to deal with respective race.
U get good design BW.
NOW! Tadadadadada
SC2, I feel they design the unit too specifically, mainly for balance reason
u see the replacement of wraith (Viking) need to transform in order to deal with land unit, long time delay of transformation time. Slow speed (as superiority fighter), no cloak. Unable to deal with future threat like phoenix.
u see replacement of vulture (Hellbat) No more mines.. (Is it more effective than vulture? I am not sure...)
u see replacement of goliath, Thor. I feel Goliath is so much needed & important for future war to come, but they delete away maybe for balance.
You see some obvious hardcounter, ghost snipe ability talor to SNIPE, only spellcaster etc..
U dont see a future generation army, u see human playing god, trying to step in everytime to change the ecosystem in order to create the perfect ecosystem.
I feel BW is like a natural ecosystem, where everything blends in perfectly. Let nature fix itself.
I feel SC2 is so man made it lost all its beauty.
Okay, maybe not exactly as what IloveOOV said, but I did mention the design on SC2 is too FOCUS on BALANCE!.
IloveOOV and MC gives me good feelings right now. They are like speaking out for all of us . and their physical appearance gives me some , I dont noe, fatherly? Responsible? Leader? I am not sure but I love both of them right now. <3
On October 01 2013 05:49 RifleCow wrote: I am not envious of David Kim/Dustin Browder's position. You have an entire pro-scene to support, people are asking for everything in the spectrum of no changes all the way to massive game changes. Really a screwed if you do screwed if you don't position. It's no wonder that they do whatever they feel is good for the game and don't really listen to progamers or the community.
In my opinion, it isn't the changes to blame. LoL changes every month and it is still huge. If anything it was just the way they handled the BW to SC2 transition that caused the lowered interest.
Yea its hard to please everyone People are screaming to patch things others are screaming don't as blizzard its gets frustrating i'm sure. HOnestly I said before there should be a poll on blizzard where there is a person elected for each Race Protoss Terran and Zerg that are pro gamers that meet certain qualifications that are allowed to play a roll in discussing the Balance and what would improve sc2 the way everyone wants. Once its done just leave it alone.....
iloveoov is so boss and gives such a good comparison between sc1 and sc2 <3 But you guys are soooo stange you say T, Z or P imba DK please balance the game why there is still no patch and now after the interview you say do not patch the game let things go...
On October 01 2013 05:50 Sabu113 wrote: Unsurprising that a Terran player/coach would have that opinion. Gom TvT and the 1/1/1 turned my enthusiasm to bitterness. Keeping the high health scvs would hae embittered me even faster.
I really doubt just leaving the game alone would result in any more popularity. More than likely everyone would switch to warlock and just stay on warlock til the game died (or Orc rather?).
That's the thing. It wouldn't. Most people nowadays get tired and restless of trying to fight against such things; whereas, guys and gals would work hard at Brood War to get better. Maybe they enjoyed the challenge; maybe it's because you could find games a lot easier (let's play fastest!; let's play Bound!; let's play BGH!; let's ladder, etc.) and so on.
On October 01 2013 05:49 RifleCow wrote: I am not envious of David Kim/Dustin Browder's position. You have an entire pro-scene to support, people are asking for everything in the spectrum of no changes all the way to massive game changes. Really a screwed if you do screwed if you don't position. It's no wonder that they do whatever they feel is good for the game and don't really listen to progamers or the community.
In my opinion, it isn't the changes. LoL changes every month and it is still huge.
People need to stop comparing changes/patches from MOBA games to RTS. It's nothing alike. Heck, we have Blizzard on record stating they wanted to show more restraint and let the players figure shit out for themselves, ha.
The balance changes in BW came in the form of mapmaking. If starleagues were still playing lost temple then you would see rampant amount of Terrans. Remember the "Protoss dragons" era, where they made maps so Protoss favored that it looked imbalanced. 2 Base carrier on Katrina was probably the most boring shit ever.
I think overall the HoTS changes have been way better than WoL. Changes should be revolving around making the game more fun to play and watch, rather than some sense of balance.
On October 01 2013 05:49 RifleCow wrote: I am not envious of David Kim/Dustin Browder's position. You have an entire pro-scene to support, people are asking for everything in the spectrum of no changes all the way to massive game changes. Really a screwed if you do screwed if you don't position. It's no wonder that they do whatever they feel is good for the game and don't really listen to progamers or the community.
In my opinion, it isn't the changes. LoL changes every month and it is still huge.
People need to stop comparing changes/patches from MOBA games to RTS. It's nothing alike. Heck, we have Blizzard on record stating they wanted to show more restraint and let the players figure shit out for themselves, ha.
The balance changes in BW came in the form of mapmaking. If starleagues were still playing lost temple then you would see rampant amount of Terrans. Remember the "Protoss dragons" era, where they made maps so Protoss favored that it looked imbalanced. 2 Base carrier on Katrina was probably the most boring shit ever.
I think overall the HoTS changes have been way better than WoL. Changes should be revolving around making the game more fun to play and watch, rather than some sense of balance.
That's only one element bud. We could dissect every map and the reality is not every single one of them were balanced. Take the WCG map pool for instance that rarely changed and when it did you left your head scratching with some of the new options. The patches did a lot of the work when it came to attack speed/cost of turrets, the pool changes, etc. That's what we call game changing. Yeah, I remember the Protoss, 6 dragoon era well but that was sort of a cross period and then you have maps like Paradoxxx back in '04 where you're left going, "W-T-F."
Holy crap, I was *not* prepared for the WoW comparsion. That one hit deep, cause that is so true with all the Blizzard games these days. I was around for the 3:1s and 2:1 Warlocks .
Amazing interview. Glad to see that they're not holding back as much these days; I've always felt that Korean players were pretty conservative in their interviews.
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 pretty much. Blizzard simply refuses to acknowledge/change game design flaws which are the issue, not balance. The biggest one being protoss as a whole race which in turn makes pvz pvt stale matches. Well ive personally stopped playing/watching long ago because of the predictability of games.
This interview is so much win and right stuff. Should go to the featured news list asap to get as much as possible people reading it and making sure David Kim hears about this.
Maybe David Kim can be forced into hiding like Dustin Browder since spring. One can hope...
Maybe Blizzard should hire retired pros and coaches to help them out. Players still competing aren't neutral, but there are a lot of people they could reach out to.
iloveoov destroyed David Kim in this one and he's absolutely right about it. He seems to understand what he's talking about very well. I wish SC2 was a bit more untouched, maybe for LotV...
On October 01 2013 05:55 DiMano wrote: iloveoov is so boss and gives such a good comparison between sc1 and sc2 <3 But you guys are soooo stange you say T, Z or P imba DK please balance the game why there is still no patch and now after the interview you say do not patch the game let things go...
Well I guess it has to do with the heat of the moment. People see new stuff coming out and they are excited, but they soon realise that it doesn't really change much because Sc2's problem isn't about balance it's about design flaws. A patch always gives hope eventhough it doesn't change anything.
Great interview by oov, i'm eager to see him give more interviews
By the way, I hope you guys aren't going to completely buy this oov bravado, the guy has not even been coaching for 2 weeks yet, and part of this time was chuseok. The guy loves to talk big, and he's making things sound very black and white. :p
On October 01 2013 06:22 Kasaraki wrote: By the way, I hope you guys aren't going to completely buy this oov bravado, the guy has not even been coaching for 2 weeks yet, and part of this time was chuseok. The guy loves to talk big, and he's making things sound very black and white. :p
Is there a play time quota to speak wisely about the game ?
On October 01 2013 05:49 RifleCow wrote: I am not envious of David Kim/Dustin Browder's position. You have an entire pro-scene to support, people are asking for everything in the spectrum of no changes all the way to massive game changes. Really a screwed if you do screwed if you don't position. It's no wonder that they do whatever they feel is good for the game and don't really listen to progamers or the community.
In my opinion, it isn't the changes. LoL changes every month and it is still huge.
People need to stop comparing changes/patches from MOBA games to RTS. It's nothing alike. Heck, we have Blizzard on record stating they wanted to show more restraint and let the players figure shit out for themselves, ha.
The balance changes in BW came in the form of mapmaking. If starleagues were still playing lost temple then you would see rampant amount of Terrans. Remember the "Protoss dragons" era, where they made maps so Protoss favored that it looked imbalanced. 2 Base carrier on Katrina was probably the most boring shit ever.
I think overall the HoTS changes have been way better than WoL. Changes should be revolving around making the game more fun to play and watch, rather than some sense of balance.
That's only one element bud. We could dissect every map and the reality is not every single one of them were balanced. Take the WCG map pool for instance that rarely changed and when it did you left your head scratching with some of the new options. The patches did a lot of the work when it came to attack speed/cost of turrets, the pool changes, etc. That's what we call game changing. Yeah, I remember the Protoss, 6 dragoon era well but that was sort of a cross period and then you have maps like Paradoxxx back in '04 where you're left going, "W-T-F."
I still think the largest issue in SC2 is game phases and maps. Maybe this is just because the game has been around longer, but in BW there was quite a clear difference between early, mid, and late game. TvZ: marine vs sunken/ling, M&M turtle vs Muta, M&M SV vs lurkerling, M&M SV vs defiler lurkerling, and finally defiler ultraling if zerg is winning. Whereas terran never moves from 4M in SC2, would be cool to see some raven usage. This is the best matchup in SC2 too, cuz ZvP and TvP in SC2 are nothing compared to BW. Though I do believe the mirrors are massively improved.
With maps, the fault lies in part with player influence on tournaments. With BW, the maps were just forced down your throat and you had to accept them. Players obviously don't want a wide range of map-types to practice because it makes grinding out games less effective. But in the end, we know those wacky maps were part of the fun of spectating BW. Maps were defined by their gimmicks and even standard maps had defining features. Maps in SC2, particularly at the end of WoL were just Daybreak clones making the meta very stale. Of course, the rest of the problem is due to Protoss design requiring an easy to take third which does limit map makers. Honestly, I hope mapmakers see that MSC lets Protoss get away with more greed and hence make farther thirds.
Good interview, but it is funny how quickly the community changes their opinions.
MC/Flash/Mvp/???? calls for a change because the game is imbalanced:
"OH MY GOD! THEY SAID IT'S IMBALANCED! CHANGE IT NOW!"
iloveoov says they worry about balance too much and shouldn't change things so quickly:
"I've been saying it for years, they shouldn't fiddle around with it so much. Just let the imbalance run it's course."
Next week some pro will say the game is imbalanced and needs to be patched and these same posters will be up in arms because Blizzard hasn't fixed it yet...
On October 01 2013 06:19 Dontkillme wrote: ehehehe oov is bashing david kim so hard
Someone with the balls, showed up. Whether he is right or not is irregardless, at least its the first time someone spoke this name openly, in Korea.
Balance patch was a "taboo" in BW community for many years, SC2 reality is vastly different to the one Korea knows. And its good they speak up about this "new experience".
I agree about the balance issues. In that because things get patched people don't rise above and beyond. It is 50% blizzards fault and 50% our fault. All we do is whine about balance. Until that stops, blizzard will feel the need to make changes.
On October 01 2013 06:30 sc2superfan101 wrote: Good interview, but it is funny how quickly the community changes their opinions.
Indeed. All this shows is that there is no singular community hive mind. The whole "community wants X and Blizzard/DavidKim can't deliver" is such nonsensical argument because community as a whole wants X Y Z and more, most of them being non compatible with each other.
On October 01 2013 06:22 Kasaraki wrote: By the way, I hope you guys aren't going to completely buy this oov bravado, the guy has not even been coaching for 2 weeks yet, and part of this time was chuseok. The guy loves to talk big, and he's making things sound very black and white. :p
Black and white talk seems wrong in completely logical thinking. But when you want to make a difference in this world, 100% logical thinking and safe talking is not gonna get you anywhere. It usually shows that you actually have no strong opinions and unsure about lots of things.
Well I think most don't get DK's role: he is the scapegoat of the scene. No matter what he would do he would be the one who is blamed for everything negative... (at least balance wise=
On October 01 2013 06:22 Kasaraki wrote: By the way, I hope you guys aren't going to completely buy this oov bravado, the guy has not even been coaching for 2 weeks yet, and part of this time was chuseok. The guy loves to talk big, and he's making things sound very black and white. :p
Black and white talk seems wrong in completely logical thinking. But when you want to make a difference in this world, 100% logical thinking and safe talking is not gonna get you anywhere. It usually shows that you actually have no strong opinions and unsure about lots of things.
So are you saying people should be thinking less logically and more dangerously (whatever that even means) for sake of it? You might be onto a good point but man the way you worded your point is just... bad
On October 01 2013 06:30 sc2superfan101 wrote: Good interview, but it is funny how quickly the community changes their opinions.
MC/Flash/Mvp/???? calls for a change because the game is imbalanced:
"OH MY GOD! THEY SAID IT'S IMBALANCED! CHANGE IT NOW!"
iloveoov says they worry about balance too much and shouldn't change things so quickly:
"I've been saying it for years, they shouldn't fiddle around with it so much. Just let the imbalance run it's course."
Next week some pro will say the game is imbalanced and needs to be patched and these same posters will be up in arms because Blizzard hasn't fixed it yet...
That's why Blizzard should not listen to fans crowd too much about game design. Crowd opinions are usually stupider than those from smart people, that should be obvious.
I can't take this Oov interview too seriously. He's very vague when he refers to David Kim over-balancing the game. He doesn't mention any specific patches, he just makes the blanket observation that David Kim balances too much, which the interviewer unfortunately did not press at all.
I have no idea what Oov is referring to. Does he mean recent balance patches? Does he mean past balance patches? Does he mean all balance patches? Is there a specific one? Because Blizzard actually announced somewhat recently after the queen patch in WoL that they were going to stop intervening in the metagame so quickly before allowing the players sufficient time to flesh it out. And they've done exactly that. If you compare the balanace patches in the first six months of WoL vs the first six months of HotS, it's night and day. They actually allowed broodlord infestor to dominate the metagame for so damn long rather than nerf it into the ground to give SOME player(s) the chance at solving it.
It's really sad how eager everyone is to hop on the david kim/blizzard shitstorm train with any slight provocation or reason. There isn't much to read into this interview with so few details other than an ambiguous "DK balances too much," because the most literal interpretation based on recent events would have to mean that what oov wants are NO balance patches whatsoever.
Well for starters Iloveoov as a player changed the way everyone played the game, he was Terran's "Savior" and second as a coach he devised revolutionary tactics and made Fantasy a Terran icon.
I kind of have to agree with oov here, I think people/blizzard are so obsessed with patching that the metagame forcefully shifts into weird directions and the game doesn't evolve as naturally as it could. That makes certain strategies invalid and a lot of effort put into tweaking and perfecting a certain style goes to waste.
I have high hopes for SKT this season with iloveoov as the new coach! Gogo SKT!
EDIT: Proleague is definitely a lot of fun and you can see many nice strategies and metagaming there. You can definitely see the evolution of certain styles there, like pretty nowhere else.
On October 01 2013 06:22 Kasaraki wrote: By the way, I hope you guys aren't going to completely buy this oov bravado, the guy has not even been coaching for 2 weeks yet, and part of this time was chuseok. The guy loves to talk big, and he's making things sound very black and white. :p
Black and white talk seems wrong in completely logical thinking. But when you want to make a difference in this world, 100% logical thinking and safe talking is not gonna get you anywhere. It usually shows that you actually have no strong opinions and unsure about lots of things.
So are you saying people should be thinking less logically and more dangerously (whatever that even means) for sake of it? You might be onto a good point but man the way you worded your point is just... bad
100% logical thinking and complete factual talk usually means everything has two sides(because everything in this world indeed has two sides), it shows that speaker has no strong opinion, which results into no accomplishments.To make a difference, people need to choose a side, and be strong with it.
On October 01 2013 06:22 Kasaraki wrote: By the way, I hope you guys aren't going to completely buy this oov bravado, the guy has not even been coaching for 2 weeks yet, and part of this time was chuseok. The guy loves to talk big, and he's making things sound very black and white. :p
Black and white talk seems wrong in completely logical thinking. But when you want to make a difference in this world, 100% logical thinking and safe talking is not gonna get you anywhere. It usually shows that you actually have no strong opinions and unsure about lots of things.
So are you saying people should be thinking less logically and more dangerously (whatever that even means) for sake of it? You might be onto a good point but man the way you worded your point is just... bad
100% logical thinking and complete factual talk usually means everything has two sides(because everything in this world indeed has two sides), it shows that speaker has no strong opinion, which results into no accomplishments.To make a difference, people need to choose a side, and be strong with it.
I disagree with his balance perspective. First of all, SC2 is a completely different game from SCBW with very different pathing, race designs, and overall game mechanics. Second, SC is no longer the dominant game in the eSports world and has a much more global audience. In other words, it has become an industry. If Blizzard is extremely slow with its balance changes, then that would do more harm than good when people realize how stable the game has become. Finally, even if the player figures out a new innovation strategy (if you look at GSL, we see a LOT of new builds and strategies), those tactics do eventually get countered. That's just the dynamic of SC2.
On October 01 2013 06:45 rd wrote: I can't take this Oov interview too seriously. He's very vague when he refers to David Kim over-balancing the game. He doesn't mention any specific patches, he just makes the blanket observation that David Kim balances too much, which the interviewer unfortunately did not press at all.
I have no idea what Oov is referring to. Does he mean recent balance patches? Does he mean past balance patches? Does he mean all balance patches? Is there a specific one? Because Blizzard actually announced somewhat recently after the queen patch in WoL that they were going to stop intervening in the metagame so quickly before allowing the players sufficient time to flesh it out. And they've done exactly that. If you compare the balanace patches in the first six months of WoL vs the first six months of HotS, it's night and day. They actually allowed broodlord infestor to dominate the metagame for so damn long rather than nerf it into the ground to give SOME player(s) the chance at solving it.
It's really sad how eager everyone is to hop on the david kim/blizzard shitstorm train with any slight provocation or reason. There isn't much to read into this interview with so few details other than a vague "DK balances too much," because the most literal interpretation based on recent events would have to mean that what oov wants are NO balance patches whatsoever.
He could be being intentionally provocative. If so, this is fine, especially if it leads to positive outcomes.
You are right, though. I think Blizzard learned a lot from the early days of WOL and have had a far better approach to HOTS. But, this is one reason why I look a little askance at the recent changes to add "variety" and "diversity" to the game.
Whicheever way you look at it, it is shifting the rules of the game. Yet again. >_<
I do like how he comments on the conservatism of gamers, though. Although, I think the neverending tournament scene has something to do with that as well. Players need time away from playing and serious practice for play practice. This is when new strategies are thought up, or when serious time can be put into that half formed build in your head.
On October 01 2013 06:45 rd wrote: I can't take this Oov interview too seriously. He's very vague when he refers very to David Kim over-balancing the game. He doesn't mention any specific patches, he just makes the blanket statement of an observation that David Kim balances too much, which the interviewer unfortunately did not press at all.
I have no idea what Oov is referring to. Does he mean recent balance patches? Does he mean past balance patches? Does he mean all balance patches? Is there a specific one? Because Blizzard actually announced somewhat recently after the queen patch in WoL that they were going to stop intervening in the metagame so quickly before allowing the players sufficient time to flesh it out. And they've done exactly that. If you compare the balanace patches in the first six weeks of WoL vs the first six weeks of HotS, it's night and day. They actually let broodlord infestor dominate the metagame for so damn long rather than nerf it into the ground to allow SOME player to take a crack at solving it.
It's really sad how eager everyone is to hop on the david kim/blizzard shitstorm train with any slight provocation or reason.
Are you SERIOUS?
They buffed queens, the buffed infestors. And then you use argument "and they stopped, be happy".
And then you put the blame on people, to figure out how to beat buffed queens and buffed infestors which in fact were the reason why the mass infestor style and multiple queen style which with conjuction enabled the BL-Inf style to emerge. Because of how good queen buff happened to be.
So after Blizz put all this mess (QUEEN BUFF) you say it was their good heart that made people figure out how to deal with that mess themselves.
On October 01 2013 06:45 DinoToss wrote: Well for starters Iloveoov as a player changed the way everyone played the game, he was Terran's "Savior" and second as a coach he devised revolutionary tactics and made Fantasy a Terran icon.
On October 01 2013 06:45 DinoToss wrote: Well for starters Iloveoov as a player changed the way everyone played the game, he was Terran's "Savior" and second as a coach he devised revolutionary tactics and made Fantasy a Terran icon.
On October 01 2013 06:45 DinoToss wrote: Well for starters Iloveoov as a player changed the way everyone played the game, he was Terran's "Savior" and second as a coach he devised revolutionary tactics and made Fantasy a Terran icon.
On October 01 2013 06:22 Kasaraki wrote: By the way, I hope you guys aren't going to completely buy this oov bravado, the guy has not even been coaching for 2 weeks yet, and part of this time was chuseok. The guy loves to talk big, and he's making things sound very black and white. :p
Black and white talk seems wrong in completely logical thinking. But when you want to make a difference in this world, 100% logical thinking and safe talking is not gonna get you anywhere. It usually shows that you actually have no strong opinions and unsure about lots of things.
So are you saying people should be thinking less logically and more dangerously (whatever that even means) for sake of it? You might be onto a good point but man the way you worded your point is just... bad
100% logical thinking and complete factual talk usually means everything has two sides(because everything in this world indeed has two sides), it shows that speaker has no strong opinion, which results into no accomplishments.To make a difference, people need to choose a side, and be strong with it.
LOL, so noticing the gray areas or the black and white stripes make me a very illogical person. Okay, that means a lot of business decisions are illogical, even though negotiations is the corner stone of good business practices. Oh, that also means that the way the US Constitution is made was illogical. But you also mean that people like Rush Limbaugh, a very notorious US conservative, is logical because he has a black/white perspective.
People such as Steve Jobs can have a black and white perspective of things and be successful. But you will surprised how many people who have such linear thinking such as the political activists in the US are nothing more but annoying gnats. Therefore, black and white perspective doesn't make you an accomplished person.
Finally, having a strong opinion doesn't mean having a black and white personality. I think what you should be saying is that those who are successful are those who are committed to their goal. Having a black and white personality makes you very inflexible and less likely to accomplish something because your plan for success can be hindered by multiple obstacles.
On October 01 2013 07:02 goody153 wrote: never ending beta test lol
but sc2 did not have the time that BW had .. so it works differently
BW took about 8 years to materialize by introducing new concepts of Micro, Macro, Defensive timing, strategical management, multitasking to reach full potential. All concept have been previously explore before when SC2 came out. So there is absolutely no excuse.
On October 01 2013 06:45 rd wrote: I can't take this Oov interview too seriously. He's very vague when he refers very to David Kim over-balancing the game. He doesn't mention any specific patches, he just makes the blanket statement of an observation that David Kim balances too much, which the interviewer unfortunately did not press at all.
Blizzard said they'd stop shaking up the metagame . If you compare the balanace patches in the first six weeks of WoL vs the first six weeks of HotS, it's night and day. They actually let broodlord infestor dominate the metagame for so damn long rather than nerf it into the ground to allow SOME player to take a crack at solving it.
It's really sad how eager everyone is to hop on the david kim/blizzard shitstorm train with any slight provocation or reason.
Are you SERIOUS?
They buffed queens, the buffed infestors. And then you use argument "and they stopped, be happy".
And then you put the blame on people, to figure out how to beat buffed queens and buffed infestors which in fact were the reason why the mass infestor style and multiple queen style which with conjuction enabled the BL-Inf style to emerge. Because of how good queen buff happened to be.
So after Blizz put all this mess (QUEEN BUFF) you say it was their good heart that made people figure out how to deal with that mess themselves.
Good thinking.
You're literally disagree'ing with Oov right now. They said they'd stop patching so much, and they did what they said. I mean, you're reading into an interview calling for Blizzard to stop patching so much, yet they wouldn't nerf (or unbuff) a unit (queen) which clearly shouldn't have buffed in the first place in hindsight. Is that not the epitome of following the directive that Oov wants? Don't touch the metagame, even if it's broken! They never touched it! You can't have it both ways, and Blizzard took the correct stance. How can you criticize them for that? You're a monumental hypocrite.
And where in the fuck did I say blame the players? Blizzard, Oov, AND myself are not blaming players. They want the players to solve the problems, not balance patches. That's not blaming the players. That's giving them the opportunity to innovate and revolutionize. And Blizzard's resolve to stop patching, even despite having just released an imbalanced patch, were stringent. Because who the fuck would have known 6 months from then that no player would have solved it. You? Hindsight is 20/20 they say. Blizzard gave them the opportunity, thats what counts.
Holy fucking bias.
edit: I'm not sure if I should be more upset at Oov for those comments which I hope were unintentionally vague, or the community for eating them up like brainless zombies with no thought into their validity.
On October 01 2013 06:45 DinoToss wrote: Well for starters Iloveoov as a player changed the way everyone played the game, he was Terran's "Savior" and second as a coach he devised revolutionary tactics and made Fantasy a Terran icon.
I love it when Blizzard posts the upcoming patch changes the "community" is all: "about time, the game is getting so stale, we need changes. Same units and strategies over and over."
Then this, now it is: "yeah they patch too much, they need to slow down and let the game develop."
Contrary to popular believe, there isn't some hive-mind entity known as "the community," and it is actually just a lot of people with different opinions on the game, most of which are uninformed and worthless. Imagine that.
On October 01 2013 07:10 HardlyNever wrote: I love it when Blizzard posts the upcoming patch changes the "community" is all: "about time, the game is getting so stale, we need changes. Same units and strategies over and over."
Then this, now it is: "yeah they patch too much, they need to slow down and let the game develop."
Contrary to popular believe, there isn't some hive-mind entity known as "the community," and it is actually just a lot of people with different opinions on the game, most of which are uninformed and worthless. Imagine that.
Uninformed critics love to speak loud, hoping that people will listen to them.
Right now, I think Blizzard is doing a much better job especially with their new balance patch!
honestly he the reason im not playing sc2 anymore .... this game could be fun but he nerf everything who come out in 1 week time frame ( when that terran ) and 5 months time frame when that zerg .
On October 01 2013 06:22 Kasaraki wrote: By the way, I hope you guys aren't going to completely buy this oov bravado, the guy has not even been coaching for 2 weeks yet, and part of this time was chuseok. The guy loves to talk big, and he's making things sound very black and white. :p
Black and white talk seems wrong in completely logical thinking. But when you want to make a difference in this world, 100% logical thinking and safe talking is not gonna get you anywhere. It usually shows that you actually have no strong opinions and unsure about lots of things.
So are you saying people should be thinking less logically and more dangerously (whatever that even means) for sake of it? You might be onto a good point but man the way you worded your point is just... bad
100% logical thinking and complete factual talk usually means everything has two sides(because everything in this world indeed has two sides), it shows that speaker has no strong opinion, which results into no accomplishments.To make a difference, people need to choose a side, and be strong with it.
LOL, so noticing the gray areas or the black and white stripes make me a very illogical person. Okay, that means a lot of business decisions are illogical, even though negotiations is the corner stone of good business practices. Oh, that also means that the way the US Constitution is made was illogical. But you also mean that people like Rush Limbaugh, a very notorious US conservative, is logical because he has a black/white perspective.
People such as Steve Jobs can have a black and white perspective of things and be successful. But you will surprised how many people who have such linear thinking such as the political activists in the US are nothing more but annoying gnats. Therefore, black and white perspective doesn't make you an accomplished person.
Finally, having a strong opinion doesn't mean having a black and white personality. I think what you should be saying is that those who are successful are those who are committed to their goal. Having a black and white personality makes you very inflexible and less likely to accomplish something because your plan for success can be hindered by multiple obstacles.
Too long to read the whole thing. Just this Rush Limbaugh thing. Rush Limbaugh is doing great in his own way to make a difference in American's political landscape, and he indeed made a big difference for many years. Even if you say his side is wrong(and I agree), he still made a difference on his own, that's all I am saying. This kind of people usually make bigger difference to our society than those 100% logical people. World is not logical, treat it with 100% logical is sometimes wrong, especially when talking to a crowd or community, they are never rational.
I think to be taken seriously as an esports there should be no changes during the season and only minor tweaks in the off-season once a year. If balance is a concern then that ought to be addressed by maps.
I don't think that's realistic though, and you have to question whether it's really in the interest of the game to let hellbats run rampant for an entire year just because of some 'no-patch' principle. Yes, it's unfair that Blizzard is directly sabotaging Innovation's career by nerfing his favorite strategy, and it's even more worrisome that iloveoov is actually afraid that any powerful strategies he creates will be nerfed by Blizzard, but isn't it the best decision still?
I guess the problem with the BL/Infestor era was that they didn't patch and didn't change the mappool. You can either change unit stats or throw out (good) maps on a regular basis. But Blizz has a tradition of screwing up maps . . .
oov is right as he tends to always be. I love his interviews because he is honest about what he sees.
I remember seeing a picture of how someone portrays how Riot, Valve and Blizzard patches things. Riot does things little by little, Valve buffs everything else to match what's strongest (or attempt to) and Blizzard nerfs things into the ground. I'm sorry David Kim, you are one of the reasons why I have stopped playing SC2 and stopped watching the game as a whole.
No one finds it odd on Bisu's retirement interview on how dire the SC2 scene is in Korea? How little the fans came after SC2 replaced BW? None of these are coincidences. I guess, good luck SC2 is about all I can say because LoL and DotA 2 have taken over.
On October 01 2013 05:40 disciple wrote: He is right about a lot of things but at the same time he dismisses the fact sc2 doesn't have 8 years of time for build innovations and map making. Blizzard went global with SC2 and foreigners just lose/move their interest whenever they see game commercials on the TV. There's just no time for SC2 to become scbw naturally.
He's saying that the problem is the fact that SC2 does not even have 1 year of development as each patch resets the timer.
As much as I like reading those interviews, I don't think David Kim's current approach to balance is bad. Sure, he made some unnecessary patching in the past, but you have to consider that people other than progamers are playing the game, and being frustrated by the same balance issues. In BW the mechanical skill ceiling was so high it didn't really matter for amateurs, but in SC2, when some builds or end game compositions become a problem for all (e.g. end of WoL Zerg), it's time to fix it.
What's funny is that end of WoL Zerg was a period of very little patching from the design team, and it almost killed the game competitively. Maybe after 3 years people would have found reliable ways to win some GSL while not playing Zerg, but as someone said above, SC2 doesn't have that kind of time.
On October 01 2013 06:45 rd wrote: I can't take this Oov interview too seriously. He's very vague when he refers very to David Kim over-balancing the game. He doesn't mention any specific patches, he just makes the blanket statement of an observation that David Kim balances too much, which the interviewer unfortunately did not press at all.
Blizzard said they'd stop shaking up the metagame . If you compare the balanace patches in the first six weeks of WoL vs the first six weeks of HotS, it's night and day. They actually let broodlord infestor dominate the metagame for so damn long rather than nerf it into the ground to allow SOME player to take a crack at solving it.
It's really sad how eager everyone is to hop on the david kim/blizzard shitstorm train with any slight provocation or reason.
Are you SERIOUS?
They buffed queens, the buffed infestors. And then you use argument "and they stopped, be happy".
And then you put the blame on people, to figure out how to beat buffed queens and buffed infestors which in fact were the reason why the mass infestor style and multiple queen style which with conjuction enabled the BL-Inf style to emerge. Because of how good queen buff happened to be.
So after Blizz put all this mess (QUEEN BUFF) you say it was their good heart that made people figure out how to deal with that mess themselves.
Good thinking.
You're literally disagree'ing with Oov right now. They said they'd stop patching so much, and they did what they said. I mean, you're reading into an interview calling for Blizzard to stop patching so much, yet they wouldn't nerf (or unbuff) a unit (queen) which clearly shouldn't have buffed in the first place in hindsight. Is that not the epitome of following the directive that Oov wants? Don't touch the metagame, even if it's broken! They never touched it! You can't have it both ways, and Blizzard took the correct stance. How can you criticize them for that? You're a monumental hypocrite.
And where in the fuck did I say blame the players? Blizzard, Oov, AND myself are not blaming players. They want the players to solve the problems, not balance patches. That's not blaming the players. That's giving them the opportunity to innovate and revolutionize. And Blizzard's resolve to stop patching, even despite having just released an imbalanced patch, were stringent. Because who the fuck would have known 6 months from then that no player would have solved it. You? Hindsight is 20/20 they say. Blizzard gave them the opportunity, thats what counts.
Holy fucking bias.
edit: I'm not sure if I should be more upset at Oov for those comments which I hope were unintentionally vague, or the community for eating them up like brainless zombies with no thought into their validity.
Sorry, i didn't preface my post saying im not making binary statements.
Me saying that "Oov is right", and me saying that youi shouldn't compare bl inf bullshit to the formula of "player devising counter's, not david kim" can be right. If i preface my points saying that the reasons why bl inf domination happened were all nonsesical. You cannot accept players to fight problems that happen from nonsensical reasons. This is not what Oov postulated. Because look what happens, players leave the game, because they know that expansion is coming, so they know that "FIX" is coming regardless of anything.
Players should solve problems, not balance patches. But what terrans solved when queen balance patch happened(for balance patch to happen there needs to be something imbalanced first), which created a problem. So maybe blizzard is here to create a problem for players, that would work but doing so they are in fact also destroying the scheme.
Blizzard is here to give tools and players to devise strategies nad counter strategies, i think we all lost that long ago, because every strategy runs its course gets into dangerous peak and gets nerfed and/or end with the end of game (WoL).
i cant believe that someone as smart and respected as oov would give such a terrible interview
Reporter: I think you're referring to something other than balance.
"Let's compare the two games; In SC1, they only released bug patches and was relatively untouched for ten years. We would do starleagues where at times there would only be one or two protosses. Terrans would occupy more than half the pool. If David Kim were there at that time he would have buffed protoss. That would have meant that we would have been without the exciting and awe-inspiring play of Bisu's prime. Protoss was the minority race and difficult. Thus, its play was given birth to by players like Reach and Nal_Ra. To be frank, I think it is David Kim who creates the winner when it is the gamer who must create the game. It doesn't matter what I say though; the truth is David Kim will keep on tweaking the game. I don't know what his true motives are. Is it to create a 5:5:5 of balance? I truly do not know."
kepsa basically did the same exact thing by making race favored maps, and what he fails to mention is all the players who wernt geniuses like ra/reach/bisu who wernt able to be competitive. take xellos for example, he was a player who was never really smart/talented but his work ethic made him one of the greatest terrans of his time. whos to say there wasnt a protoss that had the same drive/dedication as xellos but never managed to make it big due to the game not being figured out?
I don't think the hands off approach really works in SC2 because the metagame seems to get stuck otherwise. It feels like the metagame doesn't really develop... it converges for each race to "how it is supposed to be played".
Too bad Oov doesn't know that sc2 is a dying dog, it is through injecting these patches that we see a glimpse life returning to this game. Sc2 is losing players/viewers everyday, as bad as it sounds patches gets peoples attention and gets them to log on.
On October 01 2013 07:58 SinCitta wrote: I don't think the hands off approach really works in SC2 because the metagame seems to get stuck otherwise. It feels like the metagame doesn't really develop... it converges for each race to "how it is supposed to be played".
The same thing would happen in BW and so they'd just make imba maps to "patch" the metagame.
The difference between making imba maps and tweaking units is that changing maps simply changes build orders, not unit dynamics.
I really want to make a map where i can test a few patches where Hellbat buff warhoud still exist and winfestors still existed and see what its like hahaha I never got to play in that era
On October 01 2013 05:40 disciple wrote: He is right about a lot of things but at the same time he dismisses the fact sc2 doesn't have 8 years of time for build innovations and map making. Blizzard went global with SC2 and foreigners just lose/move their interest whenever they see game commercials on the TV. There's just no time for SC2 to become scbw naturally.
I'm sorry, but this is typical neo-gen SC2 rationalization.
BW's unreachable skillcap, dynamic gameplay and infinite potential of units is what led the game to evolution and brought awe inspiring moments. SC2 is a much more stiff game and it will remain the same for years to come, because the people whose voice matters don't speak up about the fundamental design problems of the SC2. Instead they praise it and create fake hype around it to keep the revenue coming. SC2 will never evolve like BW, it's more than clear now. It's been 3+ years (9 of them were BL/Inf mind you) of streams and hundreds of tournaments, watching the same builds over and over and games ending after one engagement.
Seeing iloove speaking the truth is refreshing. Sadly it's not enough to pierce through the Platemail of Arrogance that Blizzard is wearing so proudly.
On October 01 2013 07:55 TT1 wrote: i cant believe that someone as smart and respected as oov would give such a terrible interview
Reporter: I think you're referring to something other than balance.
"Let's compare the two games; In SC1, they only released bug patches and was relatively untouched for ten years. We would do starleagues where at times there would only be one or two protosses. Terrans would occupy more than half the pool. If David Kim were there at that time he would have buffed protoss. That would have meant that we would have been without the exciting and awe-inspiring play of Bisu's prime. Protoss was the minority race and difficult. Thus, its play was given birth to by players like Reach and Nal_Ra. To be frank, I think it is David Kim who creates the winner when it is the gamer who must create the game. It doesn't matter what I say though; the truth is David Kim will keep on tweaking the game. I don't know what his true motives are. Is it to create a 5:5:5 of balance? I truly do not know."
kepsa basically did the same exact thing by making race favored maps, and what he fails to mention is that all the players who wernt geniuses like ra/reach/bisu wernt able to be competitive. take xellos for example, he was a player who was never really smart/talented but his work ethic made him one of the greatest terrans of his time. whos to say there wasnt a protoss that had the same drive/dedication as xellos but never managed to make it big due to the game not being figured out?
In the era of replays? Come on now (that's with regards to Mr. Perfect Terran). It's not like no one was aware of what Bisu did to Savior either man (I mean didn't we have someone bring that up recently in the BW forums? yeah we did). <<Insert obligatory "omgosh such a Terran favored map" here *eye roll*>> and I call bullshit on not having the same drive or dedication. It's like you guys forget about players like fOru and Zeus, etc.
I don't know I get what he is saying though, I have been watching a lot of the snipesalot streams lately and BW imo is so much more fun to watch. Any chance we will get a redux vr like they did with Age of Empires?
To be honest I stand between both sides. From one point I agree that by having more frequent patches, etc, will keep the scene more fresh, and the interest up. And if something is actually OP than it will most likely get patched. I also agree that by having time to let the starcraft 2 scene mature, will actually balance every matchup really well as well, because people will actually start THINKING about what they can do. And if something actually isn't OP, than there's time for people to come up with a counter. As an example, I'd like to lean on having far slower patches considering the fact that all the zergs are crying about ''Widowmines this!'' and ''Widowmine that!''.. Even though widowmines aren't actually anything op and can be countered with the smallest amounts of Micro tricks (+ Terran has had to live for a long time by dying outright because of 1 baneling connections out of 40 banelings, while 1 widowmine hit rarely puts a dent in a zerg army.). I've seen a TON of zerg players who can easily beat bio-mine, even when executed brilliantly (I'm thinking of Scarlett vs Alive, where Alive showed brilliant Multitasking, without actually messing up much, but Scarlett just chewed him out.).. I got a bit off track, but I think that the future ''potential balance patch'', that was recently posted, was more of ''To keep sc2 fresh''' kind of update not to ''Fix an important balance problem''. It'll completely change TvZ. And I honestly think that it will actually be more beneficial to the Terran because Ultra switches, etc, will be less powerful if the Terran already has a strong tank army out (+ The buffs on them will make them even more ridiculous.),, But I honestly think that kind of updates NEED to come out far less frequently. How can anyone have time to think up builds if they throw out balance patches once per month?
So yeah. There needs to be a careful balance between letting people play around without having to fear for a new patch, and also patching when necessary. David Kim needs to think things through.
On October 01 2013 07:55 TT1 wrote: i cant believe that someone as smart and respected as oov would give such a terrible interview
Reporter: I think you're referring to something other than balance.
"Let's compare the two games; In SC1, they only released bug patches and was relatively untouched for ten years. We would do starleagues where at times there would only be one or two protosses. Terrans would occupy more than half the pool. If David Kim were there at that time he would have buffed protoss. That would have meant that we would have been without the exciting and awe-inspiring play of Bisu's prime. Protoss was the minority race and difficult. Thus, its play was given birth to by players like Reach and Nal_Ra. To be frank, I think it is David Kim who creates the winner when it is the gamer who must create the game. It doesn't matter what I say though; the truth is David Kim will keep on tweaking the game. I don't know what his true motives are. Is it to create a 5:5:5 of balance? I truly do not know."
kepsa basically did the same exact thing by making race favored maps, and what he fails to mention is that all the players who wernt geniuses like ra/reach/bisu wernt able to be competitive. take xellos for example, he was a player who was never really smart/talented but his work ethic made him one of the greatest terrans of his time. whos to say there wasnt a protoss that had the same drive/dedication as xellos but never managed to make it big due to the game not being figured out?
In the era of replays? Come on now (that's with regards to Mr. Perfect Terran). It's not like no one was aware of what Bisu did to Savior either man (I mean didn't we have someone bring that up recently in the BW forums? yeah we did). <<Insert obligatory "omgosh such a Terran favored map" here *eye roll*>> and I call bullshit on not having the same drive or dedication. It's like you guys forget about players like fOru and Zeus, etc.
im talking about the pre-revolution era where protoss players had no idea what they were doing whereas the z/t metagame was much more advanced. someone like xellos flourished due to the amount of practice he put into the game, he didnt need to worry about figuring out which style was the most optimal in a certain mu, etc.
the fact that there were replays is irrelevant because protoss players were held back due to the metagame not being figured out.. which is why i said there might have been a player who had the same dedication/drive that xellos had but never managed to reach his potential due to the way the game was played
On October 01 2013 05:40 disciple wrote: He is right about a lot of things but at the same time he dismisses the fact sc2 doesn't have 8 years of time for build innovations and map making. Blizzard went global with SC2 and foreigners just lose/move their interest whenever they see game commercials on the TV. There's just no time for SC2 to become scbw naturally.
That's a cool statement, but how can you even try to argue that when SC2 has not even been given the chance?
What Blizzard is trying to do is constantly make the game easier for randoms to play, they aren't necessarily trying to elevate the level of play that we see in SC2.
We are RTS gamers, we play this game that is harder to play and requires more talent (arguable) than other games. This is a niche game that "randoms" won't play as much as they will FPS and MOBA games. This is something that everyone should pretty much know. Thus, Blizzard, as well as the strong SC2/RTS community, need to realize that we need to promote SC2 more as an eSport than as a casual game. Allow professionals to develop the game. Provide support to the professional scene rather than taking control of it. LET SC2 BECOME AN ESPORT RATHER THAN STOPPING IT'S ADVANCEMENT.
We are not LoL, Blizzard can't be Bronze friendly and Grandmasters friendly at the same time.
SC:BW pros made themselves, as well as the game, professional. They developed their skills as well as the metas that the world would learn to respect and love. Blizzard is taking that away and wondering why the professional scene is dying at the same time.
As an example, imagine if the NBA said "hmm, this NBA season there are too many 3 point shooters. how about we balance the game to make 3 points count for 2.5 instead". or "let's push the 3 point line a half a foot back". They'll only start to ruin the game. There's a huge difference between SC2 and basketball, but the professional scene needs to be respected all the same.
On October 01 2013 05:40 disciple wrote: He is right about a lot of things but at the same time he dismisses the fact sc2 doesn't have 8 years of time for build innovations and map making. Blizzard went global with SC2 and foreigners just lose/move their interest whenever they see game commercials on the TV. There's just no time for SC2 to become scbw naturally.
exactly, kim doesn't give time for the game to develop itself. he waits what, a couple of months? it's so easy to cater noobs and progamers alike, buffing a race based on what he does if I were a progamer, the hell I'd try and be innovative. I'd stick to grinding the flavor of the week cookie cutter build and wait eagerly for a buff on my race.
On October 01 2013 05:40 disciple wrote: He is right about a lot of things but at the same time he dismisses the fact sc2 doesn't have 8 years of time for build innovations and map making. Blizzard went global with SC2 and foreigners just lose/move their interest whenever they see game commercials on the TV. There's just no time for SC2 to become scbw naturally.
exactly, kim doesn't give time for the game to develop itself. he waits what, a couple of months? it's so easy to cater noobs and progamers alike, buffing a race based on what he does if I were a progamer, the hell I'd try and be innovative. I'd stick to grinding the flavor of the week cookie cutter build and wait eagerly for a buff on my race.
In fairness, product managers are given at most a few months before higher ups starts breathing down your neck asking why you haven't innovated the entire industry yet.
I really wonder if it would be better with Kim not changing anything. SC2 is such a different game compared to SC1 BW. BW have over a decade to even and straighten everything up while SC2 have yet to even release it's last expansion.
It's a really hard nut to crack. Should you only fix game breaking strats like the 5rax reaper but how long should you wait for people to find that one strat to hold it off? The Infestor was a hot topic a year ago, fans screaming for it to be nerfed, stopping to play the game, switching races etc etc. Did Blizzard act too late?
Again, to the people siding with iloveoov, Brood War is a completely different game with a completely different scene, compared to SC2. First of all, Brood War skill cap was MUCH higher, which is why we have people like Flash, Jaedong, and Bisu. Only few can reach up to that goal. Next, the game was centralized around the Korean scene and was the only dominant game in the eSports industry, so there is not as much pressure to change the meta.
Now, SC2 is different. Due to the simpler design of the game such as better pathing and easier ways of building and controlling bigger armies, the skill cap is much low, so a bigger amount of people can reach up to that top level. Furthermore, best mechanics don't cut it anymore because no play is "perfect". For example, with Flash's insane macro, people realized that you either had to punish Flash hard early or completely outmaneuver him because he is much more of a positional player than a mobile one. In other words, in SC2, you can't rely on a specific style as you can do in Brood War because that style can be countered.
You want innovative play as Bisu delivered in BW? Has anyone here watched Squirtle? Seed? MVP? Nestea (at his prime)? Life? Those guys were extremely brainy players who brought up new ideas for the meta, but now, those guys are no longer on the top anymore. SC2 no longer rewards innovation during the long run because the meta will eventually reset itself until a new player arrives with a new strategy, which will later be countered again. And if it doesn't get countered, then those strategies can abused to the point when game gets stale and frustrating for everyone. And if you look at the current eSports markets such as MOBA, we see that diversity is a very attractive trait within games lately. Though a well-developed game, Brood War is no longer as relevant as it used to be because innovation takes a very long time, which will the current global population has little patience for.
Finally, if you haven't followed the SC2 scene from the VERY beginning, Blizzard is actually MUCH more tame and allows the metagame to develop, compared to last time. The balance has been much more slow and methodical lately. I would say what their past patches were, but I know that it bring back some repressed nightmares
I will admit my knowledge of this comes from a video of an interview with Artosis, so if someone who knows the history more can tell me I'm wrong, I probably am, but: aren't people forgetting that BW eventually came to be balanced by map designers? It doesn't completely refute what oov is saying, but it's worth considering that BW was indeed balanced by outside forces.
On October 01 2013 09:44 AKIRADEATH wrote: I will admit my knowledge of this comes from a video of an interview with Artosis, so if someone who knows the history more can tell me I'm wrong, I probably am, but: aren't people forgetting that BW eventually came to be balanced by map designers? It doesn't completely refute what oov is saying, but it's worth considering that BW was indeed balanced by outside forces.
The maps weren't necessarily balanced though....... The meta's were changed by the maps more so than the restoration of balance of the game.
to be fair... bw changed a lot because nobody really knew how to play back in the days. I mean, boxer invented walling with depos? That's a given in SC2. A lot of pre-existing knowledge, faster matchmaking, more players, and better practice functions allows SC2 to mature faster than ever. If we're reaching a stale meta like in WoL, a patch is necessary... Blizz took their time with the end of WoL... and everyone knows how terribly dragged out that was. zergs were getting raped by widow mines... id like to see a solution to that without patches
On October 01 2013 09:42 hansonslee wrote: Again, to the people siding with iloveoov, Brood War is a completely different game with a completely different scene, compared to SC2. First of all, Brood War skill cap was MUCH higher, which is why we have people like Flash, Jaedong, and Bisu. Only few can reach up to that goal. Next, the game was centralized around the Korean scene and was the only dominant game in the eSports industry, so there is not as much pressure to change the meta.
Now, SC2 is different. Due to the simpler design of the game such as better pathing and easier ways of building and controlling bigger armies, the skill cap is much low, so a bigger amount of people can reach up to that top level. Furthermore, best mechanics don't cut it anymore because no play is "perfect". For example, with Flash's insane macro, people realized that you either had to punish Flash hard early or completely outmaneuver him because he is much more of a positional player than a mobile one. In other words, in SC2, you can't rely on a specific style as you can do in Brood War because that style can be countered.
You want innovative play as Bisu delivered in BW? Has anyone here watched Squirtle? Seed? MVP? Nestea (at his prime)? Life? Those guys were extremely brainy players who brought up new ideas for the meta, but now, those guys are no longer on the top anymore. SC2 no longer rewards innovation during the long run because the meta will eventually reset itself until a new player arrives with a new strategy, which will later be countered again. And if it doesn't get countered, then those strategies can abused to the point when game gets stale and frustrating for everyone. And if you look at the current eSports markets such as MOBA, we see that diversity is a very attractive trait within games lately. Though a well-developed game, Brood War is no longer as relevant as it used to be because innovation takes a very long time, which will the current global population has little patience for.
Finally, if you haven't followed the SC2 scene from the VERY beginning, Blizzard is actually MUCH more tame and allows the metagame to develop, compared to last time. The balance has been much more slow and methodical lately. I would say what their past patches were, but I know that it bring back some repressed nightmares
I love how you DESTROY your own argument with your entire argument.
To everyone supporting Oov, Blizzard is doing a worse job in maintaining and developing SC2. They are lowering the skill cap, and patching people's play styles to make sure players can't develop as play style based players. (No reason to make fun of your comments on Flash because it was exactly the same in BW.... your statement just didn't provide anything to the argument)
SC2 no longer rewards innovation because the meta will eventually reset itself (when David Kim patches and forces those players to develop new styles after spending so many hours creating their old ones) until a new player arrives with a new breakout strategy (which will later be patched again). If it doesn't get patched though, then other players will show their professionalism by practicing a whole ton and rise to the top with their own innovative play like a good eSports/SC player should do, which will later be countered again by other players who are also doing their job by playing SC at an extremely high level with professional mindsets.
If you look at MOBAs, you'll see that the games are completely different and can't be handled the same way. If you do try to develop them the same way, you'll get what you have now, which is MOBAs developing properly and SC2 developing like shit and pro gamers losing interest due to the life of a professional gamer being treated like shit with a total lack of respect.
If you haven't followed SC2 from the very beginning, you wouldn't have any clue that crazy strategies were implemented, and really fun games were played, and top players were winning consistently with innovative games and styles that were allowing everyone to realize the potential of the units in SC2.
On October 01 2013 10:05 Lokian wrote: to be fair... bw changed a lot because nobody really knew how to play back in the days. I mean, boxer invented walling with depos? That's a given in SC2. A lot of pre-existing knowledge, faster matchmaking, more players, and better practice functions allows SC2 to mature faster than ever. If we're reaching a stale meta like in WoL, a patch is necessary... Blizz took their time with the end of WoL... and everyone knows how terribly dragged out that was. zergs were getting raped by widow mines... id like to see a solution to that without patches
Do you know how much it took to demolish the stale meta of the end of WoL? Almost nothing....... Blizzard just wasn't paying attention at the time, and they had just finished cornering WoL into that shitty position because they were tired of everyone saying that zerg was ridiculously underpowered (which was all bullshit). So Blizzard does their thing, changes the game, ruins everyone's style of playing, and accidentally gears the entire game towards 1 single build. Also, WoL didn't have widow mines, so you're kind of confused with your arguing there...
As for the "pre-existing knowledge", that shouldn't be used as a crutch. We shouldn't be saying that those RTS basics need to be reinvented and new processes be made. The pre-existing knowledge should allow for the game to take off faster. We've seen people be innovative with different styles of wacky and super affective, yet very situational wall-ins and things like that, and create very exciting games off of a basic maneuver that everyone knows about.
All the pre-existing knowledge should allow the scene to take off as soon as it's given a decent product. Blizzard just needs to develop a decent product, then let the pro scene take off with it. That's what Oov is saying, and that's not what Blizzard is doing.
Iloveoov is completely right in my opinion, what sc2 is lacking is Innovators in my opinion, the koreans never create new and exciting gameplay, and the rest of the world follows them in the same trend
On October 01 2013 05:47 Musicus wrote: iloveoov seems like a boss. But what is David Kim supposed to do. There are always people complaining, either about balance or about too many patches. It doesn't really matter now anyways. Until LotV is released sc2 is in fact a never ending beta test, so let's wait for 2 years after it has been released. Then the balance patches will stop and the real meta starts.
On October 01 2013 09:42 hansonslee wrote: Again, to the people siding with iloveoov, Brood War is a completely different game with a completely different scene, compared to SC2. First of all, Brood War skill cap was MUCH higher, which is why we have people like Flash, Jaedong, and Bisu. Only few can reach up to that goal. Next, the game was centralized around the Korean scene and was the only dominant game in the eSports industry, so there is not as much pressure to change the meta.
Now, SC2 is different. Due to the simpler design of the game such as better pathing and easier ways of building and controlling bigger armies, the skill cap is much low, so a bigger amount of people can reach up to that top level. Furthermore, best mechanics don't cut it anymore because no play is "perfect". For example, with Flash's insane macro, people realized that you either had to punish Flash hard early or completely outmaneuver him because he is much more of a positional player than a mobile one. In other words, in SC2, you can't rely on a specific style as you can do in Brood War because that style can be countered.
You want innovative play as Bisu delivered in BW? Has anyone here watched Squirtle? Seed? MVP? Nestea (at his prime)? Life? Those guys were extremely brainy players who brought up new ideas for the meta, but now, those guys are no longer on the top anymore. SC2 no longer rewards innovation during the long run because the meta will eventually reset itself until a new player arrives with a new strategy, which will later be countered again. And if it doesn't get countered, then those strategies can abused to the point when game gets stale and frustrating for everyone. And if you look at the current eSports markets such as MOBA, we see that diversity is a very attractive trait within games lately. Though a well-developed game, Brood War is no longer as relevant as it used to be because innovation takes a very long time, which will the current global population has little patience for.
Finally, if you haven't followed the SC2 scene from the VERY beginning, Blizzard is actually MUCH more tame and allows the metagame to develop, compared to last time. The balance has been much more slow and methodical lately. I would say what their past patches were, but I know that it bring back some repressed nightmares
I love how you DESTROY your own argument with your entire argument.
To everyone supporting Oov, Blizzard is doing a worse job in maintaining and developing SC2. They are lowering the skill cap, and patching people's play styles to make sure players can't develop as play style based players. (No reason to make fun of your comments on Flash because it was exactly the same in BW.... your statement just didn't provide anything to the argument)
SC2 no longer rewards innovation because the meta will eventually reset itself (when David Kim patches and forces those players to develop new styles after spending so many hours creating their old ones) until a new player arrives with a new breakout strategy (which will later be patched again). If it doesn't get patched though, then other players will show their professionalism by practicing a whole ton and rise to the top with their own innovative play like a good eSports/SC player should do, which will later be countered again by other players who are also doing their job by playing SC at an extremely high level with professional mindsets.
If you look at MOBAs, you'll see that the games are completely different and can't be handled the same way. If you do try to develop them the same way, you'll get what you have now, which is MOBAs developing properly and SC2 developing like shit and pro gamers losing interest due to the life of a professional gamer being treated like shit with a total lack of respect.
If you haven't followed SC2 from the very beginning, you wouldn't have any clue that crazy strategies were implemented, and really fun games were played, and top players were winning consistently with innovative games and styles that were allowing everyone to realize the potential of the units in SC2.
I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. I said SC2 is a completely different game from Brood War, and there is nowhere in my post that contradicts that point. iloveoov's statements just aren't as relevant to the current Starcraft 2 scene. And btw, by mentioning MVP and Nestea, I don't think you clearly don't understand my background at all because I have followed the scene from the very beginning, and I personally love the hype that these two players got for the next bonjowas of SC2. Also, I am a big fan of Squirtle and Seed, who were once considered to be innovators of my favorite race. But they are back in Code B. So, there you go. My point is still proven.
I am not taking sides of what game is better. I am stating what the current situation is, and why iloveoov's comments don't apply as much atm. Next time, be more careful with what you interpret and get off your high horse.
Ok this is a simple concept to apprehend and still unsure why many are puzzled by it. Inventing a new strategy to dominate the scene by storm and solving that said strategy by a new one is good storyline and build hype while having a new strategy neutered with nobody to contest it in the first place destroys reward and boring. And fans would rather choose the former, how hard is it to understand? Its very basic.
On October 01 2013 11:18 Xiphos wrote: Ok this is a simple concept to apprehend and still unsure why many are puzzled by it. Inventing a new strategy to dominate the scene by storm and solving that said strategy by a new one is good storyline and build hype while having a new strategy neutered with nobody to contest it in the first place destroys reward and boring. And fans would rather choose the former, how hard is it to understand? Its very basic.
I think, like the players, a lot of the Brood War fans cling onto the Glory Days of Starcraft. I personally like the Brood War scenes of dominance, but SC2 is not like that, which I have accepted a long time ago.
On October 01 2013 11:18 Xiphos wrote: Ok this is a simple concept to apprehend and still unsure why many are puzzled by it. Inventing a new strategy to dominate the scene by storm and solving that said strategy by a new one is good storyline and build hype while having a new strategy neutered with nobody to contest it in the first place destroys reward and boring. And fans would rather choose the former, how hard is it to understand? Its very basic.
I think, like the players, a lot of the Brood War fans cling onto the Glory Days of Starcraft. I personally like the Brood War scenes of dominance, but SC2 is not like that, which I have accepted a long time ago.
On October 01 2013 11:18 Xiphos wrote: Ok this is a simple concept to apprehend and still unsure why many are puzzled by it. Inventing a new strategy to dominate the scene by storm and solving that said strategy by a new one is good storyline and build hype while having a new strategy neutered with nobody to contest it in the first place destroys reward and boring. And fans would rather choose the former, how hard is it to understand? Its very basic.
I think, like the players, a lot of the Brood War fans cling onto the Glory Days of Starcraft. I personally like the Brood War scenes of dominance, but SC2 is not like that, which I have accepted a long time ago.
I refuse to accept. Its time for a second coming.
It's okay. I understand your pain. Sometimes, when I read Flash's and Jaedong's interviews, I feel really Really REALLY sad for them! T____T
On October 01 2013 05:47 Musicus wrote: iloveoov seems like a boss. But what is David Kim supposed to do. There are always people complaining, either about balance or about too many patches. It doesn't really matter now anyways. Until LotV is released sc2 is in fact a never ending beta test, so let's wait for 2 years after it has been released. Then the balance patches will stop and the real meta starts.
Edit: Also, not responding to the Emperor? wtf
pretty much my thoughts as well... until LOTV get out we will have to get patches
completely disagree with his opinion. We saw how infestor broodlord killed almost the whole viewership number and zerg just dominating the scene. Even if WoL had the tools to "fix" this, the "fix" might not come for years (we saw how even after nerfing infestors, zerg dominance just continued, imaged infestors weren't even nerfed)
the so called strategy he is recommending comes in a form of opening/timing push, just like how toss uses immortal sentries all in to kill the zerg before it's too late or bomber 2-2 timing. This is also when it leads to 99% of the game is immortal sentries all in or zerg gets to broodlord infestors.
Honestly, every nerf/buff just makes the game to develope quicker or make the metagame more stable, it doesn't kill pro to innovate a build. Did slayers hellion opening died down? nope, it still became standard and just didn't end the game with a mass runby as often Did Mvp mech die down? well if mech was played more often...we would know. Did muta style got phrased out? nope, because buff was on both phoenix and muta.
On October 01 2013 09:42 hansonslee wrote: Again, to the people siding with iloveoov, Brood War is a completely different game with a completely different scene, compared to SC2. First of all, Brood War skill cap was MUCH higher, which is why we have people like Flash, Jaedong, and Bisu. Only few can reach up to that goal. Next, the game was centralized around the Korean scene and was the only dominant game in the eSports industry, so there is not as much pressure to change the meta.
Now, SC2 is different. Due to the simpler design of the game such as better pathing and easier ways of building and controlling bigger armies, the skill cap is much low, so a bigger amount of people can reach up to that top level. Furthermore, best mechanics don't cut it anymore because no play is "perfect". For example, with Flash's insane macro, people realized that you either had to punish Flash hard early or completely outmaneuver him because he is much more of a positional player than a mobile one. In other words, in SC2, you can't rely on a specific style as you can do in Brood War because that style can be countered.
You want innovative play as Bisu delivered in BW? Has anyone here watched Squirtle? Seed? MVP? Nestea (at his prime)? Life? Those guys were extremely brainy players who brought up new ideas for the meta, but now, those guys are no longer on the top anymore. SC2 no longer rewards innovation during the long run because the meta will eventually reset itself until a new player arrives with a new strategy, which will later be countered again. And if it doesn't get countered, then those strategies can abused to the point when game gets stale and frustrating for everyone. And if you look at the current eSports markets such as MOBA, we see that diversity is a very attractive trait within games lately. Though a well-developed game, Brood War is no longer as relevant as it used to be because innovation takes a very long time, which will the current global population has little patience for.
Finally, if you haven't followed the SC2 scene from the VERY beginning, Blizzard is actually MUCH more tame and allows the metagame to develop, compared to last time. The balance has been much more slow and methodical lately. I would say what their past patches were, but I know that it bring back some repressed nightmares
I love how you DESTROY your own argument with your entire argument.
To everyone supporting Oov, Blizzard is doing a worse job in maintaining and developing SC2. They are lowering the skill cap, and patching people's play styles to make sure players can't develop as play style based players. (No reason to make fun of your comments on Flash because it was exactly the same in BW.... your statement just didn't provide anything to the argument)
SC2 no longer rewards innovation because the meta will eventually reset itself (when David Kim patches and forces those players to develop new styles after spending so many hours creating their old ones) until a new player arrives with a new breakout strategy (which will later be patched again). If it doesn't get patched though, then other players will show their professionalism by practicing a whole ton and rise to the top with their own innovative play like a good eSports/SC player should do, which will later be countered again by other players who are also doing their job by playing SC at an extremely high level with professional mindsets.
If you look at MOBAs, you'll see that the games are completely different and can't be handled the same way. If you do try to develop them the same way, you'll get what you have now, which is MOBAs developing properly and SC2 developing like shit and pro gamers losing interest due to the life of a professional gamer being treated like shit with a total lack of respect.
If you haven't followed SC2 from the very beginning, you wouldn't have any clue that crazy strategies were implemented, and really fun games were played, and top players were winning consistently with innovative games and styles that were allowing everyone to realize the potential of the units in SC2.
I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. I said SC2 is a completely different game from Brood War, and there is nowhere in my post that contradicts that point. iloveoov's statements just aren't as relevant to the current Starcraft 2 scene. And btw, by mentioning MVP and Nestea, I don't think you clearly don't understand my background at all because I have followed the scene from the very beginning, and I personally love the hype that these two players got for the next bonjowas of SC2. Also, I am a big fan of Squirtle and Seed, who were once considered to be innovators of my favorite race. But they are back in Code B. So, there you go. My point is still proven.
I am not taking sides of what game is better. I am stating what the current situation is, and why iloveoov's comments don't apply as much atm. Next time, be more careful with what you interpret and get off your high horse.
I don't think that you understand what I'm trying to say.... Because I know exactly what you're trying to say, and I'm trying to say that it's wrong, and your very words describe why it's wrong. SC2 is a lot more like BW than you think, but Blizzard isn't letting it develop the way BW did. The reasons why Blizzard are acting differently aren't being discussed, the fact that SC2 and BW are not so completely different like you think they are is what Oov and myself are trying to tell you. Your point isn't proven, it's simply invalid due to the topic. Bonjwa's don't exist in SC2 because Blizzard won't allow them to exist. They won't change SC2 to make it more sustainable, and they continuously change SC2 in a way that disrupts the development of the professional scene (this is not the same thing as throwing money into the pro scene, nor does it have anything to do with hosting tournaments. this statement is talking about how professional players are able to develop the game). Players who are big innovators can't sustain because they have to innovate too often, because the game isn't sustainable. Seed can't come up with a style and then run with it. He can have a burst of success and then fall down to hell, because he isn't given enough reward for his efforts.
Shots fired at David Kim. But I think it's funny that on one hand people here will praise Oov's assertion that balance should be left to right itself, and then go to another thread to complain about balance.
Basically, I think his idea is good but at this point fans and pro players alike are screaming for buffs or nerfs every few seconds. It's hard for Blizzard to sit by and let things work themselves out.
Dang, oov speaking his mind and truth. Though to be fair FotM patching has been toned down in HOTS but only after a ton of people got burned out due to the constant nerfing of everything that countered Broodlord infestor.
Glad someone with a name finally said what so many people have thought. I'm not saying that patches are bad, but just let the stupid thing grow, let smart people try to figure out the game for a while. You can't have triumph without adversity. I remember there were a lot of good moments in WoL like seeing Thorzain's Thor based TvP finally making mech happen in TvP. I'm sure if Blizzard had not immediately nerf batted the strategy into the ground, we'd remember Thorzain as the one who FINALLY made mech work in TvP. Instead people remember it as an abusive strategy because Blizzard validated that point of view with the Thor patch next week and the story that could have been never was.
come on guys, Blizzard isnt patching that often (in hots) and also.. do yuo really want them to "let the imbalance fix itself". Do i have to remind you of the BL-infestor era, wich was basically more than half a year of the same army cpomposition on every matchup ignoring completely the map or the race the zerg were playing againts? That was the worst era of WoL, gameplay wise or even in viewership. Maybe it worked in BW, but sc2 is a different game.
On October 01 2013 10:07 Shinta) wrote: To everyone supporting Oov, Blizzard is doing a worse job in maintaining and developing SC2. They are lowering the skill cap, and patching people's play styles to make sure players can't develop as play style based players. (No reason to make fun of your comments on Flash because it was exactly the same in BW.... your statement just didn't provide anything to the argument)
SC2 no longer rewards innovation because the meta will eventually reset itself (when David Kim patches and forces those players to develop new styles after spending so many hours creating their old ones) until a new player arrives with a new breakout strategy (which will later be patched again). If it doesn't get patched though, then other players will show their professionalism by practicing a whole ton and rise to the top with their own innovative play like a good eSports/SC player should do, which will later be countered again by other players who are also doing their job by playing SC at an extremely high level with professional mindsets.
Pretty much what I think. It's really hard to develop your own style if people overpatch the game. It's funny how much truth there is to "Innovations's been nerfed" jokes, even if we might be better off with a patch like this (and I'm not sure about that to be honest). Blizzard should probably encourage new play styles for the most part while not completely destroying the current ones. Doing things that makes certain builds less of a gamble - but not overpowered - is a nice. That encourages developing your own style and identity as a player.
On October 01 2013 05:40 disciple wrote: He is right about a lot of things but at the same time he dismisses the fact sc2 doesn't have 8 years of time for build innovations and map making. Blizzard went global with SC2 and foreigners just lose/move their interest whenever they see game commercials on the TV. There's just no time for SC2 to become scbw naturally.
That's a cool statement, but how can you even try to argue that when SC2 has not even been given the chance?
What Blizzard is trying to do is constantly make the game easier for randoms to play, they aren't necessarily trying to elevate the level of play that we see in SC2.
We are RTS gamers, we play this game that is harder to play and requires more talent (arguable) than other games. This is a niche game that "randoms" won't play as much as they will FPS and MOBA games. This is something that everyone should pretty much know. Thus, Blizzard, as well as the strong SC2/RTS community, need to realize that we need to promote SC2 more as an eSport than as a casual game. Allow professionals to develop the game. Provide support to the professional scene rather than taking control of it. LET SC2 BECOME AN ESPORT RATHER THAN STOPPING IT'S ADVANCEMENT.
We are not LoL, Blizzard can't be Bronze friendly and Grandmasters friendly at the same time.
SC:BW pros made themselves, as well as the game, professional. They developed their skills as well as the metas that the world would learn to respect and love. Blizzard is taking that away and wondering why the professional scene is dying at the same time.
As an example, imagine if the NBA said "hmm, this NBA season there are too many 3 point shooters. how about we balance the game to make 3 points count for 2.5 instead". or "let's push the 3 point line a half a foot back". They'll only start to ruin the game. There's a huge difference between SC2 and basketball, but the professional scene needs to be respected all the same.
It's been three years. That's a lot of room for chances man for something to catch on and it did, but for some reason a lot of folks are attached to the idea of having everything bigger when in reality we know exactly what we were dealing with all along. Is the Gorilla's comments with regards to the Korean support acceptable? To a certain extent yes, but everything changes. You don't necessarily need to make the game easier for casuals to play. You could however give them more options and build around different communities. That's what's been neglected and yes we are a niche market which some people seem to forget.
As for Payam, I wouldn't question those player's work ethic even back then because a lot of them were just trying to survive.
When Blizzard patches, people complain. When Blizzard doesn't patch, arguably more people complain.
It's quite a Catch-22 that they're in, and I think a lot of it has to do with how different the community today is and its expectations compared to the old BW days. We're struggling to keep the game relevant in the face of rising competition from LoL and DotA2, and even Korea itself is no longer a guaranteed bastion of long-term support for Starcraft as a huge eSport.
On October 01 2013 09:42 hansonslee wrote: Again, to the people siding with iloveoov, Brood War is a completely different game with a completely different scene, compared to SC2. First of all, Brood War skill cap was MUCH higher, which is why we have people like Flash, Jaedong, and Bisu. Only few can reach up to that goal. Next, the game was centralized around the Korean scene and was the only dominant game in the eSports industry, so there is not as much pressure to change the meta.
Now, SC2 is different. Due to the simpler design of the game such as better pathing and easier ways of building and controlling bigger armies, the skill cap is much low, so a bigger amount of people can reach up to that top level. Furthermore, best mechanics don't cut it anymore because no play is "perfect". For example, with Flash's insane macro, people realized that you either had to punish Flash hard early or completely outmaneuver him because he is much more of a positional player than a mobile one. In other words, in SC2, you can't rely on a specific style as you can do in Brood War because that style can be countered.
You want innovative play as Bisu delivered in BW? Has anyone here watched Squirtle? Seed? MVP? Nestea (at his prime)? Life? Those guys were extremely brainy players who brought up new ideas for the meta, but now, those guys are no longer on the top anymore. SC2 no longer rewards innovation during the long run because the meta will eventually reset itself until a new player arrives with a new strategy, which will later be countered again. And if it doesn't get countered, then those strategies can abused to the point when game gets stale and frustrating for everyone. And if you look at the current eSports markets such as MOBA, we see that diversity is a very attractive trait within games lately. Though a well-developed game, Brood War is no longer as relevant as it used to be because innovation takes a very long time, which will the current global population has little patience for.
Finally, if you haven't followed the SC2 scene from the VERY beginning, Blizzard is actually MUCH more tame and allows the metagame to develop, compared to last time. The balance has been much more slow and methodical lately. I would say what their past patches were, but I know that it bring back some repressed nightmares
I love how you DESTROY your own argument with your entire argument.
To everyone supporting Oov, Blizzard is doing a worse job in maintaining and developing SC2. They are lowering the skill cap, and patching people's play styles to make sure players can't develop as play style based players. (No reason to make fun of your comments on Flash because it was exactly the same in BW.... your statement just didn't provide anything to the argument)
SC2 no longer rewards innovation because the meta will eventually reset itself (when David Kim patches and forces those players to develop new styles after spending so many hours creating their old ones) until a new player arrives with a new breakout strategy (which will later be patched again). If it doesn't get patched though, then other players will show their professionalism by practicing a whole ton and rise to the top with their own innovative play like a good eSports/SC player should do, which will later be countered again by other players who are also doing their job by playing SC at an extremely high level with professional mindsets.
If you look at MOBAs, you'll see that the games are completely different and can't be handled the same way. If you do try to develop them the same way, you'll get what you have now, which is MOBAs developing properly and SC2 developing like shit and pro gamers losing interest due to the life of a professional gamer being treated like shit with a total lack of respect.
If you haven't followed SC2 from the very beginning, you wouldn't have any clue that crazy strategies were implemented, and really fun games were played, and top players were winning consistently with innovative games and styles that were allowing everyone to realize the potential of the units in SC2.
I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. I said SC2 is a completely different game from Brood War, and there is nowhere in my post that contradicts that point. iloveoov's statements just aren't as relevant to the current Starcraft 2 scene. And btw, by mentioning MVP and Nestea, I don't think you clearly don't understand my background at all because I have followed the scene from the very beginning, and I personally love the hype that these two players got for the next bonjowas of SC2. Also, I am a big fan of Squirtle and Seed, who were once considered to be innovators of my favorite race. But they are back in Code B. So, there you go. My point is still proven.
I am not taking sides of what game is better. I am stating what the current situation is, and why iloveoov's comments don't apply as much atm. Next time, be more careful with what you interpret and get off your high horse.
I don't think that you understand what I'm trying to say.... Because I know exactly what you're trying to say, and I'm trying to say that it's wrong, and your very words describe why it's wrong. SC2 is a lot more like BW than you think, but Blizzard isn't letting it develop the way BW did. The reasons why Blizzard are acting differently aren't being discussed, the fact that SC2 and BW are not so completely different like you think they are is what Oov and myself are trying to tell you. Your point isn't proven, it's simply invalid due to the topic. Bonjwa's don't exist in SC2 because Blizzard won't allow them to exist. They won't change SC2 to make it more sustainable, and they continuously change SC2 in a way that disrupts the development of the professional scene (this is not the same thing as throwing money into the pro scene, nor does it have anything to do with hosting tournaments. this statement is talking about how professional players are able to develop the game). Players who are big innovators can't sustain because they have to innovate too often, because the game isn't sustainable. Seed can't come up with a style and then run with it. He can have a burst of success and then fall down to hell, because he isn't given enough reward for his efforts.
You know, it's really funny that you are trying to say that you understand what I am saying, but you really don't because what you say is actually in congruence with what I said. Iloveoov stated how BW rewarded innovation like with Bisu's situation, but you just stated how SC2 doesn't reward innovation. Guess what? You just have just proven my point that SC2 is very different in terms of design and scene. If BW was similar to SC2, then why are the BW players going back to BW? Why do we see players like Flash and Jaedong struggle to regain their former glory? Even Flash complained how HOTS Protoss is very similar to BW Terran because the current Protoss requires much more positioning, compared to other races. Also, have you read the pathfinding article on Team Liquid? A different pathfinding scheme evidently makes a HUGE impact on the game's design, and we all know how different SC2 is from BW in those terms.
I can go on with why it is hard for me to take your post and replies seriously, but I'm sorry, man. I am fine with people criticizing me, because I know that I am not always right (even there are people who downright proved me wrong before, but you're not one of them). There's just no point in having a meaningful discussion with you. I'll give you the free win, if that makes you feel better.
And to make you feel happier, I actually want to see more innovative plays just as much as you do. It's sad that you let a simple disagreement get the best out of you.
Oov has hit the nail on the head. He is right about everything he says. Let the game unravel itself and let the players play it out without too many changes. Also, Blizzard needs to stop catering to the casual player by making its games easier. For example, automine, multi command, I would prefer it to be taken out of the game.
On October 01 2013 12:36 [SXG]Phantom wrote: come on guys, Blizzard isnt patching that often (in hots) and also.. do yuo really want them to "let the imbalance fix itself". Do i have to remind you of the BL-infestor era, wich was basically more than half a year of the same army cpomposition on every matchup ignoring completely the map or the race the zerg were playing againts? That was the worst era of WoL, gameplay wise or even in viewership. Maybe it worked in BW, but sc2 is a different game.
I still remember BL infestor being disgustingly good against almost everything, and Terrans would find it really hard to win. Symbol was the standard bearer of this strategy, and he was already really good at late game Zerg before the meta shift into his preferred style.
That was what made his defeats in the hands of Mvp so memorable for me. Mvp answered this strategy with Mech and 3-1 Symbol in GSL 2012 Season 4 Ro8. It was such a good series, and at the time I thought it was going to be the bane of Infestor BL. The problem was no one at the time can play Mech as well as Mvp. And after that GSL, Mvp dropped out of Code S, as he usually does, and the strategy didn't get enough exposure for others to develop and discover how good it would have become.
On October 01 2013 06:45 rd wrote: I can't take this Oov interview too seriously. He's very vague when he refers very to David Kim over-balancing the game. He doesn't mention any specific patches, he just makes the blanket statement of an observation that David Kim balances too much, which the interviewer unfortunately did not press at all.
Blizzard said they'd stop shaking up the metagame . If you compare the balanace patches in the first six weeks of WoL vs the first six weeks of HotS, it's night and day. They actually let broodlord infestor dominate the metagame for so damn long rather than nerf it into the ground to allow SOME player to take a crack at solving it.
It's really sad how eager everyone is to hop on the david kim/blizzard shitstorm train with any slight provocation or reason.
Are you SERIOUS?
They buffed queens, the buffed infestors. And then you use argument "and they stopped, be happy".
And then you put the blame on people, to figure out how to beat buffed queens and buffed infestors which in fact were the reason why the mass infestor style and multiple queen style which with conjuction enabled the BL-Inf style to emerge. Because of how good queen buff happened to be.
So after Blizz put all this mess (QUEEN BUFF) you say it was their good heart that made people figure out how to deal with that mess themselves.
Good thinking.
You're literally disagree'ing with Oov right now. They said they'd stop patching so much, and they did what they said. I mean, you're reading into an interview calling for Blizzard to stop patching so much, yet they wouldn't nerf (or unbuff) a unit (queen) which clearly shouldn't have buffed in the first place in hindsight. Is that not the epitome of following the directive that Oov wants? Don't touch the metagame, even if it's broken! They never touched it! You can't have it both ways, and Blizzard took the correct stance. How can you criticize them for that? You're a monumental hypocrite.
And where in the fuck did I say blame the players? Blizzard, Oov, AND myself are not blaming players. They want the players to solve the problems, not balance patches. That's not blaming the players. That's giving them the opportunity to innovate and revolutionize. And Blizzard's resolve to stop patching, even despite having just released an imbalanced patch, were stringent. Because who the fuck would have known 6 months from then that no player would have solved it. You? Hindsight is 20/20 they say. Blizzard gave them the opportunity, thats what counts.
Holy fucking bias.
edit: I'm not sure if I should be more upset at Oov for those comments which I hope were unintentionally vague, or the community for eating them up like brainless zombies with no thought into their validity.
Sorry, i didn't preface my post saying im not making binary statements.
Me saying that "Oov is right", and me saying that youi shouldn't compare bl inf bullshit to the formula of "player devising counter's, not david kim" can be right. If i preface my points saying that the reasons why bl inf domination happened were all nonsesical. You cannot accept players to fight problems that happen from nonsensical reasons. This is not what Oov postulated. Because look what happens, players leave the game, because they know that expansion is coming, so they know that "FIX" is coming regardless of anything.
Players should solve problems, not balance patches. But what terrans solved when queen balance patch happened(for balance patch to happen there needs to be something imbalanced first), which created a problem. So maybe blizzard is here to create a problem for players, that would work but doing so they are in fact also destroying the scheme.
Blizzard is here to give tools and players to devise strategies nad counter strategies, i think we all lost that long ago, because every strategy runs its course gets into dangerous peak and gets nerfed and/or end with the end of game (WoL).
You can't just sit there and blast Blizzard for not reverting the queen patch without having the foresight to know it couldn't be solved in 6 months after vowing to let the metagame play out more. It'd be counter-intuitive to the entire concept of allowing players the opportunity to solve the game. To disagree makes you a hypocrite. I highly doubt you had that foresight then, or do now. And the general lack of foresight in how the metagame can change is EXACTLY WHY Blizzard shouldn't be patching things so quickly, not even Broodlord Infestor. No one will give Blizzard credit, everyone are such hypocrites.
On October 01 2013 12:36 [SXG]Phantom wrote: come on guys, Blizzard isnt patching that often (in hots) and also.. do yuo really want them to "let the imbalance fix itself". Do i have to remind you of the BL-infestor era, wich was basically more than half a year of the same army cpomposition on every matchup ignoring completely the map or the race the zerg were playing againts? That was the worst era of WoL, gameplay wise or even in viewership. Maybe it worked in BW, but sc2 is a different game.
The funny part is this strat became so strong and so viable due to over-patching.
But ya agree that basically the second anyone does something different that appears at first glance like a good build or a strong build......it just gets nerfed into the dirt and into extinction. Because of this, the game is barely even a "strategy" game anymore but more just muscle memory training and coin-flips.
On October 01 2013 12:36 [SXG]Phantom wrote: come on guys, Blizzard isnt patching that often (in hots) and also.. do yuo really want them to "let the imbalance fix itself". Do i have to remind you of the BL-infestor era, wich was basically more than half a year of the same army cpomposition on every matchup ignoring completely the map or the race the zerg were playing againts? That was the worst era of WoL, gameplay wise or even in viewership. Maybe it worked in BW, but sc2 is a different game.
The funny part is this strat became so strong and so viable due to over-patching.
But ya agree that basically the second anyone does something different that appears at first glance like a good build or a strong build......it just gets nerfed into the dirt and into extinction. Because of this, the game is barely even a "strategy" game anymore but more just muscle memory training and coin-flips.
Well they publicly announced immediately after that patch that they were going to stop knee-jerking strats and letting the metagame sufficient time to flesh out. It's unfortunate they chose to start that policy after what was in hindsight a ridiculous patch, but they have to be given credit for it. If we want less patches, we can't have a 1 month clock for a player to solve a strategy before Blizzard nerfs it into the ground. Not even BL infestor.
On October 01 2013 12:47 Nerevar wrote: When Blizzard patches, people complain. When Blizzard doesn't patch, arguably more people complain.
It's quite a Catch-22 that they're in, and I think a lot of it has to do with how different the community today is and its expectations compared to the old BW days. We're struggling to keep the game relevant in the face of rising competition from LoL and DotA2, and even Korea itself is no longer a guaranteed bastion of long-term support for Starcraft as a huge eSport.
That is because usually the community will break down the "issues" with regards to the meta and talk about buffing/nerfing A, B and C. Blizzard then releases their upcoming patch notes on buffing/nerfing X, Y and Z..
Like in the recent patch notes. Speeding up DTs? what? since when were DTs a problem? the way they are making Oracles viable mid/late game by making them cheaper.. what? Completely nerfing the WM instead of mildly reducing its splash radii..
Their balance changes are sometimes so far out there, galaxies apart from the communities "needs" and their analysis that people have always been upset. Just like how the warhound which started off as a mini thor i.e. more accessible AA somehow became a mech marauder.
SC2 as a game has the potential to be better yet every balance change for me at the least is not leading the game in the right direction and instead snipping away at this potential. Why dont they look at the viper and its role against the MMMM? Why dont they do something about 50% of the units that suddenly become viable if tank usage becomes the norm? why dont they look into toning down the hardcounters? Some of these things won't need huge changes to the core fundamentals to the game e.g. economoy/macro mechanics etc. Yet they wanted to increase the DT speed.. why?? I would really like to play the game that their playing where DTs out of all the units are having trouble.
Why is this community so full of armchair game designers? If you think you are better at balancing the game maybe give some credentials for the perfectly balanced strategy game you have created. Oov might have a point, but he isn't the one making the decisions. HoTS has taken a mostly hands off approach to game balance. What has actually changed since release? Hellbats and overseer speed. It's like saying blizzard should have never fixed lurkers to fix unburrow when attacked.
David Kim can sit and watch. THat's the easiest thing to do. But then Blizzard will see no value in him and fire him. He have a job to do, and unless they are working on Starcraft 3, I don't think the patches cycle will ever change.
Oov has some good points, but I think he's just as biased as anyone and it really shows through in what he says.
Yea, progamers should endure, they should try their hardest to deal with the meta-game. They should innovate, look for new strategies and tactics that counter existing ones and push forward the game. But, at the end of the day, they have their motivations as does Oov and David Kim and it's hard to say anyone is right. Just look at Bisu's recent interview where he talks about how hard it is to see the fans disappear, how difficult it becomes to just focus on your practice when you have to question what the purpose is. And, how do you bring those fans back? Make the game harder? Get rid of MBS, auto-mining, and bring back BW unit pathing? As LoL proved, the technical difficulty of the game is not related to the popularity of the game in such a direct way. Are constant patches and changes a bad thing? Does it not happen in other incredibly popular games?
If someone knew how to turn a video-game into a national sport, they would be getting paid an unbelievable amount of money to do so. Nobody knows and I'd say that's because there is no tangible answer.
On October 01 2013 06:45 rd wrote: I can't take this Oov interview too seriously. He's very vague when he refers very to David Kim over-balancing the game. He doesn't mention any specific patches, he just makes the blanket statement of an observation that David Kim balances too much, which the interviewer unfortunately did not press at all.
Blizzard said they'd stop shaking up the metagame . If you compare the balanace patches in the first six weeks of WoL vs the first six weeks of HotS, it's night and day. They actually let broodlord infestor dominate the metagame for so damn long rather than nerf it into the ground to allow SOME player to take a crack at solving it.
It's really sad how eager everyone is to hop on the david kim/blizzard shitstorm train with any slight provocation or reason.
Are you SERIOUS?
They buffed queens, the buffed infestors. And then you use argument "and they stopped, be happy".
And then you put the blame on people, to figure out how to beat buffed queens and buffed infestors which in fact were the reason why the mass infestor style and multiple queen style which with conjuction enabled the BL-Inf style to emerge. Because of how good queen buff happened to be.
So after Blizz put all this mess (QUEEN BUFF) you say it was their good heart that made people figure out how to deal with that mess themselves.
Good thinking.
You're literally disagree'ing with Oov right now. They said they'd stop patching so much, and they did what they said. I mean, you're reading into an interview calling for Blizzard to stop patching so much, yet they wouldn't nerf (or unbuff) a unit (queen) which clearly shouldn't have buffed in the first place in hindsight. Is that not the epitome of following the directive that Oov wants? Don't touch the metagame, even if it's broken! They never touched it! You can't have it both ways, and Blizzard took the correct stance. How can you criticize them for that? You're a monumental hypocrite.
And where in the fuck did I say blame the players? Blizzard, Oov, AND myself are not blaming players. They want the players to solve the problems, not balance patches. That's not blaming the players. That's giving them the opportunity to innovate and revolutionize. And Blizzard's resolve to stop patching, even despite having just released an imbalanced patch, were stringent. Because who the fuck would have known 6 months from then that no player would have solved it. You? Hindsight is 20/20 they say. Blizzard gave them the opportunity, thats what counts.
Holy fucking bias.
edit: I'm not sure if I should be more upset at Oov for those comments which I hope were unintentionally vague, or the community for eating them up like brainless zombies with no thought into their validity.
Sorry, i didn't preface my post saying im not making binary statements.
Me saying that "Oov is right", and me saying that youi shouldn't compare bl inf bullshit to the formula of "player devising counter's, not david kim" can be right. If i preface my points saying that the reasons why bl inf domination happened were all nonsesical. You cannot accept players to fight problems that happen from nonsensical reasons. This is not what Oov postulated. Because look what happens, players leave the game, because they know that expansion is coming, so they know that "FIX" is coming regardless of anything.
Players should solve problems, not balance patches. But what terrans solved when queen balance patch happened(for balance patch to happen there needs to be something imbalanced first), which created a problem. So maybe blizzard is here to create a problem for players, that would work but doing so they are in fact also destroying the scheme.
Blizzard is here to give tools and players to devise strategies nad counter strategies, i think we all lost that long ago, because every strategy runs its course gets into dangerous peak and gets nerfed and/or end with the end of game (WoL).
You can't just sit there and blast Blizzard for not reverting the queen patch without having the foresight to know it couldn't be solved in 6 months after vowing to let the metagame play out more. It'd be counter-intuitive to the entire concept of allowing players the opportunity to solve the game. To disagree makes you a hypocrite. I highly doubt you had that foresight then, or do now. And the general lack of foresight in how the metagame can change is EXACTLY WHY Blizzard shouldn't be patching things so quickly, not even Broodlord Infestor. No one will give Blizzard credit, everyone are such hypocrites.
both of you are essentially saying the same thing but missing a point: The game already received patches and changes since its development.
for all we know, if the game is released in alpha build and probably the game would have worked fine without any patching too.
the biggest flaw of this interview is that it assumes no matter what the game is, as long as it gives the players the tools and no bug, you don't need patching.
Patching is based upon the idea that if the players do have the right tools to effectively solve the "problem". And problem doesn't just come from win rates. The viewers and players enjoyment are a concern as well. WoL pvz was a complete mess with toss all in vs zerg late game. No matter what metagame evolution there is, the matchup is still ruined because toss does not have effective counter to late game zerg composition. Even with 50/50 win rate, the matchup will still push people away from watching.
Thus the game should be given a direction on how to increase the enjoyment from playing and watching the game. For example, Protoss doesn't play aggressively and only has turtling and all in style. No patching will help that if one style is dominantly stronger than the other. One style means there is less identifiable player with different style. WoL we had players who are better at mech and better at bio for example. then players can only differentiate themselves by unit controls (which is harder since only HTs control can a protoss really shine in a PvT) and builds (which can be copied easily)
On October 01 2013 13:59 Brian333 wrote: Oov has some good points, but I think he's just as biased as anyone and it really shows through in what he says.
Yea, progamers should endure, they should try their hardest to deal with the meta-game. They should innovate, look for new strategies and tactics that counter existing ones and push forward the game. But, at the end of the day, they have their motivations as does Oov and David Kim and it's hard to say anyone is right. Just look at Bisu's recent interview where he talks about how hard it is to see the fans disappear, how difficult it becomes to just focus on your practice when you have to question what the purpose is. And, how do you bring those fans back? Make the game harder? Get rid of MBS, auto-mining, and bring back BW unit pathing? As LoL proved, the technical difficulty of the game is not related to the popularity of the game in such a direct way. Are constant patches and changes a bad thing? Does it not happen in other incredibly popular games?
If someone knew how to turn a video-game into a national sport, they would be getting paid an unbelievable amount of money to do so. Nobody knows and I'd say that's because there is no tangible answer.
BW was closest to that answer til Blizzard pulled the plug. The idea at the time of pre-SC2 release was that SC2 was supposed to assume the mantle of BW because the latter had things that were lacking e.g. arcahic B.net UI, graphics etc It was a perfect opportunity to add and build upon what I saw as a strong foundation (a perfect opportunity to update the game). It was the game to carry the 10 years of starcraft and all its glory.
Yet they went ahead and destroyed the foundation where the game was basically living off the BW popularity. Same thing happened with D3. No chat channels? no PvP? Everything that made starcraft through the original game and its expansion so awesome was a shell of its former self from game play, single player, story development and even ghost.net 2.0.
First interview I read about iloveoov and I love it! lol. He's right about most things. Blizzard was too patch happy when SCII was first released and they toned it down right after making the worst patch possible with the queen patch lol. Wonder how the game would've turned out if everything was left like it was at release but the maps were bigger then some of the things they changed won't have needed it and others possibly to a lesser degree. Either way, it's too late for WoL now. Maybe they'll get it right in LoTV or maybe not lol.
Oov showing once again how most associated with kespa are narrow minded and stuck in the past. Having an unbalanced game is NOT good. Period. How much fun would your ladder be if it was all mirrors, or you knew you would likely lose?
On October 01 2013 06:45 rd wrote: I can't take this Oov interview too seriously. He's very vague when he refers very to David Kim over-balancing the game. He doesn't mention any specific patches, he just makes the blanket statement of an observation that David Kim balances too much, which the interviewer unfortunately did not press at all.
Blizzard said they'd stop shaking up the metagame . If you compare the balanace patches in the first six weeks of WoL vs the first six weeks of HotS, it's night and day. They actually let broodlord infestor dominate the metagame for so damn long rather than nerf it into the ground to allow SOME player to take a crack at solving it.
It's really sad how eager everyone is to hop on the david kim/blizzard shitstorm train with any slight provocation or reason.
Are you SERIOUS?
They buffed queens, the buffed infestors. And then you use argument "and they stopped, be happy".
And then you put the blame on people, to figure out how to beat buffed queens and buffed infestors which in fact were the reason why the mass infestor style and multiple queen style which with conjuction enabled the BL-Inf style to emerge. Because of how good queen buff happened to be.
So after Blizz put all this mess (QUEEN BUFF) you say it was their good heart that made people figure out how to deal with that mess themselves.
Good thinking.
You're literally disagree'ing with Oov right now. They said they'd stop patching so much, and they did what they said. I mean, you're reading into an interview calling for Blizzard to stop patching so much, yet they wouldn't nerf (or unbuff) a unit (queen) which clearly shouldn't have buffed in the first place in hindsight. Is that not the epitome of following the directive that Oov wants? Don't touch the metagame, even if it's broken! They never touched it! You can't have it both ways, and Blizzard took the correct stance. How can you criticize them for that? You're a monumental hypocrite.
And where in the fuck did I say blame the players? Blizzard, Oov, AND myself are not blaming players. They want the players to solve the problems, not balance patches. That's not blaming the players. That's giving them the opportunity to innovate and revolutionize. And Blizzard's resolve to stop patching, even despite having just released an imbalanced patch, were stringent. Because who the fuck would have known 6 months from then that no player would have solved it. You? Hindsight is 20/20 they say. Blizzard gave them the opportunity, thats what counts.
Holy fucking bias.
edit: I'm not sure if I should be more upset at Oov for those comments which I hope were unintentionally vague, or the community for eating them up like brainless zombies with no thought into their validity.
Sorry, i didn't preface my post saying im not making binary statements.
Me saying that "Oov is right", and me saying that youi shouldn't compare bl inf bullshit to the formula of "player devising counter's, not david kim" can be right. If i preface my points saying that the reasons why bl inf domination happened were all nonsesical. You cannot accept players to fight problems that happen from nonsensical reasons. This is not what Oov postulated. Because look what happens, players leave the game, because they know that expansion is coming, so they know that "FIX" is coming regardless of anything.
Players should solve problems, not balance patches. But what terrans solved when queen balance patch happened(for balance patch to happen there needs to be something imbalanced first), which created a problem. So maybe blizzard is here to create a problem for players, that would work but doing so they are in fact also destroying the scheme.
Blizzard is here to give tools and players to devise strategies nad counter strategies, i think we all lost that long ago, because every strategy runs its course gets into dangerous peak and gets nerfed and/or end with the end of game (WoL).
You can't just sit there and blast Blizzard for not reverting the queen patch without having the foresight to know it couldn't be solved in 6 months after vowing to let the metagame play out more. It'd be counter-intuitive to the entire concept of allowing players the opportunity to solve the game. To disagree makes you a hypocrite. I highly doubt you had that foresight then, or do now. And the general lack of foresight in how the metagame can change is EXACTLY WHY Blizzard shouldn't be patching things so quickly, not even Broodlord Infestor. No one will give Blizzard credit, everyone are such hypocrites.
both of you are essentially saying the same thing but missing a point: The game already received patches and changes since its development.
for all we know, if the game is released in alpha build and probably the game would have worked fine without any patching too.
the biggest flaw of this interview is that it assumes no matter what the game is, as long as it gives the players the tools and no bug, you don't need patching.
Patching is based upon the idea that if the players do have the right tools to effectively solve the "problem". And problem doesn't just come from win rates. The viewers and players enjoyment are a concern as well. WoL pvz was a complete mess with toss all in vs zerg late game. No matter what metagame evolution there is, the matchup is still ruined because toss does not have effective counter to late game zerg composition. Even with 50/50 win rate, the matchup will still push people away from watching.
Thus the game should be given a direction on how to increase the enjoyment from playing and watching the game.
We agree that the game shouldn't be patched no matter what, EXCEPT when it comes to the queen patch. The irony is that even when they stuck to their guns and didn't patch it, he still won't acknowledge that Blizzard actually did stick to their word and stopped patching everything like they did throughout WoL before queen patch. That's the entire damn point. If you aren't going to knee-jerk patch without perfect foresight (which few to no people have, generally safe to assume no one), you can't make an exception to the rule. Not even one in which they fix something they literally broke themselves. Because it took 6 months to truly realize they did break it.
Whether or not the game is enjoyable is a different argument though. This is purely about the frequency with which blizzard patches, and how consistently they stuck to their announcement. My initial argument is that Oov is disingenuously vague about how he refers to blizzard's balance patch history. Because either he's just blatantly wrong in what he says, or he's actually referring to absolutely no patches at all which we can both agree is pretty insane.
On October 01 2013 06:45 rd wrote: I can't take this Oov interview too seriously. He's very vague when he refers very to David Kim over-balancing the game. He doesn't mention any specific patches, he just makes the blanket statement of an observation that David Kim balances too much, which the interviewer unfortunately did not press at all.
Blizzard said they'd stop shaking up the metagame . If you compare the balanace patches in the first six weeks of WoL vs the first six weeks of HotS, it's night and day. They actually let broodlord infestor dominate the metagame for so damn long rather than nerf it into the ground to allow SOME player to take a crack at solving it.
It's really sad how eager everyone is to hop on the david kim/blizzard shitstorm train with any slight provocation or reason.
Are you SERIOUS?
They buffed queens, the buffed infestors. And then you use argument "and they stopped, be happy".
And then you put the blame on people, to figure out how to beat buffed queens and buffed infestors which in fact were the reason why the mass infestor style and multiple queen style which with conjuction enabled the BL-Inf style to emerge. Because of how good queen buff happened to be.
So after Blizz put all this mess (QUEEN BUFF) you say it was their good heart that made people figure out how to deal with that mess themselves.
Good thinking.
You're literally disagree'ing with Oov right now. They said they'd stop patching so much, and they did what they said. I mean, you're reading into an interview calling for Blizzard to stop patching so much, yet they wouldn't nerf (or unbuff) a unit (queen) which clearly shouldn't have buffed in the first place in hindsight. Is that not the epitome of following the directive that Oov wants? Don't touch the metagame, even if it's broken! They never touched it! You can't have it both ways, and Blizzard took the correct stance. How can you criticize them for that? You're a monumental hypocrite.
And where in the fuck did I say blame the players? Blizzard, Oov, AND myself are not blaming players. They want the players to solve the problems, not balance patches. That's not blaming the players. That's giving them the opportunity to innovate and revolutionize. And Blizzard's resolve to stop patching, even despite having just released an imbalanced patch, were stringent. Because who the fuck would have known 6 months from then that no player would have solved it. You? Hindsight is 20/20 they say. Blizzard gave them the opportunity, thats what counts.
Holy fucking bias.
edit: I'm not sure if I should be more upset at Oov for those comments which I hope were unintentionally vague, or the community for eating them up like brainless zombies with no thought into their validity.
Sorry, i didn't preface my post saying im not making binary statements.
Me saying that "Oov is right", and me saying that youi shouldn't compare bl inf bullshit to the formula of "player devising counter's, not david kim" can be right. If i preface my points saying that the reasons why bl inf domination happened were all nonsesical. You cannot accept players to fight problems that happen from nonsensical reasons. This is not what Oov postulated. Because look what happens, players leave the game, because they know that expansion is coming, so they know that "FIX" is coming regardless of anything.
Players should solve problems, not balance patches. But what terrans solved when queen balance patch happened(for balance patch to happen there needs to be something imbalanced first), which created a problem. So maybe blizzard is here to create a problem for players, that would work but doing so they are in fact also destroying the scheme.
Blizzard is here to give tools and players to devise strategies nad counter strategies, i think we all lost that long ago, because every strategy runs its course gets into dangerous peak and gets nerfed and/or end with the end of game (WoL).
You can't just sit there and blast Blizzard for not reverting the queen patch without having the foresight to know it couldn't be solved in 6 months after vowing to let the metagame play out more. It'd be counter-intuitive to the entire concept of allowing players the opportunity to solve the game. To disagree makes you a hypocrite. I highly doubt you had that foresight then, or do now. And the general lack of foresight in how the metagame can change is EXACTLY WHY Blizzard shouldn't be patching things so quickly, not even Broodlord Infestor. No one will give Blizzard credit, everyone are such hypocrites.
both of you are essentially saying the same thing but missing a point: The game already received patches and changes since its development.
for all we know, if the game is released in alpha build and probably the game would have worked fine without any patching too.
the biggest flaw of this interview is that it assumes no matter what the game is, as long as it gives the players the tools and no bug, you don't need patching.
Patching is based upon the idea that if the players do have the right tools to effectively solve the "problem". And problem doesn't just come from win rates. The viewers and players enjoyment are a concern as well. WoL pvz was a complete mess with toss all in vs zerg late game. No matter what metagame evolution there is, the matchup is still ruined because toss does not have effective counter to late game zerg composition. Even with 50/50 win rate, the matchup will still push people away from watching.
Thus the game should be given a direction on how to increase the enjoyment from playing and watching the game. For example, Protoss doesn't play aggressively and only has turtling and all in style. No patching will help that if one style is dominantly stronger than the other. One style means there is less identifiable player with different style. WoL we had players who are better at mech and better at bio for example. then players can only differentiate themselves by unit controls (which is harder since only HTs control can a protoss really shine in a PvT) and builds (which can be copied easily)
They did have a counter to late game zerg composition. It was hard to get to and even harder to properly use.
A handful of Colossi on the ground, a handful of Carriers, a lot of Voidrays, enough HTs, recycled Archons, and the Mothership.
HTs stop Infestors from fungalling your army. They also deal damage to / repel Corruptors when they engage. Colossi and Carriers provide siege coverage for your HTs and slowly push through static defense. Archons also act as a meat shield and contribute to air battles when enemy is clumped. Voidrays are the damage dealers. Mothership cloaks / protects your army because Overseers are hard to keep alive with feedback, Carrier siege. Vortex gives you 2 get-out-of-jail-free cards in case you are out-positioned and can also give you 2 shots at just out-right winning the game.
On October 01 2013 06:45 rd wrote: I can't take this Oov interview too seriously. He's very vague when he refers very to David Kim over-balancing the game. He doesn't mention any specific patches, he just makes the blanket statement of an observation that David Kim balances too much, which the interviewer unfortunately did not press at all.
Blizzard said they'd stop shaking up the metagame . If you compare the balanace patches in the first six weeks of WoL vs the first six weeks of HotS, it's night and day. They actually let broodlord infestor dominate the metagame for so damn long rather than nerf it into the ground to allow SOME player to take a crack at solving it.
It's really sad how eager everyone is to hop on the david kim/blizzard shitstorm train with any slight provocation or reason.
Are you SERIOUS?
They buffed queens, the buffed infestors. And then you use argument "and they stopped, be happy".
And then you put the blame on people, to figure out how to beat buffed queens and buffed infestors which in fact were the reason why the mass infestor style and multiple queen style which with conjuction enabled the BL-Inf style to emerge. Because of how good queen buff happened to be.
So after Blizz put all this mess (QUEEN BUFF) you say it was their good heart that made people figure out how to deal with that mess themselves.
Good thinking.
You're literally disagree'ing with Oov right now. They said they'd stop patching so much, and they did what they said. I mean, you're reading into an interview calling for Blizzard to stop patching so much, yet they wouldn't nerf (or unbuff) a unit (queen) which clearly shouldn't have buffed in the first place in hindsight. Is that not the epitome of following the directive that Oov wants? Don't touch the metagame, even if it's broken! They never touched it! You can't have it both ways, and Blizzard took the correct stance. How can you criticize them for that? You're a monumental hypocrite.
And where in the fuck did I say blame the players? Blizzard, Oov, AND myself are not blaming players. They want the players to solve the problems, not balance patches. That's not blaming the players. That's giving them the opportunity to innovate and revolutionize. And Blizzard's resolve to stop patching, even despite having just released an imbalanced patch, were stringent. Because who the fuck would have known 6 months from then that no player would have solved it. You? Hindsight is 20/20 they say. Blizzard gave them the opportunity, thats what counts.
Holy fucking bias.
edit: I'm not sure if I should be more upset at Oov for those comments which I hope were unintentionally vague, or the community for eating them up like brainless zombies with no thought into their validity.
Sorry, i didn't preface my post saying im not making binary statements.
Me saying that "Oov is right", and me saying that youi shouldn't compare bl inf bullshit to the formula of "player devising counter's, not david kim" can be right. If i preface my points saying that the reasons why bl inf domination happened were all nonsesical. You cannot accept players to fight problems that happen from nonsensical reasons. This is not what Oov postulated. Because look what happens, players leave the game, because they know that expansion is coming, so they know that "FIX" is coming regardless of anything.
Players should solve problems, not balance patches. But what terrans solved when queen balance patch happened(for balance patch to happen there needs to be something imbalanced first), which created a problem. So maybe blizzard is here to create a problem for players, that would work but doing so they are in fact also destroying the scheme.
Blizzard is here to give tools and players to devise strategies nad counter strategies, i think we all lost that long ago, because every strategy runs its course gets into dangerous peak and gets nerfed and/or end with the end of game (WoL).
You can't just sit there and blast Blizzard for not reverting the queen patch without having the foresight to know it couldn't be solved in 6 months after vowing to let the metagame play out more. It'd be counter-intuitive to the entire concept of allowing players the opportunity to solve the game. To disagree makes you a hypocrite. I highly doubt you had that foresight then, or do now. And the general lack of foresight in how the metagame can change is EXACTLY WHY Blizzard shouldn't be patching things so quickly, not even Broodlord Infestor. No one will give Blizzard credit, everyone are such hypocrites.
both of you are essentially saying the same thing but missing a point: The game already received patches and changes since its development.
for all we know, if the game is released in alpha build and probably the game would have worked fine without any patching too.
the biggest flaw of this interview is that it assumes no matter what the game is, as long as it gives the players the tools and no bug, you don't need patching.
Patching is based upon the idea that if the players do have the right tools to effectively solve the "problem". And problem doesn't just come from win rates. The viewers and players enjoyment are a concern as well. WoL pvz was a complete mess with toss all in vs zerg late game. No matter what metagame evolution there is, the matchup is still ruined because toss does not have effective counter to late game zerg composition. Even with 50/50 win rate, the matchup will still push people away from watching.
Thus the game should be given a direction on how to increase the enjoyment from playing and watching the game.
We agree that the game shouldn't be patched no matter what, EXCEPT when it comes to the queen patch. The irony is that even when they stuck to their guns and didn't patch it, he still won't acknowledge that Blizzard actually did stick to their word and stopped patching everything like they did throughout WoL before queen patch. That's the entire damn point. If you aren't going to knee-jerk patch without perfect foresight (which few to no people have, generally safe to assume no one), you can't make an exception to the rule. Not even one in which they fix something they literally broke themselves. Because it took 6 months to truly realize they did break it.
Whether or not the game is enjoyable is a different argument though. This is purely about the frequency with which blizzard patches, and how consistently they stuck to their announcement. My initial argument is that Oov is disingenuously vague about how he refers to blizzard's balance patch history. Because either he's just blatantly wrong in what he says, or he's actually referring to absolutely no patches at all which we can both agree is pretty insane.
I think some points were lost in translation but in all seriousness we and probably ooV himself knows that we isn't 100% balancing patching or patching all together. Of course bug patches are required and of course balance patches are required when things are outright too powerful e.g. WoL ultra splash where everything behind the wall died, 5 rax reaper vs zerg etc.
However what I get from his interview since I can read korean is that hes referring to the bigger patches that affected the meta. Queen range patch. Before the patch, DRG was so memorable because he was one of the few zergs who truly differentiated himself to the rest. He made it possible without the need to buff queens. The immortal range patch. Before this patch there were Ps out there that used range 5 immortals exceptionally well (putting it in the front etc, microing things generally beautifully) and those that survived the dreaded 1/1/1. All these things could have been fixed with tweaks to maps and more exploration yet they went ahead with this patch. Everything was reset. DRG became a normal zerg.
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.
On October 01 2013 13:59 Brian333 wrote: Oov has some good points, but I think he's just as biased as anyone and it really shows through in what he says.
Yea, progamers should endure, they should try their hardest to deal with the meta-game. They should innovate, look for new strategies and tactics that counter existing ones and push forward the game. But, at the end of the day, they have their motivations as does Oov and David Kim and it's hard to say anyone is right. Just look at Bisu's recent interview where he talks about how hard it is to see the fans disappear, how difficult it becomes to just focus on your practice when you have to question what the purpose is. And, how do you bring those fans back? Make the game harder? Get rid of MBS, auto-mining, and bring back BW unit pathing? As LoL proved, the technical difficulty of the game is not related to the popularity of the game in such a direct way. Are constant patches and changes a bad thing? Does it not happen in other incredibly popular games?
If someone knew how to turn a video-game into a national sport, they would be getting paid an unbelievable amount of money to do so. Nobody knows and I'd say that's because there is no tangible answer.
BW was closest to that answer til Blizzard pulled the plug. The idea at the time of pre-SC2 release was that SC2 was supposed to assume the mantle of BW because the latter had things that were lacking e.g. arcahic B.net UI, graphics etc It was a perfect opportunity to add and build upon what I saw as a strong foundation (a perfect opportunity to update the game). It was the game to carry the 10 years of starcraft and all its glory.
Yet they went ahead and destroyed the foundation where the game was basically living off the BW popularity. Same thing happened with D3. No chat channels? no PvP? Everything that made starcraft through the original game and its expansion so awesome was a shell of its former self from game play, single player, story development and even ghost.net 2.0.
Except BW was clearly on a decline before Blizzard pulled the plug and I don't think anyone thought it was going to last. Problems such as STX's withdrawal from SC2 didn't suddenly happen. It would've happened regardless of if they were playing SC2 or BW. The truth is LoL is anything but BW and yet it's more popular now than BW is. If you're trying to tell me that an updated UI and graphics are what was needed to make BW more popular than LoL, then it goes back to my earlier point. There is nothing to suggest a face-lifted BW is going to work.
On October 01 2013 06:45 rd wrote: I can't take this Oov interview too seriously. He's very vague when he refers very to David Kim over-balancing the game. He doesn't mention any specific patches, he just makes the blanket statement of an observation that David Kim balances too much, which the interviewer unfortunately did not press at all.
Blizzard said they'd stop shaking up the metagame . If you compare the balanace patches in the first six weeks of WoL vs the first six weeks of HotS, it's night and day. They actually let broodlord infestor dominate the metagame for so damn long rather than nerf it into the ground to allow SOME player to take a crack at solving it.
It's really sad how eager everyone is to hop on the david kim/blizzard shitstorm train with any slight provocation or reason.
Are you SERIOUS?
They buffed queens, the buffed infestors. And then you use argument "and they stopped, be happy".
And then you put the blame on people, to figure out how to beat buffed queens and buffed infestors which in fact were the reason why the mass infestor style and multiple queen style which with conjuction enabled the BL-Inf style to emerge. Because of how good queen buff happened to be.
So after Blizz put all this mess (QUEEN BUFF) you say it was their good heart that made people figure out how to deal with that mess themselves.
Good thinking.
You're literally disagree'ing with Oov right now. They said they'd stop patching so much, and they did what they said. I mean, you're reading into an interview calling for Blizzard to stop patching so much, yet they wouldn't nerf (or unbuff) a unit (queen) which clearly shouldn't have buffed in the first place in hindsight. Is that not the epitome of following the directive that Oov wants? Don't touch the metagame, even if it's broken! They never touched it! You can't have it both ways, and Blizzard took the correct stance. How can you criticize them for that? You're a monumental hypocrite.
And where in the fuck did I say blame the players? Blizzard, Oov, AND myself are not blaming players. They want the players to solve the problems, not balance patches. That's not blaming the players. That's giving them the opportunity to innovate and revolutionize. And Blizzard's resolve to stop patching, even despite having just released an imbalanced patch, were stringent. Because who the fuck would have known 6 months from then that no player would have solved it. You? Hindsight is 20/20 they say. Blizzard gave them the opportunity, thats what counts.
Holy fucking bias.
edit: I'm not sure if I should be more upset at Oov for those comments which I hope were unintentionally vague, or the community for eating them up like brainless zombies with no thought into their validity.
Sorry, i didn't preface my post saying im not making binary statements.
Me saying that "Oov is right", and me saying that youi shouldn't compare bl inf bullshit to the formula of "player devising counter's, not david kim" can be right. If i preface my points saying that the reasons why bl inf domination happened were all nonsesical. You cannot accept players to fight problems that happen from nonsensical reasons. This is not what Oov postulated. Because look what happens, players leave the game, because they know that expansion is coming, so they know that "FIX" is coming regardless of anything.
Players should solve problems, not balance patches. But what terrans solved when queen balance patch happened(for balance patch to happen there needs to be something imbalanced first), which created a problem. So maybe blizzard is here to create a problem for players, that would work but doing so they are in fact also destroying the scheme.
Blizzard is here to give tools and players to devise strategies nad counter strategies, i think we all lost that long ago, because every strategy runs its course gets into dangerous peak and gets nerfed and/or end with the end of game (WoL).
You can't just sit there and blast Blizzard for not reverting the queen patch without having the foresight to know it couldn't be solved in 6 months after vowing to let the metagame play out more. It'd be counter-intuitive to the entire concept of allowing players the opportunity to solve the game. To disagree makes you a hypocrite. I highly doubt you had that foresight then, or do now. And the general lack of foresight in how the metagame can change is EXACTLY WHY Blizzard shouldn't be patching things so quickly, not even Broodlord Infestor. No one will give Blizzard credit, everyone are such hypocrites.
both of you are essentially saying the same thing but missing a point: The game already received patches and changes since its development.
for all we know, if the game is released in alpha build and probably the game would have worked fine without any patching too.
the biggest flaw of this interview is that it assumes no matter what the game is, as long as it gives the players the tools and no bug, you don't need patching.
Patching is based upon the idea that if the players do have the right tools to effectively solve the "problem". And problem doesn't just come from win rates. The viewers and players enjoyment are a concern as well. WoL pvz was a complete mess with toss all in vs zerg late game. No matter what metagame evolution there is, the matchup is still ruined because toss does not have effective counter to late game zerg composition. Even with 50/50 win rate, the matchup will still push people away from watching.
Thus the game should be given a direction on how to increase the enjoyment from playing and watching the game.
We agree that the game shouldn't be patched no matter what, EXCEPT when it comes to the queen patch. The irony is that even when they stuck to their guns and didn't patch it, he still won't acknowledge that Blizzard actually did stick to their word and stopped patching everything like they did throughout WoL before queen patch. That's the entire damn point. If you aren't going to knee-jerk patch without perfect foresight (which few to no people have, generally safe to assume no one), you can't make an exception to the rule. Not even one in which they fix something they literally broke themselves. Because it took 6 months to truly realize they did break it.
Whether or not the game is enjoyable is a different argument though. This is purely about the frequency with which blizzard patches, and how consistently they stuck to their announcement. My initial argument is that Oov is disingenuously vague about how he refers to blizzard's balance patch history. Because either he's just blatantly wrong in what he says, or he's actually referring to absolutely no patches at all which we can both agree is pretty insane.
I think some points were lost in translation but in all seriousness we and probably ooV himself knows that we isn't 100% balancing patching or patching all together. Of course bug patches are required and of course balance patches are required when things are outright too powerful e.g. WoL ultra splash where everything behind the wall died, 5 rax reaper vs zerg etc.
However what I get from his interview since I can read korean is that hes referring to the bigger patches that affected the meta. Queen range patch. Before the patch, DRG was so memorable because he was one of the few zergs who truly differentiated himself to the rest. He made it possible without the need to buff queens. The immortal range patch. Before this patch there were Ps out there that used range 5 immortals exceptionally well (putting it in the front etc, microing things generally beautifully) and those that survived the dreaded 1/1/1. All these things could have been fixed with tweaks to maps and more exploration yet they went ahead with this patch. Everything was reset. DRG became a normal zerg.
honestly I think most people just forget how TvZ was like back then. It was filled with SO MANY all ins, DRG probably was the most famous for roach ling baneling all ins. bfhellions drops mass hellions runby 2 port banshee cloak banshee bfhellion mauarder scv all in
most people only remember it as awesome because of MMA vs DRG. MMA nicely didn't go for Ghost and DRG won a lot of the games by roach ling baneling all in but hell, it was MMA vs DRG, all ins become cool
Then there are games where zerg just randomly die to initial 4 hellions because there is a gap between the wall off. the worst part is that the hellions weren't even meant to kill the zerg, it was just an opportunity to do damage and is part of a standard opening, not matter you are going for triple fast 3rdCC or going for 2 base aggression.
It was similar to ZvP where almost 70% of the games were all ins.
A lot of the zerg wanted 5 range queen, not 6 though.
I think it's time to remove david kim and his goons, just like diablo 3 these guys need to be removed so the game can be made better by people who listen to the gamers. Only when the tyrant goons was removed from diablo 3 dev team the game went downhill but now without those idiots we got devs who listen to the gamers and is making diablo 3 a great game.
On October 01 2013 12:17 ETisME wrote: completely disagree with his opinion. We saw how infestor broodlord killed almost the whole viewership number and zerg just dominating the scene. Even if WoL had the tools to "fix" this, the "fix" might not come for years (we saw how even after nerfing infestors, zerg dominance just continued, imaged infestors weren't even nerfed)
the so called strategy he is recommending comes in a form of opening/timing push, just like how toss uses immortal sentries all in to kill the zerg before it's too late or bomber 2-2 timing. This is also when it leads to 99% of the game is immortal sentries all in or zerg gets to broodlord infestors.
Honestly, every nerf/buff just makes the game to develope quicker or make the metagame more stable, it doesn't kill pro to innovate a build. Did slayers hellion opening died down? nope, it still became standard and just didn't end the game with a mass runby as often Did Mvp mech die down? well if mech was played more often...we would know. Did muta style got phrased out? nope, because buff was on both phoenix and muta.
Slayers Hellion opening only works in certain situations. And that's when the zerg doesn't even make half a walloff, doesn't work toward roaches or mutas. I think maybe the build can actually work against 3 hatch quite well. But it's really specific in what it does. It's focused on dealing damage to extremely greedy zergs. The MvP mech is far less useful because of the Muta buff. Mutas are actually way too good against pure mech. And you're contradicting yourself saying that ''Metagame is more stable'' which is ridiculous. How can constant changes in the metagame make it more ''stable''? For example the TvZ scene will COMPLETELY change once the ''Potential future balance patch'' hits. I and I mean it will completely change. Terrans will turn toward a more WoL style (Which is stupidly sad, and a silly choice for David Kim.). Now tell me, where is the ''stability'' that you spoke of? And there actually have been tons of innovations in the SC2 scene, the problem is that these innovations never last for too long because of the future nerfs that ''Oov'' mentioned. You might have tons of great builds but they usually don't last longer than 1-2 seasons.
There needs to be a balance of ''letting things play out'' and ''necessary nerfs/buffs''. Currently there's way too many ''Oh this playstyle doesn't match our vision so we're nerfing it to the ground'' patches (For example the widowmine thing again.). That thing KILLS innovation. Because how can you innovate a scene which is constantly changing and ''innovating'' itself? You can't. Which is the problem.
On October 01 2013 14:46 Sawamura wrote: iloveoov always has the best interview I agree with what he is trying to say mostly they should let sc2 grow naturally rather than patch it up.
the game will stagnate like it happened in WoL. iloveoov is wrong.
On October 01 2013 12:17 ETisME wrote: completely disagree with his opinion. We saw how infestor broodlord killed almost the whole viewership number and zerg just dominating the scene. Even if WoL had the tools to "fix" this, the "fix" might not come for years (we saw how even after nerfing infestors, zerg dominance just continued, imaged infestors weren't even nerfed)
the so called strategy he is recommending comes in a form of opening/timing push, just like how toss uses immortal sentries all in to kill the zerg before it's too late or bomber 2-2 timing. This is also when it leads to 99% of the game is immortal sentries all in or zerg gets to broodlord infestors.
Honestly, every nerf/buff just makes the game to develope quicker or make the metagame more stable, it doesn't kill pro to innovate a build. Did slayers hellion opening died down? nope, it still became standard and just didn't end the game with a mass runby as often Did Mvp mech die down? well if mech was played more often...we would know. Did muta style got phrased out? nope, because buff was on both phoenix and muta.
Slayers Hellion opening only works in certain situations. And that's when the zerg doesn't even make half a walloff, doesn't work toward roaches or mutas. I think maybe the build can actually work against 3 hatch quite well. But it's really specific in what it does. It's focused on dealing damage to extremely greedy zergs. The MvP mech is far less useful because of the Muta buff. Mutas are actually way too good against pure mech. And you're contradicting yourself saying that ''Metagame is more stable'' which is ridiculous. How can constant changes in the metagame make it more ''stable''? For example the TvZ scene will COMPLETELY change once the ''Potential future balance patch'' hits. I and I mean it will completely change. Terrans will turn toward a more WoL style (Which is stupidly sad, and a silly choice for David Kim.). Now tell me, where is the ''stability'' that you spoke of? And there actually have been tons of innovations in the SC2 scene, the problem is that these innovations never last for too long because of the future nerfs that ''Oov'' mentioned. You might have tons of great builds but they usually don't last longer than 1-2 seasons.
There needs to be a balance of ''letting things play out'' and ''necessary nerfs/buffs''. Currently there's way too many ''Oh this playstyle doesn't match our vision so we're nerfing it to the ground'' patches (For example the widowmine thing again.). That thing KILLS innovation. Because how can you innovate a scene which is constantly changing and ''innovating'' itself? You can't. Which is the problem.
The intented change for TvZ is because the matchup is getting way too stale and people are asking for change, that is why TvZ is getting a patch as big as this is. The widow mine has replaced tank's role in TvZ and a tonnes of people is finding it way too predictable and boring. Did they not give bio mine all the time for it to be stabilized only to find people are actually bored of it already? When was the last time you see anything innovative against bio mine? Dimaga overseer bust, which is helped by the overseer patch.
Look back at the beta, blizzard always set the direction for one unit and then patch around it. This is what they are doing. This patch is here to make metagame more interesting. Just like the roach burrow upgrade which we have NOT seen any usage at all throughout entire SC2 history. There is a reasonable level of acceptance of imbalanceness in order for it to be patched which we will have like what we had for bio mine in TvZ.
Mech for one, is going to get a looked at. Without any patch, mech won't even be used anymore than what we have now. T would have one style completely not viable except in TvT in the whole of Hots. The game still needs patches for it to operate, which is why people are calling sc2 not yet a finished product until lotv.
On October 01 2013 15:03 ETisME wrote: The intented change for TvZ is because the matchup is getting way too stale and people are asking for change, that is why TvZ is getting a patch as big as this is. The widow mine has replaced tank's role in TvZ and a tonnes of people is finding it way too predictable and boring. Did they not give bio mine all the time for it to be stabilized only to find people are actually bored of it already? When was the last time you see anything innovative against bio mine? Dimaga overseer bust, which is helped by the overseer patch.
Look back at the beta, blizzard always set the direction for one unit and then patch around it. This is what they are doing. This patch is here to make metagame more interesting. Just like the roach burrow upgrade which we have NOT seen any usage at all throughout entire SC2 history. There is a reasonable level of acceptance of imbalanceness in order for it to be patched which we will have like what we had for bio mine in TvZ.
Mech for one, is going to get a looked at. Without any patch, mech won't even be used anymore than what we have now. T would have one style completely not viable except in TvT in the whole of Hots. The game still needs patches for it to operate, which is why people are calling sc2 not yet a finished product until lotv.
How can you innovate a scene if you can't even have the time to innovate it? That's the thing. How can you innovate a scene when the scene has barely begun? xD The way I see it, Widowmine will turn completely useless in TvZ, and even in TvP it will only have use in holding off allins. Using mines to harass isn't an option because the AoE range is like half of the current range. Is that kind of a change where the mine turns completely useless good? How can you innovate a scene with that certain mine? You can't. Innovating means that you completely change the scene by something that is thought to be impossible. And once someone thinks up a way to use widowmines in their composition,
The reason why people are crying for a balance patch is because the average zerg isn't used to microing or anything of sorts, and they think that widowmines are ''unfair'' (Which is nonsense.).
I say that Blizzard needs to give the sc2 scene far more time to think up different strategies. Bio-mine has a good number of counters on the zerg side, so currently I'm starting to notice more diverse builds from the terran players. So why not give them time to practice those new builds?
On October 01 2013 15:03 ETisME wrote: The intented change for TvZ is because the matchup is getting way too stale and people are asking for change, that is why TvZ is getting a patch as big as this is. The widow mine has replaced tank's role in TvZ and a tonnes of people is finding it way too predictable and boring. Did they not give bio mine all the time for it to be stabilized only to find people are actually bored of it already? When was the last time you see anything innovative against bio mine? Dimaga overseer bust, which is helped by the overseer patch.
Look back at the beta, blizzard always set the direction for one unit and then patch around it. This is what they are doing. This patch is here to make metagame more interesting. Just like the roach burrow upgrade which we have NOT seen any usage at all throughout entire SC2 history. There is a reasonable level of acceptance of imbalanceness in order for it to be patched which we will have like what we had for bio mine in TvZ.
Mech for one, is going to get a looked at. Without any patch, mech won't even be used anymore than what we have now. T would have one style completely not viable except in TvT in the whole of Hots. The game still needs patches for it to operate, which is why people are calling sc2 not yet a finished product until lotv.
How can you innovate a scene if you can't even have the time to innovate it? That's the thing. How can you innovate a scene when the scene has barely begun? xD The way I see it, Widowmine will turn completely useless in TvZ, and even in TvP it will only have use in holding off allins. Using mines to harass isn't an option because the AoE range is like half of the current range. Is that kind of a change where the mine turns completely useless good? How can you innovate a scene with that certain mine? You can't. Innovating means that you completely change the scene by something that is thought to be impossible. And once someone thinks up a way to use widowmines in their composition,
The reason why people are crying for a balance patch is because the average zerg isn't used to microing or anything of sorts, and they think that widowmines are ''unfair'' (Which is nonsense.).
I say that Blizzard needs to give the sc2 scene far more time to think up different strategies. Bio-mine has a good number of counters on the zerg side, so currently I'm starting to notice more diverse builds from the terran players. So why not give them time to practice those new builds?
While I agree that Blizzard patched too much in WoL, I have to disagree with biomine. I think widow mines need a small nerf, definitely not how much Blizzard plans to nerf them but a small nerf so that you consider whether getting a mine or a tank is the way to go. The other alternative is for them to make it so that mines are the same but you need a tech lab then you can choose between either a mine or tank when making decisions. You might need to speed up their construction time if you went with tech lab route since current TvZ metagame revolves around making 2 at a time from a factory with a reactor
It seems like even the korean coaches are under the impression that SC2 has the capacity to grow organically, which is absolutely bizzare to me.
The game has too many missing sc1 pieces, and too many heavy elements which utterly dominate strategy. Do people really not think it was a coincidence that virtually every successful TvZ strategy involved hellion pressure? Why do you think PvZ pressure has always been weak or coinflippy? Why do you think TvP has always been double medivac vs sentrycamp into colossi counting and caster duels?
David gets a hell of a lot more attention than he needs. I think this is a Browder problem, and I hope the koreans find out why.
On October 01 2013 15:03 ETisME wrote: The intented change for TvZ is because the matchup is getting way too stale and people are asking for change, that is why TvZ is getting a patch as big as this is. The widow mine has replaced tank's role in TvZ and a tonnes of people is finding it way too predictable and boring. Did they not give bio mine all the time for it to be stabilized only to find people are actually bored of it already? When was the last time you see anything innovative against bio mine? Dimaga overseer bust, which is helped by the overseer patch.
Look back at the beta, blizzard always set the direction for one unit and then patch around it. This is what they are doing. This patch is here to make metagame more interesting. Just like the roach burrow upgrade which we have NOT seen any usage at all throughout entire SC2 history. There is a reasonable level of acceptance of imbalanceness in order for it to be patched which we will have like what we had for bio mine in TvZ.
Mech for one, is going to get a looked at. Without any patch, mech won't even be used anymore than what we have now. T would have one style completely not viable except in TvT in the whole of Hots. The game still needs patches for it to operate, which is why people are calling sc2 not yet a finished product until lotv.
How can you innovate a scene if you can't even have the time to innovate it? That's the thing. How can you innovate a scene when the scene has barely begun? xD The way I see it, Widowmine will turn completely useless in TvZ, and even in TvP it will only have use in holding off allins. Using mines to harass isn't an option because the AoE range is like half of the current range. Is that kind of a change where the mine turns completely useless good? How can you innovate a scene with that certain mine? You can't. Innovating means that you completely change the scene by something that is thought to be impossible. And once someone thinks up a way to use widowmines in their composition,
The reason why people are crying for a balance patch is because the average zerg isn't used to microing or anything of sorts, and they think that widowmines are ''unfair'' (Which is nonsense.).
I say that Blizzard needs to give the sc2 scene far more time to think up different strategies. Bio-mine has a good number of counters on the zerg side, so currently I'm starting to notice more diverse builds from the terran players. So why not give them time to practice those new builds?
you need to know if it has no time or no room to innovate the scene has barely begun and already stagnant and that is the problem. with bio mine being so strong in all maps against all zerg composition except heavy roach early play, why would you innovate? taking your logic, if widow mine is released at the nerfed stats, would you not find it ok for widow mine being obsolete too? Why should you complain about the patch consequences because pros can adapt, right? hell, if you don't give room for pro to try out the new mine, how would you know they won't innovate builds with it? see the logic?
And why you think people are crying for a balance patch is not representing everyone. A tonnes of people including me find bio mine in every TvZ on every map is silly. Some people who whine about widow mine (also including me) is because widow mine doesn't emphasis on T ability to punish mistake. banelings landmine requires attention to punish terran bio for not scanning, there is a chance for missing opportunity if zerg ain't looking, but not widow mine. The widow mine hit are targetted by AI automatically. I find it silly to have such a key unit that win/lose the game based upon the AI targetting fire. you seems to think zerg not used to microing when ling baneling in zvz requires a tonnes of micro. To argue with such a biased opinion just makes me feel sad.
On October 01 2013 15:37 BigFan wrote: While I agree that Blizzard patched too much in WoL, I have to disagree with biomine. I think widow mines need a small nerf, definitely not how much Blizzard plans to nerf them but a small nerf so that you consider whether getting a mine or a tank is the way to go. The other alternative is for them to make it so that mines are the same but you need a tech lab then you can choose between either a mine or tank when making decisions. You might need to speed up their construction time if you went with tech lab route since current TvZ metagame revolves around making 2 at a time from a factory with a reactor
Just look at ''Scarlett vs Alive'', don't remember which tourney it was, but there shouldn't be too many different videos on youtube about ''Scarlett vs Alive'' from HOTS. Scarlett showed how to beat Bio-mine. No, Bio-mine is only good in the mid-game. If you can keep the terran back enough with muta harass, and than transition into ultra-festor or something.. Than the mines turn useless and you can quite easily defeat the terran army. The thing is not staying on lingbling muta for too long. And again here's where innovation should come in. Mines are units with huge weakness that can be exploited (Even though pro's have been exploiting those weaknesses for a long time.), lets talk like they haven't been exploited, just for the sake of argument. This is where ''innovation'' should come in. Zerg players need to think up strategies on how to actually make use of the immobility, friendly fire, lock on, low damage of the widowmines. For example maybe the zerg should think up that ''Hmm Ultras are extremely strong against bio, and widowmines can barely scratch them'' and than they could also think that ''Infestors are necessary to keep the terran bio from kiting, so if I lock them down, than this will happen''. There's tons of pros who have thought of that, and that's why terran has also been doing timings, etc to keep the zerg for having a comfortable high tech army. The patches are still way too frequent, and they're re-working match ups way too quickly.
On October 01 2013 15:46 ETisME wrote: you need to know if it has no time or no room to innovate the scene has barely begun and already stagnant and that is the problem. with bio mine being so strong in all maps against all zerg composition except heavy roach early play, why would you innovate? taking your logic, if widow mine is released at the nerfed stats, would you not find it ok for widow mine being obsolete too? Why should you complain about the patch consequences because pros can adapt, right? hell, if you don't give room for pro to try out the new mine, how would you know they won't innovate builds with it? see the logic?
And why you think people are crying for a balance patch is not representing everyone. A tonnes of people including me find bio mine in every TvZ on every map is silly. Some people who whine about widow mine (also including me) is because widow mine doesn't emphasis on T ability to punish mistake. banelings landmine requires attention to punish terran bio for not scanning, there is a chance for missing opportunity if zerg ain't looking, but not widow mine. The widow mine hit are targetted by AI automatically. I find it silly to have such a key unit that win/lose the game based upon the AI targetting fire. you seems to think zerg not used to microing when ling baneling in zvz requires a tonnes of micro. To argue with such a biased opinion just makes me feel sad.
Already stagnant? Like hell it is. I've recently begun seeing different strategies from the usual bio-mine that actually work. And the stagnation IS because of the patches. You don't have time to make another solid build, so you need to use a build that you know works. Bio-mine is only strong in the mid-game. Get your facts straight. And bio-mine is extremely weak against roach-hydra (Which is an mid-game army.). The only comp that bio mine is strong against is lingblingmuta. That's all. Think up another build instead of relying on that single comp. That's where the stagnation coming from, the zergs are only using that 1 build.. It's an unnecessary change that starts the whole sc2 scene from the start again. And the mines are obsolete because you can't use them to harass or use them in a straightout engagement. The pro's can adapt, but they can't use units that aren't worth the investment. And the thing is that you're talking about AFTER the change, so your claim is entirely illogical unless you can prove that David Kim wont push out another balance patch 1-2 months after the patch that we're talking about. It's an cycle that needs to have a end, and hopefully soon.
Terrans also find ling-bling muta to be silly on every map, but you think that we're complaining as much as the zerg community? Not really. Umm widowmine doesn't emphasize on the T ability to punish mistakes? You think running your army over widowmines isn't a mistake? Losing 50 banelings cause you ran over widowmines without detection isn't punishing? Sure the AI thing is silly, but most of the players are letting their AI's do the targeting. ''A+move'' is a saying, and that's actually just letting the AI choose the priority targets.
And it's golden how you use ZvZ as an example to say that ''see we use micro as well''.. It totally isn't because ZvZ is a mirror matchup where you need to get advantages in every area possible to win. It totally isn't because cost effectiveness is an important part of ZvZ.. Funny how terran needs to micro alot in every single matchup, not just mirror.
He doesn't sound very motivated. I love whenever huge balance patches come to completely shake up the games, but I agree that the more frequent smaller ones can be a bit devastating. Anyways I've learned to be appreciative of balance patches, from WC3 not getting any in a long time, even though it was desperately in need of one.
On October 01 2013 15:03 ETisME wrote: The intented change for TvZ is because the matchup is getting way too stale and people are asking for change, that is why TvZ is getting a patch as big as this is. The widow mine has replaced tank's role in TvZ and a tonnes of people is finding it way too predictable and boring. Did they not give bio mine all the time for it to be stabilized only to find people are actually bored of it already? When was the last time you see anything innovative against bio mine? Dimaga overseer bust, which is helped by the overseer patch.
Look back at the beta, blizzard always set the direction for one unit and then patch around it. This is what they are doing. This patch is here to make metagame more interesting. Just like the roach burrow upgrade which we have NOT seen any usage at all throughout entire SC2 history. There is a reasonable level of acceptance of imbalanceness in order for it to be patched which we will have like what we had for bio mine in TvZ.
Mech for one, is going to get a looked at. Without any patch, mech won't even be used anymore than what we have now. T would have one style completely not viable except in TvT in the whole of Hots. The game still needs patches for it to operate, which is why people are calling sc2 not yet a finished product until lotv.
How can you innovate a scene if you can't even have the time to innovate it? That's the thing. How can you innovate a scene when the scene has barely begun? xD The way I see it, Widowmine will turn completely useless in TvZ, and even in TvP it will only have use in holding off allins. Using mines to harass isn't an option because the AoE range is like half of the current range. Is that kind of a change where the mine turns completely useless good? How can you innovate a scene with that certain mine? You can't. Innovating means that you completely change the scene by something that is thought to be impossible. And once someone thinks up a way to use widowmines in their composition,
The reason why people are crying for a balance patch is because the average zerg isn't used to microing or anything of sorts, and they think that widowmines are ''unfair'' (Which is nonsense.).
I say that Blizzard needs to give the sc2 scene far more time to think up different strategies. Bio-mine has a good number of counters on the zerg side, so currently I'm starting to notice more diverse builds from the terran players. So why not give them time to practice those new builds?
While I agree that Blizzard patched too much in WoL, I have to disagree with biomine. I think widow mines need a small nerf, definitely not how much Blizzard plans to nerf them but a small nerf so that you consider whether getting a mine or a tank is the way to go. The other alternative is for them to make it so that mines are the same but you need a tech lab then you can choose between either a mine or tank when making decisions. You might need to speed up their construction time if you went with tech lab route since current TvZ metagame revolves around making 2 at a time from a factory with a reactor
Mines might need a small nerf, though recent stats are showing Zerg doing much better in TvZ, but Tanks need to become much more useful in TvZ if we're ever going to see them. Any premax push with tanks as your sole AoE can be a moved by mass Zerglings and crushed. Even a maxed push can easily die to a moment of inattention / a goog flank. And because Tanks rely so heavily on this 'one big push' syndrome and cost so much gas you have to delay medivacs or upgrades (either not allowing you to put on pressure or delaying your push respectively), Mutas can keep the Terran in their base for long periods of time, slow the push down to a crawl and do severe economic damage (essentially making that push all-in) when the Terran finally moves out before joining with a maxed out ling / bling army to defend that final push. If Widow Mines are nerfed to oblivion as Blizzard wants to do, and the buff to Siege Tanks is only this 3.0 -> 2.7 on attack speed, Terran will have better chances going Hellbats with their main army before Tanks (since Hellbats will actually force Banelings) and the MU will turn heavily in Zerg's favor either way.
Basically, Tanks are never the way to go in TvZ outside of holding off certain all-ins, and in WoL Terran only made them because they were the only thing that stood a chance at killing Infestors. Tanks simply don't do enough AoE to justify their cost and are far too easy to counter.
Edit: And this comes from sombody who loves marine / tank and tried it for a long time vZ and still tries it occassionally hoping it will work. It really just doesn't unfortunately. I really wish Widow Mines would be used as defensive units and Tanks as offensive units, but the way they're currently designed just doesn't allow it.
On October 01 2013 15:37 BigFan wrote: While I agree that Blizzard patched too much in WoL, I have to disagree with biomine. I think widow mines need a small nerf, definitely not how much Blizzard plans to nerf them but a small nerf so that you consider whether getting a mine or a tank is the way to go. The other alternative is for them to make it so that mines are the same but you need a tech lab then you can choose between either a mine or tank when making decisions. You might need to speed up their construction time if you went with tech lab route since current TvZ metagame revolves around making 2 at a time from a factory with a reactor
Just look at ''Scarlett vs Alive'', don't remember which tourney it was, but there shouldn't be too many different videos on youtube about ''Scarlett vs Alive'' from HOTS. Scarlett showed how to beat Bio-mine. No, Bio-mine is only good in the mid-game. If you can keep the terran back enough with muta harass, and than transition into ultra-festor or something.. Than the mines turn useless and you can quite easily defeat the terran army. The thing is not staying on lingbling muta for too long. And again here's where innovation should come in. Mines are units with huge weakness that can be exploited (Even though pro's have been exploiting those weaknesses for a long time.), lets talk like they haven't been exploited, just for the sake of argument. This is where ''innovation'' should come in. Zerg players need to think up strategies on how to actually make use of the immobility, friendly fire, lock on, low damage of the widowmines. For example maybe the zerg should think up that ''Hmm Ultras are extremely strong against bio, and widowmines can barely scratch them'' and than they could also think that ''Infestors are necessary to keep the terran bio from kiting, so if I lock them down, than this will happen''. There's tons of pros who have thought of that, and that's why terran has also been doing timings, etc to keep the zerg for having a comfortable high tech army. The patches are still way too frequent, and they're re-working match ups way too quickly.
I'm a terran player myself although haven't played as much recently and even I think widow mine is way too strong. I've seen Jaedong dismantled 4-0 by Polt last WCS AM season with that same widow mine strategy over and over again. If it was anyone else then I may have said they weren't trying but Jaedong definitely was and you can tell. I saw that Scarlett vs aLive game. I think it was in WCS AM or something. aLive's multitasking is really poor so I wouldn't take that as proof that widow mine can be beaten.
How about Innovation vs SK? Two great players atm. Aside from that one time where Innovation was broken mentally(WCS KR season 1), Innovation has won against SK every single series since then using the same biomine strategy for most games. You're going to tell me that SK isn't trying to innovate? That he's just playing ling+bling+muta for way too long then losing because he isn't transitioning? If you're under constant pressure, it's hard to transition to hive to get 3/3 upgrades, to get ultra den and to get out even one ultra. All that money could've been more units to defend against the terran push. Once you lose the 3rd(or 4th) and the terran establishes his 3rd, it's pretty much GG because their marine production will start to skyrocket and you can't keep up with it.
Bolded part: immobility? low damage? I've seen widow mines kill 15 slings at one point or 10+ banelings. A single widow mine killed that many >.> That last part, I can't seriously believe you believe that. Zerg players have been trying for the last couple of months but it's obvious at this point that biomine is a hard strategy to play against if your opponent has the multitasking to keep up the macro while pushing. Yes, it can be beaten at times but usually the terran player has to make a mistake for that to happen.
On October 01 2013 15:46 PineapplePizza wrote: It seems like even the korean coaches are under the impression that SC2 has the capacity to grow organically, which is absolutely bizzare to me.
The game has too many missing sc1 pieces, and too many heavy elements which utterly dominate strategy. Do people really not think it was a coincidence that virtually every successful TvZ strategy involved hellion pressure? Why do you think PvZ pressure has always been weak or coinflippy? Why do you think TvP has always been double medivac vs sentrycamp into colossi counting and caster duels?
David gets a hell of a lot more attention than he needs. I think this is a Browder problem, and I hope the koreans find out why.
Guys you completely miss that OOV said earlier in interview.
"Before my military service, I played SC2 a lot. After a while of playing it, I felt nostalgic and loaded up SC1 and had more fun. This is me telling the truth."
He acknowledged that SC2 in its design is inferior to BW. No matter how much you patch it or no patch at all SC2 will never be as brilliant as BW was.
On October 01 2013 15:46 PineapplePizza wrote: It seems like even the korean coaches are under the impression that SC2 has the capacity to grow organically, which is absolutely bizzare to me.
The game has too many missing sc1 pieces, and too many heavy elements which utterly dominate strategy. Do people really not think it was a coincidence that virtually every successful TvZ strategy involved hellion pressure? Why do you think PvZ pressure has always been weak or coinflippy? Why do you think TvP has always been double medivac vs sentrycamp into colossi counting and caster duels?
David gets a hell of a lot more attention than he needs. I think this is a Browder problem, and I hope the koreans find out why.
Guys you completely miss that OOV said earlier in interview.
"Before my military service, I played SC2 a lot. After a while of playing it, I felt nostalgic and loaded up SC1 and had more fun. This is me telling the truth."
He acknowledged that SC2 in its design is inferior to BW. No matter how much you patch it or no patch at all SC2 will never be as brilliant as BW was.
then you missed the second part: But after playing HOTS I have not loaded SC1 again. All in all, HOTS is better than WOL Let's not make this a SCII vs BW thread please.
it's so great to have oov back! I wish the whole interview was translated. Straight out of the military not afraid to speak his mind.
"The vibe of venues has changed a lot. I saw a girl wandering around in the venue so I thought she was a reporter but turned out to only be a fan. I once saw somebody who I thought was a fan walking around while scraping his slippers along the floor, not picking up his feet. He turned out to be a coach. Things seemed very amateurish(?) but during my two hear hiatus I just figured that these things will be fixed as time goes on."
How that must have felt for him. Understand that he went through all the phases, from the very early days of people huddled in a room following a dream to having a bus with their faces on it. Oov show em how its done!
On October 01 2013 15:46 PineapplePizza wrote: It seems like even the korean coaches are under the impression that SC2 has the capacity to grow organically, which is absolutely bizzare to me.
The game has too many missing sc1 pieces, and too many heavy elements which utterly dominate strategy. Do people really not think it was a coincidence that virtually every successful TvZ strategy involved hellion pressure? Why do you think PvZ pressure has always been weak or coinflippy? Why do you think TvP has always been double medivac vs sentrycamp into colossi counting and caster duels?
David gets a hell of a lot more attention than he needs. I think this is a Browder problem, and I hope the koreans find out why.
Guys you completely miss that OOV said earlier in interview.
"Before my military service, I played SC2 a lot. After a while of playing it, I felt nostalgic and loaded up SC1 and had more fun. This is me telling the truth."
He acknowledged that SC2 in its design is inferior to BW. No matter how much you patch it or no patch at all SC2 will never be as brilliant as BW was.
then you missed the second part: But after playing HOTS I have not loaded SC1 again. All in all, HOTS is better than WOL Let's not make this a SCII vs BW thread please.
I didn’t miss it. HOTS is better than WOL but not by much. And since he is coaching HOTS he just couldn’t shit openly on HOTS instead he preferred to complain about patches.
On October 01 2013 15:46 PineapplePizza wrote: It seems like even the korean coaches are under the impression that SC2 has the capacity to grow organically, which is absolutely bizzare to me.
The game has too many missing sc1 pieces, and too many heavy elements which utterly dominate strategy. Do people really not think it was a coincidence that virtually every successful TvZ strategy involved hellion pressure? Why do you think PvZ pressure has always been weak or coinflippy? Why do you think TvP has always been double medivac vs sentrycamp into colossi counting and caster duels?
David gets a hell of a lot more attention than he needs. I think this is a Browder problem, and I hope the koreans find out why.
Guys you completely miss that OOV said earlier in interview.
"Before my military service, I played SC2 a lot. After a while of playing it, I felt nostalgic and loaded up SC1 and had more fun. This is me telling the truth."
He acknowledged that SC2 in its design is inferior to BW. No matter how much you patch it or no patch at all SC2 will never be as brilliant as BW was.
then you missed the second part: But after playing HOTS I have not loaded SC1 again. All in all, HOTS is better than WOL Let's not make this a SCII vs BW thread please.
I didn’t miss it. HOTS is better than WOL but not by much. And since he is coaching HOTS he just couldn’t shit openly on HOTS instead he preferred to complain about patches.
Not sure why its surprising that he enjoyed BW more than WoL. BW was what got him into gaming. He dominated opponents there through macro. He was considered a macro beast and having played BW so much, it's only natural he'll go back to it. HoTS in some ways is much better than WoL but in others, it's not. WoL had a lot of specific strategies which while hard to deal with might've prevented the game from stagnating at the end if Blizzard didn't nerf every single terran unit. Yes, he couldn't shit openly on it but he never talked about SCII design. He mostly said that HoTS > WoL and Blizzard should stop patching so much and leave the game be.
On October 01 2013 15:03 ETisME wrote: The intented change for TvZ is because the matchup is getting way too stale and people are asking for change, that is why TvZ is getting a patch as big as this is. The widow mine has replaced tank's role in TvZ and a tonnes of people is finding it way too predictable and boring. Did they not give bio mine all the time for it to be stabilized only to find people are actually bored of it already? When was the last time you see anything innovative against bio mine? Dimaga overseer bust, which is helped by the overseer patch.
Look back at the beta, blizzard always set the direction for one unit and then patch around it. This is what they are doing. This patch is here to make metagame more interesting. Just like the roach burrow upgrade which we have NOT seen any usage at all throughout entire SC2 history. There is a reasonable level of acceptance of imbalanceness in order for it to be patched which we will have like what we had for bio mine in TvZ.
Mech for one, is going to get a looked at. Without any patch, mech won't even be used anymore than what we have now. T would have one style completely not viable except in TvT in the whole of Hots. The game still needs patches for it to operate, which is why people are calling sc2 not yet a finished product until lotv.
How can you innovate a scene if you can't even have the time to innovate it? That's the thing. How can you innovate a scene when the scene has barely begun? xD The way I see it, Widowmine will turn completely useless in TvZ, and even in TvP it will only have use in holding off allins. Using mines to harass isn't an option because the AoE range is like half of the current range. Is that kind of a change where the mine turns completely useless good? How can you innovate a scene with that certain mine? You can't. Innovating means that you completely change the scene by something that is thought to be impossible. And once someone thinks up a way to use widowmines in their composition,
The reason why people are crying for a balance patch is because the average zerg isn't used to microing or anything of sorts, and they think that widowmines are ''unfair'' (Which is nonsense.).
I say that Blizzard needs to give the sc2 scene far more time to think up different strategies. Bio-mine has a good number of counters on the zerg side, so currently I'm starting to notice more diverse builds from the terran players. So why not give them time to practice those new builds?
While I agree that Blizzard patched too much in WoL, I have to disagree with biomine. I think widow mines need a small nerf, definitely not how much Blizzard plans to nerf them but a small nerf so that you consider whether getting a mine or a tank is the way to go. The other alternative is for them to make it so that mines are the same but you need a tech lab then you can choose between either a mine or tank when making decisions. You might need to speed up their construction time if you went with tech lab route since current TvZ metagame revolves around making 2 at a time from a factory with a reactor
Mines might need a small nerf, though recent stats are showing Zerg doing much better in TvZ, but Tanks need to become much more useful in TvZ if we're ever going to see them. Any premax push with tanks as your sole AoE can be a moved by mass Zerglings and crushed. Even a maxed push can easily die to a moment of inattention / a goog flank. And because Tanks rely so heavily on this 'one big push' syndrome and cost so much gas you have to delay medivacs or upgrades (either not allowing you to put on pressure or delaying your push respectively), Mutas can keep the Terran in their base for long periods of time, slow the push down to a crawl and do severe economic damage (essentially making that push all-in) when the Terran finally moves out before joining with a maxed out ling / bling army to defend that final push. If Widow Mines are nerfed to oblivion as Blizzard wants to do, and the buff to Siege Tanks is only this 3.0 -> 2.7 on attack speed, Terran will have better chances going Hellbats with their main army before Tanks (since Hellbats will actually force Banelings) and the MU will turn heavily in Zerg's favor either way.
Basically, Tanks are never the way to go in TvZ outside of holding off certain all-ins, and in WoL Terran only made them because they were the only thing that stood a chance at killing Infestors. Tanks simply don't do enough AoE to justify their cost and are far too easy to counter.
Edit: And this comes from sombody who loves marine / tank and tried it for a long time vZ and still tries it occassionally hoping it will work. It really just doesn't unfortunately. I really wish Widow Mines would be used as defensive units and Tanks as offensive units, but the way they're currently designed just doesn't allow it.
I don't know if I necessarily agree. Yes, widow mines are more offensive these days and tanks have taken a defense roles, usually used when a zerg player is all-ining you but I'm not sure if I agree with you. MMT is still such a powerful unit composition and as long as you macro behind it, you can still trade well enough imo. I think Blizzard should buff tanks a bit more(dunno if attack speed is enough) and nerf widow mines a bit(they are nerfing too much imo) then you can have a biomine tank push. Marines in front, tanks behind to shell and widow mines covering the flanks. You would need good positioning but you can still micro and would makes both units fill a certain role. You can focus on biomine if you want or MMT depending on your style so you'll have three different styles. This wouldn't include mech if blizzard can fix some AA for you mech army.
On October 01 2013 15:52 KoinZell wrote: Already stagnant? Like hell it is. I've recently begun seeing different strategies from the usual bio-mine that actually work. And the stagnation IS because of the patches. You don't have time to make another solid build, so you need to use a build that you know works. Bio-mine is only strong in the mid-game. Get your facts straight. And bio-mine is extremely weak against roach-hydra (Which is an mid-game army.). The only comp that bio mine is strong against is lingblingmuta. That's all. Think up another build instead of relying on that single comp. That's where the stagnation coming from, the zergs are only using that 1 build.. It's an unnecessary change that starts the whole sc2 scene from the start again. And the mines are obsolete because you can't use them to harass or use them in a straightout engagement. The pro's can adapt, but they can't use units that aren't worth the investment. And the thing is that you're talking about AFTER the change, so your claim is entirely illogical unless you can prove that David Kim wont push out another balance patch 1-2 months after the patch that we're talking about. It's an cycle that needs to have a end, and hopefully soon.
Terrans also find ling-bling muta to be silly on every map, but you think that we're complaining as much as the zerg community? Not really. Umm widowmine doesn't emphasize on the T ability to punish mistakes? You think running your army over widowmines isn't a mistake? Losing 50 banelings cause you ran over widowmines without detection isn't punishing? Sure the AI thing is silly, but most of the players are letting their AI's do the targeting. ''A+move'' is a saying, and that's actually just letting the AI choose the priority targets.
And it's golden how you use ZvZ as an example to say that ''see we use micro as well''.. It totally isn't because ZvZ is a mirror matchup where you need to get advantages in every area possible to win. It totally isn't because cost effectiveness is an important part of ZvZ.. Funny how terran needs to micro alot in every single matchup, not just mirror.
To me, you're the one who seems to be biased.
Different strategies from usual bio mine? like what? Getting a 3rd CC or before after doing a 1-1 timing? adding some marauders into the mix? Are you saying bio mine is weaker than mech in early and late game, ONLY strong in mid game? Bio mine is stronger than mech in every single phrase other than maybe late late game.
Think of other build instead of lingbanelingmuta? Using your own sentences, "they can't use units that aren't worth the investment". roach hydra just has a much smaller win rate and is a lot more map dependant than ling baneling muta. Zerg uses ling baneling muta is because it is the best optimal build against bio mine compared to other viable unit composition.
I am using ZvZ as the example on how Zerg needs to micro because you yourself said "the average zerg isn't used to microing or anything of sorts". Well, ok, ZvT then. Zerg split baneling against split bio is not micro. Zerg using infestors is not micro, Zerg using muta to magic box is not micro, Zerg sniping with muta is not micro, Zerg using burrow landmine is not micro, Zerg flank is not micro, zerg creep spread onto T's 4th is not micro, Zerg burrow to deny expo is not micro. I guess you and I have a very different perception on what is micro then or you think splitting bio is the only micro in the game.
And you misunderstand my point. The punishment should be punished by the T player, not an automatic AI targetting shot.
hahaha cold BRUTAL truth can we all agree now sc2 design team is possibly the worst thing that ever happened to starcraft ?
and can we all stop pretending sc2 is even remotly interesting ?
Team liquid played a huge role in censoring.
You can say the opposite, but while for 3 fucking years we had every single ex BW foreigner newbie, making shows / podcasts etc, monopolizing audience / speech time, to just fake the reality.
I mean, who are the community leaders ?
husky ? appollo ? artosis ? tasteless ? Day9 ?
ROFL
these are some of the biggest newbies that were around. They all claim they were pro gamers etc, while it's a fucking lie. They don't get crapshit about the games, and never were good to begin with.
rant off
edit : i'm so fucking pissed at this site edit 2 : white arrogant western newbies killed pro gaming because they have a huge complex in face of korea
Interesting that most people always seemed to think that sc2 needed a complete re design overhaul to make it a more interesting product, yet in this thread, people are praising someone who goes in the other extreme direction.
I think the game has a lot more issues than David Kim's often silly balance patches that stop it from reaching its potential as a great spectator sport (i love it, but i can see why some people have got bored of it).
On October 01 2013 16:42 AxionSteel wrote: Interesting that most people always seemed to think that sc2 needed a complete re design overhaul to make it a more interesting product, yet in this thread, people are praising someone who goes in the other extreme direction.
I think the game has a lot more issues than David Kim's often silly balance patches that stop it from reaching its potential as a great spectator sport (i love it, but i can see why some people have got bored of it).
maybe you didn't read oov properly he flat out said sc2 was bad compared to bw and then proceeds to make fun of DK about patches
why this game sucks has nothing to do with bal patches, its fundamentally flawed. remove hard counters, lower unit dmgs so things dont melt, more micro opportunities, more interesting unit mechanics, race identity, remove easy and lame macro mechanics etc etc.
On one hand we have pros whining that nothing gets fixed and peoples lives are at stake.
on the other we leave no time for the game to be truly figured out.
How many of the balance changes could have been fixedjust with maps and time?
Remember when xel naga was the best zerg map? Then later shak plat released and everyone complained non zerg races couldnt compete on it? Given time, everyone realized those maps were both shit for zerg. I think a lot might have been possible just by having maps that werent complete and total shit from the very beginning, but instead we got balance patches.
On October 01 2013 05:48 Zealously wrote: I would love it if David Kim lost a bet sometime and promised to sit down and listen (and also obey) to a guy like Oov. I think SC2 is a great game, but Oov (maybe not right now but in a month or two) and co. are the kind of guys that know how to make it even better without the sometimes unbearable bias progamers will try to bury you with ^^
No thanks. :|
I mean, I understand that oov is someone people look up to, but ignoring that one race is massively underpowered for several years while waiting for some player to come around and innovate enough to make it playable is a really awful design philosophy, especially for a game that's to a large extent supported by a big casual player base where a lack of balance can be a major turnoff.
It's also a bit annoying to see this Anti-David Kim crap crop up as soon as someone speaks out against him regardless of context (not talking about the post i quoted, just this thread in general). Usually, people are complaining that Blizzard isn't doing enough to balance the game and that they are too slow to fix things that are obviously broken, and now they're suddenly trying too hard?
On October 01 2013 16:41 Boonbag wrote: hahaha cold BRUTAL truth can we all agree now sc2 design team is possibly the worst thing that ever happened to starcraft ?
and can we all stop pretending sc2 is even remotly interesting ?
Team liquid played a huge role in censoring.
You can say the opposite, but while for 3 fucking years we had every single ex BW foreigner newbie, making shows / podcasts etc, monopolizing audience / speech time, to just fake the reality.
I mean, who are the community leaders ?
husky ? appollo ? artosis ? tasteless ? Day9 ?
ROFL
these are some of the biggest newbies that were around. They all claim they were pro gamers etc, while it's a fucking lie. They don't get crapshit about the games, and never were good to begin with.
rant off
edit : i'm so fucking pissed at this site edit 2 : white arrogant western newbies killed pro gaming because they have a huge complex in face of korea
User was temp banned for this post.
While I agree with most of it, the way it was expressed definitely deserved a ban.
On October 01 2013 16:42 AxionSteel wrote: Interesting that most people always seemed to think that sc2 needed a complete re design overhaul to make it a more interesting product, yet in this thread, people are praising someone who goes in the other extreme direction.
I think the game has a lot more issues than David Kim's often silly balance patches that stop it from reaching its potential as a great spectator sport (i love it, but i can see why some people have got bored of it).
Blizzard's pacing of their expansions directly works against iloveoov's wishes. Every expansion will bring a period of instability and I don't think the playerbase will be better off if Blizzard doesn't fix obviously broken strategies in the first six months after release. At some point you need to leave the game alone, but it's okay to address the most obvious offenders right after release. But if there are constant new release and overhauls of the game, you can never have stability until LotV has been out for a year and by that point SC2 could already be irrelevant.
I think it would have been better if they would have tried to finalize gameplay within one year and then made only minor changes to it afterwards, but Blizzard is just so slow with their release dates that they need three years for one expansion.
Love the honesty! I hope more and more Korean pros start talking about the problems of SC2. The popular foreigners are so worried about sponsors and their image that all you hear is "everything is fine" BS.
EDIT: while the balance team has been very heavy handed and frustrating on many occasions, it's the design that is really lacking IMO.
On October 01 2013 16:42 AxionSteel wrote: Interesting that most people always seemed to think that sc2 needed a complete re design overhaul to make it a more interesting product, yet in this thread, people are praising someone who goes in the other extreme direction.
I think the game has a lot more issues than David Kim's often silly balance patches that stop it from reaching its potential as a great spectator sport (i love it, but i can see why some people have got bored of it).
I guess people just want blizzard to try one of the two extremes and dislike the middle way.
One extreme: complete overhaul Another extreme: do nothing
Leaving sc2 as is, hoping for players and mapmakers to make it balanced (like it happened in bw), will probably lead to even greater problems. Unlike bw sc2 is way too "automated" so there's not much room left for playing game with different style. You can't have micro heavy style, you can't play megaturtle, you can't make complicated strategical decisions.
So the fewer options to play game differently you have, the fewer your chances to develop some strategy and builds to deal with opponent's imba unit or imba build.
Really good interview, hope the guys at blizzard get a chance to read this so maybe they open up their eyes and see what the constant patching is doing.
Awesome interview thank you. Im still a bit sad Boxer got replaced would of liked them both to work together, but iloveoov really sounds like he wants to make this work
On October 01 2013 16:41 Boonbag wrote: hahaha cold BRUTAL truth can we all agree now sc2 design team is possibly the worst thing that ever happened to starcraft ?
and can we all stop pretending sc2 is even remotly interesting ?
Team liquid played a huge role in censoring.
You can say the opposite, but while for 3 fucking years we had every single ex BW foreigner newbie, making shows / podcasts etc, monopolizing audience / speech time, to just fake the reality.
I mean, who are the community leaders ?
husky ? appollo ? artosis ? tasteless ? Day9 ?
ROFL
these are some of the biggest newbies that were around. They all claim they were pro gamers etc, while it's a fucking lie. They don't get crapshit about the games, and never were good to begin with.
rant off
edit : i'm so fucking pissed at this site edit 2 : white arrogant western newbies killed pro gaming because they have a huge complex in face of korea
User was temp banned for this post.
LOL Agreed, and very well said. Day9 and Artosis weren't 'some of the biggest newbies' though, don't push it. It's in their interest to say that SC2's the best game that's ever existed, I'm quite convinced they don't actually believe in their own praising speeches.
On October 01 2013 13:59 Brian333 wrote: Oov has some good points, but I think he's just as biased as anyone and it really shows through in what he says.
Yea, progamers should endure, they should try their hardest to deal with the meta-game. They should innovate, look for new strategies and tactics that counter existing ones and push forward the game. But, at the end of the day, they have their motivations as does Oov and David Kim and it's hard to say anyone is right. Just look at Bisu's recent interview where he talks about how hard it is to see the fans disappear, how difficult it becomes to just focus on your practice when you have to question what the purpose is. And, how do you bring those fans back? Make the game harder? Get rid of MBS, auto-mining, and bring back BW unit pathing? As LoL proved, the technical difficulty of the game is not related to the popularity of the game in such a direct way. Are constant patches and changes a bad thing? Does it not happen in other incredibly popular games?
If someone knew how to turn a video-game into a national sport, they would be getting paid an unbelievable amount of money to do so. Nobody knows and I'd say that's because there is no tangible answer.
BW was closest to that answer til Blizzard pulled the plug. The idea at the time of pre-SC2 release was that SC2 was supposed to assume the mantle of BW because the latter had things that were lacking e.g. arcahic B.net UI, graphics etc It was a perfect opportunity to add and build upon what I saw as a strong foundation (a perfect opportunity to update the game). It was the game to carry the 10 years of starcraft and all its glory.
Yet they went ahead and destroyed the foundation where the game was basically living off the BW popularity. Same thing happened with D3. No chat channels? no PvP? Everything that made starcraft through the original game and its expansion so awesome was a shell of its former self from game play, single player, story development and even ghost.net 2.0.
Except BW was clearly on a decline before Blizzard pulled the plug and I don't think anyone thought it was going to last. Problems such as STX's withdrawal from SC2 didn't suddenly happen. It would've happened regardless of if they were playing SC2 or BW. The truth is LoL is anything but BW and yet it's more popular now than BW is. If you're trying to tell me that an updated UI and graphics are what was needed to make BW more popular than LoL, then it goes back to my earlier point. There is nothing to suggest a face-lifted BW is going to work.
Its decline was mainly due to the imminent release of SC2 around 2010. Then Blizzard just randomly shows up after all these years and starts a lawsuit over KeSPA and its illegal use of BW. There was far too much negativity surrounding Blizzard and its actions toward BW. They indirectly killed MBCgames and the fabled MSL. They ignored OGN and KeSPA while riding on the 10 years of popularity built by them. They gave GOM, an ametuer organisation (to the korean viewers - also refer to the GOM classics) when it came to starleagues (and rival I suppose to the big two) during that time the broadcasting rights. No SC2 from the major broadcasting stations especially the legendary OGN and constant threats of pulling the plug on BW by one and only Blizzard. It was literally doom and gloom across multiple korean starcraft forums. But the damage was done here and thats why HOTS is having so much trouble taking off while WoL never took off among the casuals and fans.
If SC2 did not exist, BW still do this day would be huge in Korea. It would still be the same with some fluctuation. I can see BW vs LoL being more of an even playing field in Korea. Thats the difference. SC2 brought in a huge foreign scene thanks to the game being easier, more updated in terms of graphics and what not.. however it is clearly deteriorating the korean starcraft scene from a progamer and fan perspective. It was saddening to see literally 5 people turn up to watch the proleague... Ive been there several times and it was ALWAYS packed with fan girls always cheering for their favorite team/players, starting the countdown for every match.
Of course LoL is more popular than BW. The BW scene is buried in peace now. But just wind back to 2010, the release year for SC2. This is when Korean Air OSL Finals between Flash vs Effort took place. Just look at the crowd. BW could have been on a decline.. but it was no way shape or form going to die out just like that. If Bisu made it to an OSL final, i cannot fathom how fast the seats would have filled up. I repeat, if Bisu made it to an OSL finals the world would have exploded. I would eat a hat if less people turned up for this final than the korean air osl finals. No LoL tournament would out match this in any way shape or form in terms of viewership, crowds, cheers w/e.
People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
On October 01 2013 16:41 Boonbag wrote: hahaha cold BRUTAL truth can we all agree now sc2 design team is possibly the worst thing that ever happened to starcraft ?
and can we all stop pretending sc2 is even remotly interesting ?
Team liquid played a huge role in censoring.
You can say the opposite, but while for 3 fucking years we had every single ex BW foreigner newbie, making shows / podcasts etc, monopolizing audience / speech time, to just fake the reality.
I mean, who are the community leaders ?
husky ? appollo ? artosis ? tasteless ? Day9 ?
ROFL
these are some of the biggest newbies that were around. They all claim they were pro gamers etc, while it's a fucking lie. They don't get crapshit about the games, and never were good to begin with.
rant off
edit : i'm so fucking pissed at this site edit 2 : white arrogant western newbies killed pro gaming because they have a huge complex in face of korea
User was temp banned for this post.
LOL Agreed, and very well said. Day9 and Artosis weren't 'some of the biggest newbies' though, don't push it. It's in their interest to say that SC2's the best game that's ever existed, I'm quite convinced they don't actually believe in their own praising speeches.
BUT I STILL HAVE HOPE AND ALWAYS WILL
As I understand Day9 wrote recently that BW is the greatest game of all time.
On October 01 2013 13:59 Brian333 wrote: Oov has some good points, but I think he's just as biased as anyone and it really shows through in what he says.
Yea, progamers should endure, they should try their hardest to deal with the meta-game. They should innovate, look for new strategies and tactics that counter existing ones and push forward the game. But, at the end of the day, they have their motivations as does Oov and David Kim and it's hard to say anyone is right. Just look at Bisu's recent interview where he talks about how hard it is to see the fans disappear, how difficult it becomes to just focus on your practice when you have to question what the purpose is. And, how do you bring those fans back? Make the game harder? Get rid of MBS, auto-mining, and bring back BW unit pathing? As LoL proved, the technical difficulty of the game is not related to the popularity of the game in such a direct way. Are constant patches and changes a bad thing? Does it not happen in other incredibly popular games?
If someone knew how to turn a video-game into a national sport, they would be getting paid an unbelievable amount of money to do so. Nobody knows and I'd say that's because there is no tangible answer.
BW was closest to that answer til Blizzard pulled the plug. The idea at the time of pre-SC2 release was that SC2 was supposed to assume the mantle of BW because the latter had things that were lacking e.g. arcahic B.net UI, graphics etc It was a perfect opportunity to add and build upon what I saw as a strong foundation (a perfect opportunity to update the game). It was the game to carry the 10 years of starcraft and all its glory.
Yet they went ahead and destroyed the foundation where the game was basically living off the BW popularity. Same thing happened with D3. No chat channels? no PvP? Everything that made starcraft through the original game and its expansion so awesome was a shell of its former self from game play, single player, story development and even ghost.net 2.0.
Except BW was clearly on a decline before Blizzard pulled the plug and I don't think anyone thought it was going to last. Problems such as STX's withdrawal from SC2 didn't suddenly happen. It would've happened regardless of if they were playing SC2 or BW. The truth is LoL is anything but BW and yet it's more popular now than BW is. If you're trying to tell me that an updated UI and graphics are what was needed to make BW more popular than LoL, then it goes back to my earlier point. There is nothing to suggest a face-lifted BW is going to work.
Its decline was mainly due to the imminent release of SC2 around 2010. Then Blizzard just randomly shows up after all these years and starts a lawsuit over KeSPA and its illegal use of BW. There was far too much negativity surrounding Blizzard and its actions toward BW. They indirectly killed MBCgames and the fabled MSL. They ignored OGN and KeSPA while riding on the 10 years of popularity built by them. They gave GOM, an ametuer organisation (to the korean viewers - also refer to the GOM classics) when it came to starleagues (and rival I suppose to the big two) during that time the broadcasting rights. No SC2 from the major broadcasting stations especially the legendary OGN and constant threats of pulling the plug on BW by one and only Blizzard. It was literally doom and gloom across multiple korean starcraft forums. But the damage was done here and thats why HOTS is having so much trouble taking off while WoL never took off among the casuals and fans.
If SC2 did not exist, BW still do this day would be huge in Korea. It would still be the same with some fluctuation. I can see BW vs LoL being more of an even playing field in Korea. Thats the difference. SC2 brought in a huge foreign scene thanks to the game being easier, more updated in terms of graphics and what not.. however it is clearly deteriorating the korean starcraft scene from a progamer and fan perspective. It was saddening to see literally 5 people turn up to watch the proleague... Ive been there several times and it was ALWAYS packed with fan girls always cheering for their favorite team/players, starting the countdown for every match.
Of course LoL is more popular than BW. The BW scene is buried in peace now. But just wind back to 2010, the release year for SC2. This is when Korean Air OSL Finals between Flash vs Effort took place. Just look at the crowd. BW could have been on a decline.. but it was no way shape or form going to die out just like that. If Bisu made it to an OSL final, i cannot fathom how fast the seats would have filled up. I repeat, if Bisu made it to an OSL finals the world would have exploded. I would eat a hat if less people turned up for this final than the korean air osl finals. No LoL tournament would out match this in any way shape or form in terms of viewership, crowds, cheers w/e.
People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
Lol lol lol, BW graphisms are bad, no one wants to play it XD
On October 01 2013 19:02 YyapSsap wrote: People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
Who cares about the korean scene when SC2 still has the global scene? That's why the transition happened in the first place! To attract sponsors that need to promote to a global fanbase, like Auction and Jogunshop
On October 01 2013 19:02 YyapSsap wrote: People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
Who cares about the korean scene when SC2 still has the global scene? That's why the transition happened in the first place! To attract sponsors that need to promote to a global fanbase, like Auction and Jogunshop
Actually, it was quite amusing to see Jogunshop being a sponsor of this season's GSL. Its pretty.. disheartening compared to the major sponsors of the past.
On October 01 2013 19:02 YyapSsap wrote: People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
Who cares about the korean scene when SC2 still has the global scene? That's why the transition happened in the first place! To attract sponsors that need to promote to a global fanbase, like Auction and Jogunshop
The global scene is boring because all the best players are Korean. I don't know about you, but when I still watched StarCraft 2 I tended to avoid foreigner events. Why? The level of play is pitiful compared to Korean events.
I could care less if Brood War was unpopular in the non-Korean scene. I'd prefer to just go back to watching BW OSL and Proleague in Korean on restreams if BW hadn't been killed off in Korea.
On October 01 2013 19:02 YyapSsap wrote: People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
Who cares about the korean scene when SC2 still has the global scene? That's why the transition happened in the first place! To attract sponsors that need to promote to a global fanbase, like Auction and Jogunshop
The global scene is boring because all the best players are Korean. I don't know about you, but when I still watched StarCraft 2 I tended to avoid foreigner events. Why? The level of play is pitiful compared to Korean events.
I could care less if Brood War was unpopular in the non-Korean scene. I'd prefer to just go back to watching BW OSL and Proleague in Korean on restreams if BW hadn't been killed off in Korea.
On October 01 2013 19:02 YyapSsap wrote: People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
Who cares about the korean scene when SC2 still has the global scene? That's why the transition happened in the first place! To attract sponsors that need to promote to a global fanbase, like Auction and Jogunshop
The global scene is boring because all the best players are Korean. I don't know about you, but when I still watched StarCraft 2 I tended to avoid foreigner events. Why? The level of play is pitiful compared to Korean events.
I could care less if Brood War was unpopular in the non-Korean scene. I'd prefer to just go back to watching BW OSL and Proleague in Korean on restreams if BW hadn't been killed off in Korea.
Me too actually. The day when one of the big four makes it back to an OSL or MSL finals.. is only a dream now
Its kind of weird because even if there was no foreign scene to speak of in terms of actual pros, it was still huge in terms of fanbase and community. Alot of foreigners/koreans would just spectate but never really play BW ladder or even play BW at all.
For instance, I use to play war3 ladder and then dota (or any other games time to time) but always watched BW progames. Its kinda strange thinking about it, but looks like it truly was a sport to me anyway.
On October 01 2013 19:02 YyapSsap wrote: People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
Who cares about the korean scene when SC2 still has the global scene? That's why the transition happened in the first place! To attract sponsors that need to promote to a global fanbase, like Auction and Jogunshop
Actually, it was quite amusing to see Jogunshop being a sponsor of this season's GSL. Its pretty.. disheartening compared to the major sponsors of the past.
Yeah. The thing is, if the transition didn't happen at all, sponsors like those would've benefited from the tournaments more lol.
On October 01 2013 19:02 YyapSsap wrote: People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
Who cares about the korean scene when SC2 still has the global scene? That's why the transition happened in the first place! To attract sponsors that need to promote to a global fanbase, like Auction and Jogunshop
The global scene is boring because all the best players are Korean. I don't know about you, but when I still watched StarCraft 2 I tended to avoid foreigner events. Why? The level of play is pitiful compared to Korean events.
I could care less if Brood War was unpopular in the non-Korean scene. I'd prefer to just go back to watching BW OSL and Proleague in Korean on restreams if BW hadn't been killed off in Korea.
On October 01 2013 19:40 bearhug wrote: Fire DKim, please. Blizzard do it.
Actually it was Dustin Browder who designed this game. David Kim is responsible for balance and balance is fine in SC2.
David Kim's method of balance:
1. Funnel each matchup into one viable strategy 2. Make that strategy random by introducing random elements such as widowmines 3. BAM! the game is balanced, each with a winrate of 33% 4. Profit.
Even a monkey can balance a game with DK's method.
On October 01 2013 19:40 bearhug wrote: Fire DKim, please. Blizzard do it.
Actually it was Dustin Browder who designed this game. David Kim is responsible for balance and balance is fine in SC2.
David Kim's method of balance:
1. Funnel each matchup into one viable strategy 2. Make that strategy random by introducing random elements such as widowmines 3. BAM! the game is balanced, each with a winrate of 33% 4. Profit.
Even a monkey can balance a game with DK's method.
On October 01 2013 19:40 bearhug wrote: Fire DKim, please. Blizzard do it.
Actually it was Dustin Browder who designed this game. David Kim is responsible for balance and balance is fine in SC2.
David Kim's method of balance:
1. Funnel each matchup into one viable strategy 2. Make that strategy random by introducing random elements such as widowmines 3. BAM! the game is balanced, each with a winrate of 33% 4. Profit.
Even a monkey can balance a game with DK's method.
Have you watched a single PvZ in HotS?
TvZ: Widowmine MMM Parade vs Muta ling bling TvP: SCV pull + Storm-Snipe randomness PvZ: I'll give you that, maybe 2-3 strats there
Mirror matchups are balanced by definition so let's see. 5 out of 6 possible matchups... lol
Never ending beta test. That really hit for me. But at the same time, there really isn't anything we can do about it.
As it stands, less and less people are staying interested in SC2 for a number of reasons. The strategies get stale. Personalities are hard to appreciate. It's damn near impossible for upcoming talent to get noticed/fostered. Blizzard definitely has interests in this game, as hard as it is to believe. There is no easy fix.
Allowing the game to develop as it stands now does give it a chance to just die completely. Motivation to find better strategies and perfecting the skills to executing them becomes possible when they do just leave it alone, but at the same time trying to find the motivation to actually practice and try to get better when the scene itself is getting more and more stagnant is tough.
This community is so beyond toxic and contradictory that it's a wonder the servers we're hosted on haven't spontaneously bricked from the sheer force of bullshit.
On October 01 2013 20:58 RampancyTW wrote: This community is so beyond toxic and contradictory that it's a wonder the servers we're hosted on haven't spontaneously bricked from the sheer force of bullshit.
Well, thank god machines do not know the difference between the fact and BS. Also, i love iloveoov for this interview. He pretty much proved that the loudest part of this community are hypocrites.
On October 01 2013 19:40 bearhug wrote: Fire DKim, please. Blizzard do it.
Actually it was Dustin Browder who designed this game. David Kim is responsible for balance and balance is fine in SC2.
David Kim's method of balance:
1. Funnel each matchup into one viable strategy 2. Make that strategy random by introducing random elements such as widowmines 3. BAM! the game is balanced, each with a winrate of 33% 4. Profit.
Even a monkey can balance a game with DK's method.
Have you watched a single PvZ in HotS?
TvZ: Widowmine MMM Parade vs Muta ling bling TvP: SCV pull + Storm-Snipe randomness PvZ: I'll give you that, maybe 2-3 strats there
Mirror matchups are balanced by definition so let's see. 5 out of 6 possible matchups... lol
I love how you call Storm-Snipe and Widow mine-anything relation random. In fact a-moved BCs are way more random than those relations.
It is a fun interview to read, and it is great he is this honest. And even though he is not completely wrong on balancing, I don't think he is completely right either. But sc1 had a lot less competition from other games and more time to grow naturally. Also I think there were pretty big changes in what strategies where possible to due do to map changes in sc:bw. And with the maps changing for ever I don't see that it's all that different from what David Kim does now. All I would be willing to agree on is that the changes since the HOTS release of balance changes were pretty fast and that could be slowed down. This is a clear advantage of going the way of the maps to balance your game, as you can just use one or two new maps and keep some old ones for a while longer.
On October 01 2013 16:38 ETisME wrote: Different strategies from usual bio mine? like what? Getting a 3rd CC or before after doing a 1-1 timing? adding some marauders into the mix? Are you saying bio mine is weaker than mech in early and late game, ONLY strong in mid game? Bio mine is stronger than mech in every single phrase other than maybe late late game.
Think of other build instead of lingbanelingmuta? Using your own sentences, "they can't use units that aren't worth the investment". roach hydra just has a much smaller win rate and is a lot more map dependant than ling baneling muta. Zerg uses ling baneling muta is because it is the best optimal build against bio mine compared to other viable unit composition.
I am using ZvZ as the example on how Zerg needs to micro because you yourself said "the average zerg isn't used to microing or anything of sorts". Well, ok, ZvT then. Zerg split baneling against split bio is not micro. Zerg using infestors is not micro, Zerg using muta to magic box is not micro, Zerg sniping with muta is not micro, Zerg using burrow landmine is not micro, Zerg flank is not micro, zerg creep spread onto T's 4th is not micro, Zerg burrow to deny expo is not micro. I guess you and I have a very different perception on what is micro then or you think splitting bio is the only micro in the game.
And you misunderstand my point. The punishment should be punished by the T player, not an automatic AI targetting shot.
I've seen terrans use banshees, Ravens, do more mine drops, Hellion reaper openings, and.. Hmm can't seem to think of too many more compositions that I've recently seen (It is quite a rare case tbh.). Though the ''strategies'' entail timings, and other things like that as well, not just composition. Bio-mine is ofc stronger than mech in both early and mid game. But in the late game it IS weak compared to a mech army. Roach Hydra destroys bio mine. The reason it has a smaller win ratio is because the terran usually goes for tanks to counter it. Terran can't stay on bio-mine if the zerg changes things up. And you're saying that ''lingblingmuta'' is a strong comp against bio mine? In what world? Sure it's great for harassing and keeping the Terran back, but in a straight on engagement, Bio-mine destroys lingblingmuta. And that's why you also see tons of games where the late-game zerg who hasn't transitioned into ultra-infestor or any high tier units, will lose. Even though it would seem that the Zerg had the ''upper hand''. So let me tell you a secret why terran goes for Bio-mine. It's the only comp that is efficient against Lingblingmuta. If the zerg isn't ready to change compositions, the terran also can't change compositions. Terran has practically no efficient compsition other than bio-mine (You can add in a few banshees, ravens, tanks or what-not, but the core of the army always needs to be bio-mine.), to beat lingblingmuta. And you yourself agreed that lingblingmuta is the ''best'' composition even though most of that specific comp CAN be destroyed by widowmines? Doesn't that mean that the widowmines AREN'T the threat to change your build against? Splitting banelings into 2 groups? Oh geez, it's not like the terran needs to split the mines individually, split the bio army into more than 6-7 groups. Muta magicboxing is only done at the highest skill level, and it's almost never done in ZvT. Zerg creep spread is MACRO fyi. Kinda sad seeing you call ''zerg burrow to deny expo is micro'', ''Fungals are micro'' '' or ''burrow baneling is micro''.. Those things don't even deserve to be called micro.. Flanking is pretty much the same as controlling 2 groups and sending them to attack. Sure it requires good positioning and planning, I'll give you that, but the profit from the flanking is far higher than it should be. The terran army just dies with a good baneling flank. 10 banelings from the back can kill a 70 supply worth of terran units if he didn't maintain a good split (And the terran still needs to kill the banelings rolling in from the front.).
And banelings controlled by an ''A+Move'' isn't the same as an ''automatic shot''? Microing mines to burrow them apart from each other is pretty much the same as making 2 groups of banelings to attack from different sides (I'd even say that it takes more time to split up mines than to split up the banelings.)
So let me pull this together. Mines are situational units with 0 mobility (unless you get the upgrade.). They can be killed cost effectively by every race if they have vision and the correct units (For example swarmhosts, mutas, hydras, roaches, banelings, queens, ultras, infestors, etc.). They have a huge cd after each shot, so they're the same as an baneling (As in 1 shot per engagement.), and their AoE is smaller than a baneling. + they also have friendly fire on, and there have been a TON of cases where the friendly fire has done far more damage to the terran army, than the zerg. + Like the baneling, the mines can die before exploding on the enemies.
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
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
Well the game is stagnant for too much time...
No growth in viewership No changes in the metagame
And it's not good news for RTS... So everybody is starting to call for the end of SC2.
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
Well, everyone kinda gets tired from WCS all day every day. But yeah, there is more shouting about dead game, rather than facts that game is indeed dead, apart from few players retiring (and who the hell knows reasons behind this).
On October 01 2013 16:38 ETisME wrote: Different strategies from usual bio mine? like what? Getting a 3rd CC or before after doing a 1-1 timing? adding some marauders into the mix? Are you saying bio mine is weaker than mech in early and late game, ONLY strong in mid game? Bio mine is stronger than mech in every single phrase other than maybe late late game.
Think of other build instead of lingbanelingmuta? Using your own sentences, "they can't use units that aren't worth the investment". roach hydra just has a much smaller win rate and is a lot more map dependant than ling baneling muta. Zerg uses ling baneling muta is because it is the best optimal build against bio mine compared to other viable unit composition.
I am using ZvZ as the example on how Zerg needs to micro because you yourself said "the average zerg isn't used to microing or anything of sorts". Well, ok, ZvT then. Zerg split baneling against split bio is not micro. Zerg using infestors is not micro, Zerg using muta to magic box is not micro, Zerg sniping with muta is not micro, Zerg using burrow landmine is not micro, Zerg flank is not micro, zerg creep spread onto T's 4th is not micro, Zerg burrow to deny expo is not micro. I guess you and I have a very different perception on what is micro then or you think splitting bio is the only micro in the game.
And you misunderstand my point. The punishment should be punished by the T player, not an automatic AI targetting shot.
I've seen terrans use banshees, Ravens, do more mine drops, Hellion reaper openings, and.. Hmm can't seem to think of too many more compositions that I've recently seen (It is quite a rare case tbh.). Though the ''strategies'' entail timings, and other things like that as well, not just composition. Bio-mine is ofc stronger than mech in both early and mid game. But in the late game it IS weak compared to a mech army. Roach Hydra destroys bio mine. The reason it has a smaller win ratio is because the terran usually goes for tanks to counter it. Terran can't stay on bio-mine if the zerg changes things up. And you're saying that ''lingblingmuta'' is a strong comp against bio mine? In what world? Sure it's great for harassing and keeping the Terran back, but in a straight on engagement, Bio-mine destroys lingblingmuta. And that's why you also see tons of games where the late-game zerg who hasn't transitioned into ultra-infestor or any high tier units, will lose. Even though it would seem that the Zerg had the ''upper hand''. So let me tell you a secret why terran goes for Bio-mine. It's the only comp that is efficient against Lingblingmuta. If the zerg isn't ready to change compositions, the terran also can't change compositions. Terran has practically no efficient compsition other than bio-mine (You can add in a few banshees, ravens, tanks or what-not, but the core of the army always needs to be bio-mine.), to beat lingblingmuta. And you yourself agreed that lingblingmuta is the ''best'' composition even though most of that specific comp CAN be destroyed by widowmines? Doesn't that mean that the widowmines AREN'T the threat to change your build against? Splitting banelings into 2 groups? Oh geez, it's not like the terran needs to split the mines individually, split the bio army into more than 6-7 groups. Muta magicboxing is only done at the highest skill level, and it's almost never done in ZvT. Zerg creep spread is MACRO fyi. Kinda sad seeing you call ''zerg burrow to deny expo is micro'', ''Fungals are micro'' '' or ''burrow baneling is micro''.. Those things don't even deserve to be called micro.. Flanking is pretty much the same as controlling 2 groups and sending them to attack. Sure it requires good positioning and planning, I'll give you that, but the profit from the flanking is far higher than it should be. The terran army just dies with a good baneling flank. 10 banelings from the back can kill a 70 supply worth of terran units if he didn't maintain a good split (And the terran still needs to kill the banelings rolling in from the front.).
And banelings controlled by an ''A+Move'' isn't the same as an ''automatic shot''? Microing mines to burrow them apart from each other is pretty much the same as making 2 groups of banelings to attack from different sides (I'd even say that it takes more time to split up mines than to split up the banelings.)
So let me pull this together. Mines are situational units with 0 mobility (unless you get the upgrade.). They can be killed cost effectively by every race if they have vision and the correct units (For example swarmhosts, mutas, hydras, roaches, banelings, queens, ultras, infestors, etc.). They have a huge cd after each shot, so they're the same as an baneling (As in 1 shot per engagement.), and their AoE is smaller than a baneling. + they also have friendly fire on, and there have been a TON of cases where the friendly fire has done far more damage to the terran army, than the zerg. + Like the baneling, the mines can die before exploding on the enemies.
banshee play isn't in main meta hellion reaper had always existed ever since beta raven, well I can't remember when was the last time I saw a raven in TvZ power wise, you are right on Mech > Bio mine. But you are forgetting bio mine makes zerg late game weak due to the superior economy and zerg cannot go 90 drones into hive units. counter wise, zerg has a lot more options against mech than bio mine. So it isn't right to say Bio mine is weaker than mech in late game unless you are talking about zerg being able to get a superior economy fast and able to go ultra and broodlords before Terran economy allows all kind of viking/marauder transition And yes, muta ling baneling has the highest win rate against bio mine. Did you not read thedwf or naruto keep complaining how a 2-2 zerg ling baneling muta can beat a 3-3 bio mine? It just takes "skill and micro" as they would call it. as for those actions are not micro. well if that isn't micro, what is that? only stutterstepping and spreading and target firing counts as micro now? How about Zerg spreading banelings to follow T bio and baiting mines while using muta sniping mines and medivacs? burrow banelings alone takes more skill to position (to avoid getting scanned) and actually killing the units requires more attention than a widow mine. And 10 banelings can kill 70 supply of marines. one widow mine can blow up 15 banelings without any attention from T and banelings even cost gas to make. and no, banelings controls are not a move, you actually have to split them to follow the split bio. saying that is a move is just saying spreading bio is a move lol and it's funny how you put all those units as counter. yes, because we all know swarmhost, queen and hydras are totally viable in ZvT engagement. and are you seriously complaining about friendly fire when medivacs are easier to keep alive and able to heal up the marines while widow mine one shotting a group of banelings which effectively is only counter to marines?
I must admit that I'd love the balance team to, after the off-season patch, leave the game untouched until LotV and let it evolve naturally. I'm ready to bet that one would be amazed at the builds, strategies and innovations which would come out of this.
On October 01 2013 22:40 [PkF] Wire wrote: I must admit that I'd love the balance team to, after the off-season patch, leave the game untouched until LotV and let it evolve naturally. I'm ready to bet that one would be amazed at the builds, strategies and innovations which would come out of this.
That nobody would ever use, because players are lazy and only do stuff that works for them.
The balance team left it alone for the past months and the game got stale pretty fast. It's a design issue, not a balance one. David Kim is doing his best to maintain interest but Dustin Bowder is to blame for the current design issues.
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 "game is dying and Blizzard sucks and can't fix it" narrative is a lot more "exciting" and "interesting" than the much more realistic "the game has about reached equilibrium in terms of player and fan base, and is not longer going to be the biggest esport" narrative.
Basically it is a lot more "internet fun" to be negative and ridiculously pessimistic, rather than realize the mediocrity of the RTS scene within the context of the greater esports or even video game scene.
The changes to the game, even if patches have slowed down significantly, hurt the story line. I will cite the last 2 players who were truly dominant, Life and Innovation. Their reign of dominance was not ended with players learning how to play against their style, but rather because there was a change in the game. Life was in the middle of his run then HotS came out. While that was more of just bad timing, we can simply sweep the end of his reign under the rug as a by-product of the release of the expansion. It is the same with Innovation. He was so dominant. It was exciting for a while as Soulkey was able to beat him in incredible fashion during the WCS KR S1 finals. That is what makes the game exciting. The story line of how Soulkey beat the top player in exciting fashion. It remained exciting following the S1 Finals as Innovation redeemed himself and showed that he is truly the best in the world.
Alas, it was not to last as the Hellbat was nerfed and while it is still surprising to see Innovation lose, it is so so easy to simply say "well, he hasn't been as good since that hellbat nerf". Not exciting at all.
On October 01 2013 22:29 ETisME wrote: banshee play isn't in main meta hellion reaper had always existed ever since beta raven, well I can't remember when was the last time I saw a raven in TvZ power wise, you are right on Mech > Bio mine. But you are forgetting bio mine makes zerg late game weak due to the superior economy and zerg cannot go 90 drones into hive units. counter wise, zerg has a lot more options against mech than bio mine. So it isn't right to say Bio mine is weaker than mech in late game unless you are talking about zerg being able to get a superior economy fast and able to go ultra and broodlords before Terran economy allows all kind of viking/marauder transition And yes, muta ling baneling has the highest win rate against bio mine. Did you not read thedwf or naruto keep complaining how a 2-2 zerg ling baneling muta can beat a 3-3 bio mine? It just takes "skill and micro" as they would call it. as for those actions are not micro. well if that isn't micro, what is that? only stutterstepping and spreading and target firing counts as micro now? How about Zerg spreading banelings to follow T bio and baiting mines while using muta sniping mines and medivacs? burrow banelings alone takes more skill to position (to avoid getting scanned) and actually killing the units requires more attention than a widow mine. And 10 banelings can kill 70 supply of marines. one widow mine can blow up 15 banelings without any attention from T and banelings even cost gas to make. and no, banelings controls are not a move, you actually have to split them to follow the split bio. saying that is a move is just saying spreading bio is a move lol and it's funny how you put all those units as counter. yes, because we all know swarmhost, queen and hydras are totally viable in ZvT engagement. and are you seriously complaining about friendly fire when medivacs are easier to keep alive and able to heal up the marines while widow mine one shotting a group of banelings which effectively is only counter to marines?
I've never seen a zerg split the banelings to follow each group that the terran splits into. The most I've seen is zerg splitting the banelings into 3. 1 for flank, and the main baneling force into 2. Never have I seen zerg split the banelings so that they would follow each terran bio-group. Marauder transition is almost impossible if the zerg manages to get out some infestors with the ultras. Ultras will actually kill off the marauders if the terran can't kite with the marauders, which is why mixing up a few infestors with the ultras will actually be incredible. It all depends on how aggressive the terran is. If the terran is extremely aggressive reaching 90 drones is impossible, but keeping the terran on 2 bases will make the terran run dry after some aggression. Bio-mine is a composition that is only strong if the terran army has good splits, a good balanced composition. But it will die like any terran bio army cause of the ''OP banelings''. FYI: You contradicted yourself. You said that ''Mines are OP'' while also claiming that ''Zerg can win with 2/2 lingblingmuta against a 3/3 bio-mine.''.. So what the hell is the issue?! The mines are ''op'' but you can win with a huge upgrade disadvantage on equal grounds (If the match wasn't on equal grounds you wouldn't have brought it as an example, right?)? As much as I know the zergs are currently doing better than the terrans in the competitive scene. Although currently I've noticed that about 50% of the Ro16 races in pretty much, in each tourney, are protoss.
I'm not saying that Zerg isn't a race that can't benefit from Micro, what I'm saying is that zerg usually DOESN'T micro too much compared to the terran. For example I think that the pros who roll their banelings over mines without detection, is actually proof that they don't bother microing too much, and rather just smash their forces into the enemy (Not saying that they don't micro at all, the zergs usually like to do flanks and good concaves, but their splitting is of far smaller scale than what terran usually does, which is limited to 3-4 unit groups..)
The reason why terrans use mines is because they have no other option THAT is why we use mines. Not because they're ''op''. Instead of nerfing the mines to the ground and buffing an alternative, like David Kim is intending to do, they should keep both the option of ''should I go for tanks'', ''should i go for widowmines'' or ''should I go for tanks AND widowmines''. Instead of the plan to nerf one thing to make players use another thing. That's an fundamentally wrong way of thinking.
And I'm not insulting the Pro zerg players. Zerg is a hard race to play for different reasons than why a terran is a hard race. Zerg has the hardest macro mechanics from the 3 races. Zerg is all about quick, decisive decision making, and constant map presence, and macro. Just try playing terran, and experience things for yourself. That's the quickest way to understand what I'm talking about.
On October 01 2013 13:59 Brian333 wrote: Oov has some good points, but I think he's just as biased as anyone and it really shows through in what he says.
Yea, progamers should endure, they should try their hardest to deal with the meta-game. They should innovate, look for new strategies and tactics that counter existing ones and push forward the game. But, at the end of the day, they have their motivations as does Oov and David Kim and it's hard to say anyone is right. Just look at Bisu's recent interview where he talks about how hard it is to see the fans disappear, how difficult it becomes to just focus on your practice when you have to question what the purpose is. And, how do you bring those fans back? Make the game harder? Get rid of MBS, auto-mining, and bring back BW unit pathing? As LoL proved, the technical difficulty of the game is not related to the popularity of the game in such a direct way. Are constant patches and changes a bad thing? Does it not happen in other incredibly popular games?
If someone knew how to turn a video-game into a national sport, they would be getting paid an unbelievable amount of money to do so. Nobody knows and I'd say that's because there is no tangible answer.
BW was closest to that answer til Blizzard pulled the plug. The idea at the time of pre-SC2 release was that SC2 was supposed to assume the mantle of BW because the latter had things that were lacking e.g. arcahic B.net UI, graphics etc It was a perfect opportunity to add and build upon what I saw as a strong foundation (a perfect opportunity to update the game). It was the game to carry the 10 years of starcraft and all its glory.
Yet they went ahead and destroyed the foundation where the game was basically living off the BW popularity. Same thing happened with D3. No chat channels? no PvP? Everything that made starcraft through the original game and its expansion so awesome was a shell of its former self from game play, single player, story development and even ghost.net 2.0.
Except BW was clearly on a decline before Blizzard pulled the plug and I don't think anyone thought it was going to last. Problems such as STX's withdrawal from SC2 didn't suddenly happen. It would've happened regardless of if they were playing SC2 or BW. The truth is LoL is anything but BW and yet it's more popular now than BW is. If you're trying to tell me that an updated UI and graphics are what was needed to make BW more popular than LoL, then it goes back to my earlier point. There is nothing to suggest a face-lifted BW is going to work.
Its decline was mainly due to the imminent release of SC2 around 2010. Then Blizzard just randomly shows up after all these years and starts a lawsuit over KeSPA and its illegal use of BW. There was far too much negativity surrounding Blizzard and its actions toward BW. They indirectly killed MBCgames and the fabled MSL. They ignored OGN and KeSPA while riding on the 10 years of popularity built by them. They gave GOM, an ametuer organisation (to the korean viewers - also refer to the GOM classics) when it came to starleagues (and rival I suppose to the big two) during that time the broadcasting rights. No SC2 from the major broadcasting stations especially the legendary OGN and constant threats of pulling the plug on BW by one and only Blizzard. It was literally doom and gloom across multiple korean starcraft forums. But the damage was done here and thats why HOTS is having so much trouble taking off while WoL never took off among the casuals and fans.
If SC2 did not exist, BW still do this day would be huge in Korea. It would still be the same with some fluctuation. I can see BW vs LoL being more of an even playing field in Korea. Thats the difference. SC2 brought in a huge foreign scene thanks to the game being easier, more updated in terms of graphics and what not.. however it is clearly deteriorating the korean starcraft scene from a progamer and fan perspective. It was saddening to see literally 5 people turn up to watch the proleague... Ive been there several times and it was ALWAYS packed with fan girls always cheering for their favorite team/players, starting the countdown for every match.
Of course LoL is more popular than BW. The BW scene is buried in peace now. But just wind back to 2010, the release year for SC2. This is when Korean Air OSL Finals between Flash vs Effort took place. Just look at the crowd. BW could have been on a decline.. but it was no way shape or form going to die out just like that. If Bisu made it to an OSL final, i cannot fathom how fast the seats would have filled up. I repeat, if Bisu made it to an OSL finals the world would have exploded. I would eat a hat if less people turned up for this final than the korean air osl finals. No LoL tournament would out match this in any way shape or form in terms of viewership, crowds, cheers w/e.
People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
All I see here are excuses. I'll make it simple for you. If BW was strong enough, Blizzard wouldn't have been able to kill it and SC2 wouldn't have had any influence on it. The problem is it was in a state of decline with no real future and that opened the door for those events to happen. So again, back to my original point, BW in the past was that answer but it was not the answer going forward. People change. Society changes. Trends change. BW was the right game at the right time. LoL, a game that is very different from BW, is apparently the right game for these times.
Man I find this very hard to believe....The reality is the Market was so Primed for a good sc2 that reminded them of BW with the depth but be an improvement with graphics and modernize it in a way with new units but keep the old BW idea of creating an atmosphere where watching pros play just puts you in sheer awe.... yet is still fun to play in the aspect of aspiring to play like them and do amazing feats that would make you proud of yourself for accomplishing it..... In came 2010 and sc2 and tons were disappointed.....
Will say it again , when you got something working , you don't change it , you just change some stuff and add more .
Just like when something work , why change it ? You IMPROVE IT !!!
GTA ? New game out = they keep the ground , assassins creed ? Same , call of duty ? Same .
broodwar was , still , the BEST RTS EVER MADE , the only thing bad about the game are the graphic and also because It lacks the feature of the new rts game.
honestly that not far off from saying any pro gamer could balance the game better that david kim but again the core of the game of starcraft 2 full of failure and error ( they have realy not looked into broodwar to much )
they have make it so that one big battle who decide the game , when it fact it should be many many small battle where the best player can win with style and skill , in broodwar that just like that , in sc2 ? one fight , look away 2 ? get 3 storm in ? = GG . sorry to say ... but that not how rts should be .
other big error they did , oov say it , they have NERF ALL BUILD , UNIT , who was hard to deal with before watch , some stuft needed to be nerfed while other were fine. anyway you should alway wait 1-2 months before nerf something and be realy sure they are NO DAMN WAY to counter it.
yet these monkey trashed everything good about broodwar and have create something totaly ''new'' and called it starcraft 2......
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 .
On October 01 2013 13:59 Brian333 wrote: Oov has some good points, but I think he's just as biased as anyone and it really shows through in what he says.
Yea, progamers should endure, they should try their hardest to deal with the meta-game. They should innovate, look for new strategies and tactics that counter existing ones and push forward the game. But, at the end of the day, they have their motivations as does Oov and David Kim and it's hard to say anyone is right. Just look at Bisu's recent interview where he talks about how hard it is to see the fans disappear, how difficult it becomes to just focus on your practice when you have to question what the purpose is. And, how do you bring those fans back? Make the game harder? Get rid of MBS, auto-mining, and bring back BW unit pathing? As LoL proved, the technical difficulty of the game is not related to the popularity of the game in such a direct way. Are constant patches and changes a bad thing? Does it not happen in other incredibly popular games?
If someone knew how to turn a video-game into a national sport, they would be getting paid an unbelievable amount of money to do so. Nobody knows and I'd say that's because there is no tangible answer.
BW was closest to that answer til Blizzard pulled the plug. The idea at the time of pre-SC2 release was that SC2 was supposed to assume the mantle of BW because the latter had things that were lacking e.g. arcahic B.net UI, graphics etc It was a perfect opportunity to add and build upon what I saw as a strong foundation (a perfect opportunity to update the game). It was the game to carry the 10 years of starcraft and all its glory.
Yet they went ahead and destroyed the foundation where the game was basically living off the BW popularity. Same thing happened with D3. No chat channels? no PvP? Everything that made starcraft through the original game and its expansion so awesome was a shell of its former self from game play, single player, story development and even ghost.net 2.0.
Except BW was clearly on a decline before Blizzard pulled the plug and I don't think anyone thought it was going to last. Problems such as STX's withdrawal from SC2 didn't suddenly happen. It would've happened regardless of if they were playing SC2 or BW. The truth is LoL is anything but BW and yet it's more popular now than BW is. If you're trying to tell me that an updated UI and graphics are what was needed to make BW more popular than LoL, then it goes back to my earlier point. There is nothing to suggest a face-lifted BW is going to work.
Its decline was mainly due to the imminent release of SC2 around 2010. Then Blizzard just randomly shows up after all these years and starts a lawsuit over KeSPA and its illegal use of BW. There was far too much negativity surrounding Blizzard and its actions toward BW. They indirectly killed MBCgames and the fabled MSL. They ignored OGN and KeSPA while riding on the 10 years of popularity built by them. They gave GOM, an ametuer organisation (to the korean viewers - also refer to the GOM classics) when it came to starleagues (and rival I suppose to the big two) during that time the broadcasting rights. No SC2 from the major broadcasting stations especially the legendary OGN and constant threats of pulling the plug on BW by one and only Blizzard. It was literally doom and gloom across multiple korean starcraft forums. But the damage was done here and thats why HOTS is having so much trouble taking off while WoL never took off among the casuals and fans.
If SC2 did not exist, BW still do this day would be huge in Korea. It would still be the same with some fluctuation. I can see BW vs LoL being more of an even playing field in Korea. Thats the difference. SC2 brought in a huge foreign scene thanks to the game being easier, more updated in terms of graphics and what not.. however it is clearly deteriorating the korean starcraft scene from a progamer and fan perspective. It was saddening to see literally 5 people turn up to watch the proleague... Ive been there several times and it was ALWAYS packed with fan girls always cheering for their favorite team/players, starting the countdown for every match.
Of course LoL is more popular than BW. The BW scene is buried in peace now. But just wind back to 2010, the release year for SC2. This is when Korean Air OSL Finals between Flash vs Effort took place. Just look at the crowd. BW could have been on a decline.. but it was no way shape or form going to die out just like that. If Bisu made it to an OSL final, i cannot fathom how fast the seats would have filled up. I repeat, if Bisu made it to an OSL finals the world would have exploded. I would eat a hat if less people turned up for this final than the korean air osl finals. No LoL tournament would out match this in any way shape or form in terms of viewership, crowds, cheers w/e.
People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
All I see here are excuses. I'll make it simple for you. If BW was strong enough, Blizzard wouldn't have been able to kill it and SC2 wouldn't have had any influence on it. The problem is it was in a state of decline with no real future and that opened the door for those events to happen. So again, back to my original point, BW in the past was that answer but it was not the answer going forward. People change. Society changes. Trends change. BW was the right game at the right time. LoL, a game that is very different from BW, is apparently the right game for these times.
But BW didn't even die...
Streaming viewership count, BW is still more superior than SC2. If you want to talk about "Global" fans, SC2 is a rather esoteric with a few fanatics scattered in couple of countries. Overall speaking, people are still much more interested in BW than SC2.
On October 01 2013 22:29 ETisME wrote: banshee play isn't in main meta hellion reaper had always existed ever since beta raven, well I can't remember when was the last time I saw a raven in TvZ power wise, you are right on Mech > Bio mine. But you are forgetting bio mine makes zerg late game weak due to the superior economy and zerg cannot go 90 drones into hive units. counter wise, zerg has a lot more options against mech than bio mine. So it isn't right to say Bio mine is weaker than mech in late game unless you are talking about zerg being able to get a superior economy fast and able to go ultra and broodlords before Terran economy allows all kind of viking/marauder transition And yes, muta ling baneling has the highest win rate against bio mine. Did you not read thedwf or naruto keep complaining how a 2-2 zerg ling baneling muta can beat a 3-3 bio mine? It just takes "skill and micro" as they would call it. as for those actions are not micro. well if that isn't micro, what is that? only stutterstepping and spreading and target firing counts as micro now? How about Zerg spreading banelings to follow T bio and baiting mines while using muta sniping mines and medivacs? burrow banelings alone takes more skill to position (to avoid getting scanned) and actually killing the units requires more attention than a widow mine. And 10 banelings can kill 70 supply of marines. one widow mine can blow up 15 banelings without any attention from T and banelings even cost gas to make. and no, banelings controls are not a move, you actually have to split them to follow the split bio. saying that is a move is just saying spreading bio is a move lol and it's funny how you put all those units as counter. yes, because we all know swarmhost, queen and hydras are totally viable in ZvT engagement. and are you seriously complaining about friendly fire when medivacs are easier to keep alive and able to heal up the marines while widow mine one shotting a group of banelings which effectively is only counter to marines?
I've never seen a zerg split the banelings to follow each group that the terran splits into. The most I've seen is zerg splitting the banelings into 3. 1 for flank, and the main baneling force into 2. Never have I seen zerg split the banelings so that they would follow each terran bio-group. Marauder transition is almost impossible if the zerg manages to get out some infestors with the ultras. Ultras will actually kill off the marauders if the terran can't kite with the marauders, which is why mixing up a few infestors with the ultras will actually be incredible. It all depends on how aggressive the terran is. If the terran is extremely aggressive reaching 90 drones is impossible, but keeping the terran on 2 bases will make the terran run dry after some aggression. Bio-mine is a composition that is only strong if the terran army has good splits, a good balanced composition. But it will die like any terran bio army cause of the ''OP banelings''. FYI: You contradicted yourself. You said that ''Mines are OP'' while also claiming that ''Zerg can win with 2/2 lingblingmuta against a 3/3 bio-mine.''.. So what the hell is the issue?! The mines are ''op'' but you can win with a huge upgrade disadvantage on equal grounds (If the match wasn't on equal grounds you wouldn't have brought it as an example, right?)? As much as I know the zergs are currently doing better than the terrans in the competitive scene. Although currently I've noticed that about 50% of the Ro16 races in pretty much, in each tourney, are protoss.
I'm not saying that Zerg isn't a race that can't benefit from Micro, what I'm saying is that zerg usually DOESN'T micro too much compared to the terran. For example I think that the pros who roll their banelings over mines without detection, is actually proof that they don't bother microing too much, and rather just smash their forces into the enemy (Not saying that they don't micro at all, the zergs usually like to do flanks and good concaves, but their splitting is of far smaller scale than what terran usually does, which is limited to 3-4 unit groups..)
The reason why terrans use mines is because they have no other option THAT is why we use mines. Not because they're ''op''. Instead of nerfing the mines to the ground and buffing an alternative, like David Kim is intending to do, they should keep both the option of ''should I go for tanks'', ''should i go for widowmines'' or ''should I go for tanks AND widowmines''. Instead of the plan to nerf one thing to make players use another thing. That's an fundamentally wrong way of thinking.
And I'm not insulting the Pro zerg players. Zerg is a hard race to play for different reasons than why a terran is a hard race. Zerg has the hardest macro mechanics from the 3 races. Zerg is all about quick, decisive decision making, and constant map presence, and macro. Just try playing terran, and experience things for yourself. That's the quickest way to understand what I'm talking about.
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?
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 .
To be honest we saw an imbalance not being patched for a long time at the end of WoL and all that happened in terms of adaptation was Parting's soul train. The game got more stale rather than interesting.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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 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 02:30 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=206136 if 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 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 02:01 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...
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.
This guy got it. I wonder if Sundance gets it? All jokes, aside I find myself in a similar boat. Watching much less than I used to and heck there is only so many games I can watch. The WCS format is tiresome. I only intend on going to the Finals if my agenda permits it.
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=206136 if 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.
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-M Do you even play zvt at all?
On October 01 2013 13:59 Brian333 wrote: Oov has some good points, but I think he's just as biased as anyone and it really shows through in what he says.
Yea, progamers should endure, they should try their hardest to deal with the meta-game. They should innovate, look for new strategies and tactics that counter existing ones and push forward the game. But, at the end of the day, they have their motivations as does Oov and David Kim and it's hard to say anyone is right. Just look at Bisu's recent interview where he talks about how hard it is to see the fans disappear, how difficult it becomes to just focus on your practice when you have to question what the purpose is. And, how do you bring those fans back? Make the game harder? Get rid of MBS, auto-mining, and bring back BW unit pathing? As LoL proved, the technical difficulty of the game is not related to the popularity of the game in such a direct way. Are constant patches and changes a bad thing? Does it not happen in other incredibly popular games?
If someone knew how to turn a video-game into a national sport, they would be getting paid an unbelievable amount of money to do so. Nobody knows and I'd say that's because there is no tangible answer.
BW was closest to that answer til Blizzard pulled the plug. The idea at the time of pre-SC2 release was that SC2 was supposed to assume the mantle of BW because the latter had things that were lacking e.g. arcahic B.net UI, graphics etc It was a perfect opportunity to add and build upon what I saw as a strong foundation (a perfect opportunity to update the game). It was the game to carry the 10 years of starcraft and all its glory.
Yet they went ahead and destroyed the foundation where the game was basically living off the BW popularity. Same thing happened with D3. No chat channels? no PvP? Everything that made starcraft through the original game and its expansion so awesome was a shell of its former self from game play, single player, story development and even ghost.net 2.0.
Except BW was clearly on a decline before Blizzard pulled the plug and I don't think anyone thought it was going to last. Problems such as STX's withdrawal from SC2 didn't suddenly happen. It would've happened regardless of if they were playing SC2 or BW. The truth is LoL is anything but BW and yet it's more popular now than BW is. If you're trying to tell me that an updated UI and graphics are what was needed to make BW more popular than LoL, then it goes back to my earlier point. There is nothing to suggest a face-lifted BW is going to work.
Its decline was mainly due to the imminent release of SC2 around 2010. Then Blizzard just randomly shows up after all these years and starts a lawsuit over KeSPA and its illegal use of BW. There was far too much negativity surrounding Blizzard and its actions toward BW. They indirectly killed MBCgames and the fabled MSL. They ignored OGN and KeSPA while riding on the 10 years of popularity built by them. They gave GOM, an ametuer organisation (to the korean viewers - also refer to the GOM classics) when it came to starleagues (and rival I suppose to the big two) during that time the broadcasting rights. No SC2 from the major broadcasting stations especially the legendary OGN and constant threats of pulling the plug on BW by one and only Blizzard. It was literally doom and gloom across multiple korean starcraft forums. But the damage was done here and thats why HOTS is having so much trouble taking off while WoL never took off among the casuals and fans.
If SC2 did not exist, BW still do this day would be huge in Korea. It would still be the same with some fluctuation. I can see BW vs LoL being more of an even playing field in Korea. Thats the difference. SC2 brought in a huge foreign scene thanks to the game being easier, more updated in terms of graphics and what not.. however it is clearly deteriorating the korean starcraft scene from a progamer and fan perspective. It was saddening to see literally 5 people turn up to watch the proleague... Ive been there several times and it was ALWAYS packed with fan girls always cheering for their favorite team/players, starting the countdown for every match.
Of course LoL is more popular than BW. The BW scene is buried in peace now. But just wind back to 2010, the release year for SC2. This is when Korean Air OSL Finals between Flash vs Effort took place. Just look at the crowd. BW could have been on a decline.. but it was no way shape or form going to die out just like that. If Bisu made it to an OSL final, i cannot fathom how fast the seats would have filled up. I repeat, if Bisu made it to an OSL finals the world would have exploded. I would eat a hat if less people turned up for this final than the korean air osl finals. No LoL tournament would out match this in any way shape or form in terms of viewership, crowds, cheers w/e.
People need to realise that its the korean scene that is deteriorating fast, not the foreign scene. As for what would happen if the Korean scene collapses all together, I don't know. Maybe more determined players will go over to EU/US to play? Fact of the matter is that starcraft is in a really dire state in Korea. If BW rose from the grave in Korea, it would instantly overtake SC2 popularity over there (with alot of retired players coming back). There is not a single shred of a doubt about this..
All I see here are excuses. I'll make it simple for you. If BW was strong enough, Blizzard wouldn't have been able to kill it and SC2 wouldn't have had any influence on it. The problem is it was in a state of decline with no real future and that opened the door for those events to happen. So again, back to my original point, BW in the past was that answer but it was not the answer going forward. People change. Society changes. Trends change. BW was the right game at the right time. LoL, a game that is very different from BW, is apparently the right game for these times.
Maybe Im making too much sense here. It doesn't matter if the BW scene is strong or not, its Blizzards property and that's what they were enforcing at the time. To me, it was the wrong decision, to kill BW off and then force SC2 onto the Korean scene which is what happened.
You keep stating this "no real future" and state of decline, but like Ive shown you pre-2010, the game was not going to go anywhere fast. Prove to me otherwise because all evidence points to the fact that it would still do great for many years to come.
Why isn't it the answer? Yes people change, society changes but did soccer radically change? or did basketball radically change? The fundamentals relatively remained intact with those sports and have survived all these years of changes to trend/people/society. For me, BW wasn't just a game but a sport and thats what the end goal was for alot of BW pro veterans. Maybe its a weird concept for you to grasp but unlike hundreds of games out there, SC:BW was just different in the fact that it felt like a sport.
If Riot in 2 years time changed their stance (become stubborn like blizzard when it came to community feedback for instance), released LoL2 which fundamentally became different to its predecessor and decided to scuttle the established LoL scene so that LoL2 can set foot.. would also result in that game being buried.
This so called "trashtalk" towards David Kim is totally justified. The way the patching has been done is quite awkward and is making many people miss the old days of BroodWar.
"Let's compare the two games; In SC1, they only released bug patches and was relatively untouched for ten years. We would do starleagues where at times there would only be one or two protosses. Terrans would occupy more than half the pool. If David Kim were there at that time he would have buffed protoss. That would have meant that we would have been without the exciting and awe-inspiring play of Bisu's prime. Protoss was the minority race and difficult. Thus, its play was given birth to by players like Reach and Nal_Ra. To be frank, I think it is David Kim who creates the winner when it is the gamer who must create the game. It doesn't matter what I say though; the truth is David Kim will keep on tweaking the game. I don't know what his true motives are. Is it to create a 5:5:5 of balance? I truly do not know."
his true motives: to make himself look useful so he can keep his job.
Well.. the guy has a point, but it seems to me that Kim n co. have already reconsidered their approach and are now attempting to create diversity through patches rather than just pull out the wolstyle nerfhammer.
Hes basically half-right. While sometimes things work out through maps and such (some call bw such a game though I personally would say terran was favoured), sometimes things dont. Look at wc3 where undead remained shit throughout the game.
I personally really approve of creating more strategic depth through patches, given that its lacking (which it is atm). The upcoming patch is a step in the right direction for sure.
On October 02 2013 07:18 nurle wrote: This so called "trashtalk" towards David Kim is totally justified. The way the patching has been done is quite awkward and is making many people miss the old days of BroodWar.
Which patch? It doesn't benefit you to be vague any more than it does Oov when criticizing DK unless your motive was to shit on him regardless, which is pretty much what this "trashtalk" has amounted to.
Kind of sad and really amazingly interesting to read what oOv has to say about the difference in balancing SC1 and BW, how it made room for amazing storys like Nal_Ra and [OopS]Reach, amazing stories indeed. Thanks for this
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).
On October 01 2013 05:40 disciple wrote: He is right about a lot of things but at the same time he dismisses the fact sc2 doesn't have 8 years of time for build innovations and map making. Blizzard went global with SC2 and foreigners just lose/move their interest whenever they see game commercials on the TV. There's just no time for SC2 to become scbw naturally.
It wouldn't become SC:BW naturally either way lmao. 8 years? Give me a break, we were stuck playing maps like Lost Temple for ages man (remember when everyone used to think that was the most balanced map! :V). We were playing that shit for several years before shit broke out and then you have maps that stuck around for several years as well like Luna, so give me a break. The patches for vanilla SC were short and sweet. They got a lot of things right in a fast amount of time and people losing interest in games is not new. It's been like that since my early NES/Super NES games where the really good ones were billed $120 a pop and people say games are so expensive these days, HA!
BW was settle for the fun from the start, instead sc2 aimed from the beginning at the competition
On October 02 2013 07:18 nurle wrote: This so called "trashtalk" towards David Kim is totally justified. The way the patching has been done is quite awkward and is making many people miss the old days of BroodWar.
He has to patch the game though to create better gameplay! The real problem is that Sc2 is build upon a flawed economic model, both in terms of income and macroeconomics, which really makes turtling way too rewarded. So to compensate for this, he has found it neccesary to make OP harass-oriented units.
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).
People never changed their playstyle in WoL and knew that they could just whine to change the game instead.
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).
Not only that but part of the reason the metagame in Broodwar developed was there was constantly new maps.
In SC2 I'm finding it every hard to actually pick out a map (outside of the proleague ones) that has any form of different possibly playstyles on it compared to every other god damn map.
Maps like Daybreak, Bel'shir Vestige, Ohana, Cloud Kingdom and other build'a block maps really helped stagnate SC2 in WoL and it's happening again.
Oh god oov is smart. I also think that the fact that 99% of the maps we use are playable with your standard build hurts a lot. I really wish blizzard would hire some ex pros/coaches to do david kims work. This is why I hate to see blizzard listen to reddit/tl, people will always scream "imba imba imba" at something before we give time to the players to fix it themselves, and then blizzard comes around and patches it to make the fans happy, while in reality making the game worse. I mean things like nerfing tank damage while playing on crap like steps of war, nerfing 4 gate like 5 times after it was no longer an issue on the pro level, nerfing blue flame super quickly after people started to realize it's power, nerfing hellbats because droping them broke 1 matchup etc. pp. are all changes that continue to make the game worse.
On October 02 2013 18:45 Lorch wrote: Oh god oov is smart. I also think that the fact that 99% of the maps we use are playable with your standard build hurts a lot. I really wish blizzard would hire some ex pros/coaches to do david kims work. This is why I hate to see blizzard listen to reddit/tl, people will always scream "imba imba imba" at something before we give time to the players to fix it themselves, and then blizzard comes around and patches it to make the fans happy, while in reality making the game worse. I mean things like nerfing tank damage while playing on crap like steps of war, nerfing 4 gate like 5 times after it was no longer an issue on the pro level, nerfing blue flame super quickly after people started to realize it's power, nerfing hellbats because droping them broke 1 matchup etc. pp. are all changes that continue to make the game worse.
Out of all nerfs you had to pick warp gates and hellbats. One that made PvP be all about the 4-gate and the other to make TvT be all about the hellbat drops. Seriously those changes had to happen. If they were still left then PvP would still be all about 4-gates and TvT would still be all about hellbats drops. Not neccesarily bad but it leads to a heavily stagnate gameplay.
"But Blizzard told us they are frequently talking with Progamers" /Irony off
Iloveoov hits the point here, they don't even listen to players like Boxer. We need an oracle buff, we need a roach buff, we need to nerf the widow mine and so on.
Some ppl create innovative builds, but hey the noobs say "Wow this is too strong NERF IT" and then Blizzard nerfs it or throws out a buff for the opposing race.
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.
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-M Do 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.
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-M Do 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.
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-M Do 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 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-M Do 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.
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-M Do 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 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-M Do 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
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-M Do 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 02:56 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.
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-M Do 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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Maybe this is a fun thought: because in BW the high level players are restricted by mechanics, there is actually a smaller group of them and they are likely to be more strategically naive (compared to SC2 where high level players have to be good at both and there are more high level players), so there is a lot of room to outplay them with strategy in-game. It's one of the reasons Flash was so good: great at mechanics and at decision making, but the reason he could stand out for the latter was because his competition were people like Bisu and Jaedong, whom aren't known for perfect decision making. I mean, how often will we see Effort or Jaedong or some other player with monstrous apm lose game after game in sc2 because their decision making is awful?
On October 01 2013 05:45 GhostFiber wrote: David Kim ruining the game. I think it's too late now... He should keep balancing SC2, finish what he started.. He has already killed off so many super risky and suspense driven builds like the WoL reaper, Queen rush, Thor drops, etc. He should just continue to kill everything off because that is what Blizzard pay him to do.
To be fair, what killed many of those strats was the fact that maps got bigger and bigger and bigger. At least, that heavily contributed to it.
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.
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.
Maybe this is a fun thought: because in BW the high level players are restricted by mechanics, there is actually a smaller group of them and they are likely to be more strategically naive (compared to SC2 where high level players have to be good at both and there are more high level players), so there is a lot of room to outplay them with strategy in-game. It's one of the reasons Flash was so good: great at mechanics and at decision making, but the reason he could stand out for the latter was because his competition were people like Bisu and Jaedong, whom aren't known for perfect decision making. I mean, how often will we see Effort or Jaedong or some other player with monstrous apm lose game after game in sc2 because their decision making is awful?
On May 06 2013 13:12 Hot_Bid wrote: It just sounds like OP wants StarCraft to be something it isn't. He thinks RTS should be more about strategy and less about the mechanical element but it's not. The core of an RTS is that it is a game played with mechanics. The mistake the OP makes is that he believes people who macro better don't deserve the win or that this kind of win shouldn't exist in a "true RTS." It's just what he believes an RTS should be and what the rest (just about everyone else) believes it is.
It's interesting, a lot of people (ie: mostly those who are bad at macro) believe that by removing some or all of the mechanical requirement of starcraft you get more strategies and that "outsmarting" your opponent will be what decides matches. In reality, the opposite is true. No competitive game or RTS can exist without a mechanical requirement of some sort, or the game devolves into copycatting the best strategy and some sort of rock paper scissors guessing game. If you can't out-execute your opponent then you can't consistently beat him. It is very difficult to out-innovate your opponents every time because in today's environment coaches, practice partners, replay analysis, etc your strategies will get analyzed and you will lose, eventually.
Added mechanical ceiling actually adds strategical options. An example would be Bisu in SC1, his DT-corsair strategy isn't new or even super innovative, but it never worked in the proscene before him because nobody could pull it off because of its so ridiculously high skill ceiling. The same is true for a lot of the openings Flash did, he was just so good at positioning and defense that he can take greedy expansions. Remove the mechanical requirements and you remove a lot of the potential innovation and strategy.
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.
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.
Maybe this is a fun thought: because in BW the high level players are restricted by mechanics, there is actually a smaller group of them and they are likely to be more strategically naive (compared to SC2 where high level players have to be good at both and there are more high level players), so there is a lot of room to outplay them with strategy in-game. It's one of the reasons Flash was so good: great at mechanics and at decision making, but the reason he could stand out for the latter was because his competition were people like Bisu and Jaedong, whom aren't known for perfect decision making. I mean, how often will we see Effort or Jaedong or some other player with monstrous apm lose game after game in sc2 because their decision making is awful?
There are a lot of really good players in BW with good mechanics and I wouldn't say that's it at all. You need to have good star sense and believe it or not players don't mindlessly do builds. There is still a lot of creativity and since they've seen so much they know how to flawlessly make their transitions into what they need. I wouldn't call them strategically naive at all. In SC2 positioning is so important and battles can end ridiculously fast. High risk; high reward. You make one very big mistake and that can cost you the game in SC2. It's very hard to make breath-taking comebacks unless your opponent makes a really boneheaded play. There really isn't a lot of room to outplay your opponent in SC2 because the battles do end so much faster and if your army is out of position. Well fuck, if you go back to defend or be indecisive for a split second. You find yourself losing the game. As for Jaedong and Flash in SC2. Their Star sense and transitions are ridiculously bad. They haven't figured out the game. Another thing: always keep your eye on the ball. If you don't that's how bad positioning happens. Know your opponent's army and know where it is at all times.
Well on the other hand if you let the meta game sit then you end up with the end of WoL again with BL/Infestor making half of the non-pros quit the game.
I for one dont like these small changes, I would be a much bigger fan of a massive change every season like they do in LoL. It keeps the game so fresh. I know this would be hard to pull off in an RTS but it could work. Hell there was that famous massive BW patch that fixed everything
iloveoov, a BW terran, was glad that no other race ever got buffed... I woner why... especially when Terran was super OP in the beginning on WoL... and he wanted no balance patches... Like really, you guys need to stop sucking his D. He is just biased as all hell.
k i like iloveoov. Said the same I did a bit after the WoL release. It is sad though that many non competitive players actually love the WoW approach of balance, as the Moba games show. But I like to achieve true mastery and not master the art of adapting the quickest to changes.
On October 29 2013 09:56 Hydro033 wrote: iloveoov, a BW terran, was glad that no other race ever got buffed... I woner why... especially when Terran was super OP in the beginning on WoL... and he wanted no balance patches... Like really, you guys need to stop sucking his D. He is just biased as all hell.
And yet basically all he said after that was praising the BW Protosses and their ingenuity. He brings up a good point that I hadn't really realized before. Good work iloveooc.
EPT
<3
.
![[image loading]](http://yoursmiles.org/msmile/think/m1703.gif)
All jokes, aside I find myself in a similar boat. Watching much less than I used to and heck there is only so many games I can watch. The WCS format is tiresome. I only intend on going to the Finals if my agenda permits it. ![[image loading]](http://staticblogv2.hi-pi.com/images/smileys/tiny/smiley-ok.gif)
