|
On October 30 2013 00:11 SoFrOsTy wrote:
Watch WCS Season 3 finals. Death balls are used by lesser players. BW had deathballs as well. TvP. And TvZ. Oh and PvZ. Yeah every match up.
Not really. Lots of people use deathballs because some units are garbage without synergy.
|
On October 30 2013 00:50 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 00:40 RampancyTW wrote:On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 23:54 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote:
If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing... You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D? He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc  ), you will always get the same income. True, what about mining out part :3? Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would players would have to defend multiple location at once, often to far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. This isn't remotely true for Protoss, Zerg, and meching Terran. Those additional gases are extremely important. The only time more than 3 bases is not ideal is for bio-Terran, but they need additional bases before the other races because MULEs lead to earlier mine-outs. So despite not needing the additional gas income, their need for more mineral income than the other races produces the same need to expand. It's why a 3-base Terran parade push vs. Z is considered an all-in, even though ZOMG IT'S 3 BASES. Not ideal does not mean essential. The problem is that it is far too easy to build a good army and max out on 3 bases, if it took longer because of lower resource intake it would mean a player who successfully establishes 5-6 mining bases would reach a larger and more powerful army way before someone turtling on 3 bases could have enough to move out, thus putting pressure on that player to try and shut those expansions down early, or take more himself. If one base gave 66% or so percent of the current income rates, players would not have a choice if they wanted to build a good army, you'd be forced to move out and be active on the map very quickly, and things like toss 3 base turtle into a fourth once you have a huge army on Akilon would no longer be possible. I can only see good coming from that. But this would literally remove turtling from the game. It's already suboptimal as an option (precisely BECAUSE 3 bases is not ideal), but can be a less-mentally strenuous option to fall back on, which leaves it viable despite it being suboptimal.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
|
On October 30 2013 01:24 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 00:11 SoFrOsTy wrote:
Watch WCS Season 3 finals. Death balls are used by lesser players. BW had deathballs as well. TvP. And TvZ. Oh and PvZ. Yeah every match up. Not really. Lots of people use deathballs because some units are garbage without synergy. Yet the really good players find a way to make those "garbage" units work outside of a deathball context. Hmmm.
|
On October 30 2013 01:01 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I agree that more bases is better because it creates the dynamic of Harass > Turtle > Aggression > Harass which should be the lynchpin of all RTS games but isn't it SC2. Right now Turtle > Aggression and Harass > Moving out of base so we end up with a game where one person turtles until he moves out and the other attacks only when the opponent moves out. Harass > turtle??? No. Just no. When someone is turtling they are spending lots of money on defense, sacrificing mobility and offense. The right strategy against a turtle, in every strategy game ever made, is to expand a lot and out-econ them because they cannot punish your greed because they are turtling.
Sorry for the mistake in terms.
Harass, to me, equates to high mobility. Harass heavy play always has mass expansion along with it. Bio drops, Muta play, etc...
The player who moves faster expands more. They also harass more and is why I label them as harass. The more generalized terms should be.
Mobility > Defensive > All-in/Full Assault > Mobility
|
The proper triangle is Expand+Meatgrinder > Turtle+OP units > Harassment > Expanding.
|
On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 23:54 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote:
If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing... You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D? He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income. True, what about mining out part :3? Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
|
On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 23:54 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote:
If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing... You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D? He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income. True, what about mining out part :3? Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense. Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good. If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. Show nested quote +There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing. I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
|
On October 30 2013 01:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 23:54 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote:
If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing... You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D? He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income. True, what about mining out part :3? Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense. Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good. If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing. I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be. Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like. Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly. Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
|
On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing. I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be. ...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
|
On October 30 2013 02:14 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 01:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 23:54 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote:
If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing... You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D? He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income. True, what about mining out part :3? Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense. Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good. If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing. I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be. Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like. Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly. Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays. Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill. That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins. ...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
|
On October 30 2013 02:16 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:14 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 23:54 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote:
If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing... You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D? He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income. True, what about mining out part :3? Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense. Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good. If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing. I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be. Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like. Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly. Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays. Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill. That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins. ...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case. They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is. As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
|
On October 30 2013 02:28 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:16 RampancyTW wrote:On October 30 2013 02:14 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 23:54 lolfail9001 wrote:
[quote]
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D? He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income. True, what about mining out part :3? Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense. Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good. If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing. I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be. Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like. Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly. Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays. Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill. That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins. ...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case. They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is. As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust. And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases. As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong
not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
|
On October 30 2013 02:40 dangthatsright wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:28 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 RampancyTW wrote:On October 30 2013 02:14 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:[quote] He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income. True, what about mining out part :3? Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense. Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good. If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing. I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be. Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like. Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly. Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays. Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill. That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins. ...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case. They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is. As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust. And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases. As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back. there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
The idea is that all players can work hard enough to be as good as Dear. But the current system allows them to be relaxed enough to simply play well instead of their best.
Good example of this is Demuslim. Same build all day err day. Doesn't scout, doesn't innovate. Why? Because he wins often enough with his style that he'd rather make less mistakes doing the easier play than push himself to be perfect.
The belief is that if we make the easy play no longer as effective as the difficult play, then people will start only practicing the difficult play. Because we believe that the current players are good enough to handle it.
|
On October 30 2013 02:40 dangthatsright wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:28 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 RampancyTW wrote:On October 30 2013 02:14 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:[quote] He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income. True, what about mining out part :3? Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense. Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good. If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing. I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be. Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like. Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly. Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays. Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill. That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins. ...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case. They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is. As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust. And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases. As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back. there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
They don't remove pieces from chess to make it easier for a mediocre player to compete with a grand master.
Edit: Magpie has it about right there, people will rarely leave their comfort zone unless forcibly ejected.
|
...So now it's the game's fault that players are choosing not to play and practice better strategies. Got it.
How about we let this correct itself, which it will inevitably do?
|
On October 30 2013 02:47 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:40 dangthatsright wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 RampancyTW wrote:On October 30 2013 02:14 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote:
[quote]
True, what about mining out part :3? Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns. If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense. Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good. If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing. I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be. Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like. Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly. Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays. Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill. That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins. ...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case. They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is. As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust. And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases. As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back. there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players They don't remove pieces from chess to make it easier for a mediocre player to compete with a grand master. Edit: Magpie has it about right there, people will rarely leave their comfort zone unless forcibly ejected. They don't remove chess pieces to make it harder, either.
|
On October 30 2013 02:59 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:47 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 02:40 dangthatsright wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 RampancyTW wrote:On October 30 2013 02:14 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote:
[quote]
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing. Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense. Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good. If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing. I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be. Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like. Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly. Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays. Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill. That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins. ...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case. They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is. As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust. And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases. As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back. there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players They don't remove pieces from chess to make it easier for a mediocre player to compete with a grand master. Edit: Magpie has it about right there, people will rarely leave their comfort zone unless forcibly ejected. They don't remove chess pieces to make it harder, either.
That would not make it harder, it would make it more simplistic. Forcing people to use difficult strats by buffing them and nerfing easy builds is what is being proposed, not removing things. If people want to turtle and deathball they could still do that, only it would terrible strategy, not just at the WCS finals level, but anywhere above diamond.
I see that as a good goal to aim for, I think the game should constantly try to emphasize difficult strategies and discourage easy and safe ones.
|
On October 30 2013 03:05 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:59 RampancyTW wrote:On October 30 2013 02:47 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 02:40 dangthatsright wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 RampancyTW wrote:On October 30 2013 02:14 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote:
[quote]
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers
B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3).
Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units.
So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread.
And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense. Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good. If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing. I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be. Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like. Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly. Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays. Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill. That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins. ...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case. They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is. As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust. And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases. As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back. there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players They don't remove pieces from chess to make it easier for a mediocre player to compete with a grand master. Edit: Magpie has it about right there, people will rarely leave their comfort zone unless forcibly ejected. They don't remove chess pieces to make it harder, either. That would not make it harder, it would make it more simplistic. Forcing people to use difficult strats by buffing them and nerfing easy builds is what is being proposed, not removing things. If people want to turtle and deathball they could still do that, only it would terrible strategy, not just at the WCS finals level, but anywhere above diamond. I see that as a good goal to aim for, I think the game should constantly try to emphasize difficult strategies and discourage easy and safe ones. In order for this to work, you'd have to make SC2 more simplistic as well. Slow units would be pretty much obsolete, unless they were horribly overpowered in low numbers, which would presumably make them overpowered in the context of an eventual deathball.
Turtling being a viable strategy is fine, and a necessary part of the game. Turtle-->deathball might not always be exciting, but it should be at the high level as the turtler seeks to harrass their opponent and the their opponent seeks to abuse mobility etc. Without that option it would be nearly-exclusively a multitasking/mobility war in every single matchup, which would simplify the game and stagnate variety.
The game is fine as is, and the amount of work that would be required to change it in a remotely interesting/balanced way would not be at all worth the minimal reward.
|
On October 30 2013 02:58 RampancyTW wrote:
...So now it's the game's fault that players are choosing not to play and practice better strategies. Got it.
How about we let this correct itself, which it will inevitably do?
It depends on what you're responding to.
I provided examples that the tools are already present for exciting gameplay. However, the base mechanics of how units move and how resources are collected creates unnecessary dead time that could be amended.
Some people believe things can be fixed by bringing in units or removing units; I disagree with that because it would not remove the dead time, it would simply change the unit choices.
barrin's changes (for example) does nothing to the game save remove mineral patches. Its the least invasive and does not change how the game plays.
we could also do the starbow change where units are in essence forced to glitch just to change timings. I disagree with that method but I will not disagree with its effectiveness.
Units don't have to be removed. Ai doesn't need to be tweaked. If they help they help but they're not necessary. What is being asked by me and by others (I presume) is for 3 things.
A.) force players to build more bases. That way more of the map is filled up.
B.) Reduce the early game dead time currently in the game that way action starts in 5ish minutes instead of 10ish minutes.
C.) easier to spot micro movements. I'm not asking for MORE micro, I just want to be able to better see the micro we already have.
|
On October 30 2013 03:15 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 03:05 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 02:59 RampancyTW wrote:On October 30 2013 02:47 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 02:40 dangthatsright wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 RampancyTW wrote:On October 30 2013 02:14 Squat wrote:On October 30 2013 01:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote:
[quote]
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
[quote]
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be. Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like. Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly. Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays. Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill. That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins. ...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case. They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is. As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust. And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases. As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back. there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players They don't remove pieces from chess to make it easier for a mediocre player to compete with a grand master. Edit: Magpie has it about right there, people will rarely leave their comfort zone unless forcibly ejected. They don't remove chess pieces to make it harder, either. That would not make it harder, it would make it more simplistic. Forcing people to use difficult strats by buffing them and nerfing easy builds is what is being proposed, not removing things. If people want to turtle and deathball they could still do that, only it would terrible strategy, not just at the WCS finals level, but anywhere above diamond. I see that as a good goal to aim for, I think the game should constantly try to emphasize difficult strategies and discourage easy and safe ones. In order for this to work, you'd have to make SC2 more simplistic as well. Slow units would be pretty much obsolete, unless they were horribly overpowered in low numbers, which would presumably make them overpowered in the context of an eventual deathball. Turtling being a viable strategy is fine, and a necessary part of the game. Turtle-->deathball might not always be exciting, but it should be at the high level as the turtler seeks to harrass their opponent and the their opponent seeks to abuse mobility etc. Without that option it would be nearly-exclusively a multitasking/mobility war in every single matchup, which would simplify the game and stagnate variety. The game is fine as is, and the amount of work that would be required to change it in a remotely interesting/balanced way would not be at all worth the minimal reward.
Fair enough, seems like we've exhausted this. You see the game as largely fine, I don't, and I doubt that's going to change either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
