| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 31 2013 02:03 Plansix wrote: The Terran space trucker music majestic. The rest is pretty middling. Yeah, but that's about it. And nothing ever beats BW Terran sound track. | ||
|
Elldar
Sweden287 Posts
On October 28 2013 17:08 iMAniaC wrote: Very interesting reads! One point in particular that got me thinking was this: However, looking at Brood War, many of the splash damage units were not actually splash damage units in a mobile deathball. The Siege Tank could not dish out splash damage while moving, so it was useless in a moving deathball. The Lurker could not attack at all unless buried, so it was useless in a moving deathball. The Reaver - well, you wouldn't want to have that unit in the middle of your deathball and you wouldn't want to have it too exposed either. So Brood War had several mechanics that (perhaps accidentally) made the splash damage units pretty worthless in deathballs. I find that interesting  I don't mean to make any implicit arguments about SC2 with this, though, I just wanted to point out something I found interesting after reading the blog and post. No, siege tanks, lurkers and reavers were not useless in deathball battles. It was just harder to outmaneuver the other since they were slow/had to be still to shoot, or had some fragile element to it ,e.g., shuttle. Not to say that BW for instance did not have death balls. Mech could have death ball pushes against toss in bw, and toss had some archon/reaver etc type death balls against zerg. Sc is based on large army engagements and harassment/small hit squads generally speaking. Sc2 does not need to break up the death ball, Blizzard should instead focus on making the death ball more appealing/funnier/harder(strategically, mechanically) to execute. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 31 2013 03:17 Elldar wrote: No, siege tanks, lurkers and reavers were not useless in deathball battles. It was just harder to outmaneuver the other since they were slow/had to be still to shoot, or had some fragile element to it ,e.g., shuttle. Not to say that BW for instance did not have death balls. Mech could have death ball pushes against toss in bw, and toss had some archon/reaver etc type death balls against zerg. Sc is based on large army engagements and harassment/small hit squads generally speaking. Sc2 does not need to break up the death ball, Blizzard should instead focus on making the death ball more appealing/funnier/harder(strategically, mechanically) to execute. I know you meant "more fun" but I love the idea of making death balls Funnier + Show Spoiler + And yes, I'm imagining starcrafts right now | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 31 2013 02:58 neptunusfisk wrote: all whiners in this thread should catch up with the meta and see if their predjudices are correct + Show Spoiler + They are? That games ends with a ball vs ball fight and that's the problem. If you look at an RTS there's really 2 parts to it: -The part where you stay alive -The part where you win (ie decisively commit to trying to take the game) Staying alive in SC2 has always been reasonably robust. You have the classic turtle, the greedy expander, and the harasser (harassing can give you an advantage/win which is why it's great, but tactically it's also really important as a way to gain space and stay alive). All three get represented to a decent degree. It's the 2nd part that has a problem. In SC2 when it comes down to that 'part where you win' it's almost entirely reliant on the single tactic of 'ball'. Ball being an army that you just jam down your opponents throat in an attempt to choke them. So what is needed is more variety in that 2nd category. When you look at BW by comparison that's where things like mech, Sauron/swarm-y zerg, or arbiters come into play. These styles of winning moves are fundamentally different from ball vs ball attacks in how they execute. It's not longer about facing ball vs ball or just getting lucky in a harass. You're fundamentally relying on some different mechanism of confrontation to resolve the game. Again there's a long list of reasons why, but fundamentally SC2 fails in providing variety at this point and we just see ball vs ball. When ball is the only tactic to really reliably try to make a winning move you see people play entirely towards that. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 31 2013 03:22 Thieving Magpie wrote: I know you meant "more fun" but I love the idea of making death balls Funnier + Show Spoiler + And yes, I'm imagining starcrafts right now Deathballs now glue themselves to each other and are drawn carbot style. | ||
|
Xequecal
United States473 Posts
In SC2, Terran units are vastly more cost-effective than the units of the other races. In the early game, this is balanced by inefficient and cumbersome production. A barracks takes 25 seconds to make a 50-mineral marine, while a warpgate produces a 100-mineral zealot in 28 seconds. In the late game, this advantage is balanced by poor supply-efficiency. Marines are supremely cost effective, but pretty much every X supply unit in the game beats X marines. Protoss are the exact opposite. None of their units are cost-effective, and this is balanced by cheap, efficient, and quick production in the early game and the best supply-efficiency in the late game. A 300/200 colossus builds in 75 seconds and a 250/150 void ray builds in 45 seconds, while Terran needs 60 seconds to produce a 150/100 banshee or 150/125 siege tank. Protoss HAS to deathball. None of their units can compete resource-for-resource with the other two races. The Immortal is supposed to be the hardest-of-hard counters to armored units, yet it sure as hell can't beat 3 Marauders or 4 Roaches. I'm pretty sure 14 Marines would beat a Colossus too. This contrasting design is the cause of most of the balance problems. 1/1/1 and 11/11 were so dominant in early WoL because they allowed Terran to force a low-economy game, which they would never lose because of their cost-effectiveness advantage. Infestors were broken because they gave free-supply infested terrans that let Zerg take the supply-effectiveness mantle away from Protoss. Now, in HotS, Protoss has the advantage because the games go longer and their 200/200 army is just plain better than the 200/200 armies of the other two races. The resource system is also why you'll never see certain strategies in SC2. Terran Mech HAS to suck, if it was viable, it would be completely overpowered. With the SC2 economy maxing out on only 3 mining bases, there is no effective counter to a Terran mech army slow-pushing over your third and completely destroying your economy. In BW where you could have 5+ expansions you could give up one in exchange for recalling into their main and come out massively ahead if not winning outright. In SC2 if you trade your third base for the Terran's main you've basically lost. Your main is near mined out and you can't possibly produce enough units off your remaining resources simply to beat the units that they have out now. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 31 2013 03:26 lolfail9001 wrote: Deathballs now glue themselves to each other and are drawn carbot style. I will only accept it if an Odin rolls it like a bowling ball as a Torasque plays with it like a cat fiddling with a ball of yarn. | ||
|
DeCoder
Finland236 Posts
On October 28 2013 16:54 freakhill wrote: Do you think it is possible to block unit from shooting through each other with the map editor? Ta-da! Ladies and gents, problem solved right there. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 31 2013 03:57 Thieving Magpie wrote: I will only accept it if an Odin rolls it like a bowling ball as a Torasque plays with it like a cat fiddling with a ball of yarn.They need to implement both in the multiplayer for that :D | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 31 2013 03:53 Xequecal wrote: There's no way you can stop "deathball" play in SC2, especially Protoss deathballs, as it's baked into the basic design of the game. In SC2, Terran units are vastly more cost-effective than the units of the other races. In the early game, this is balanced by inefficient and cumbersome production. A barracks takes 25 seconds to make a 50-mineral marine, while a warpgate produces a 100-mineral zealot in 28 seconds. In the late game, this advantage is balanced by poor supply-efficiency. Marines are supremely cost effective, but pretty much every X supply unit in the game beats X marines. Protoss are the exact opposite. None of their units are cost-effective, and this is balanced by cheap, efficient, and quick production in the early game and the best supply-efficiency in the late game. A 300/200 colossus builds in 75 seconds and a 250/150 void ray builds in 45 seconds, while Terran needs 60 seconds to produce a 150/100 banshee or 150/125 siege tank. Protoss HAS to deathball. None of their units can compete resource-for-resource with the other two races. The Immortal is supposed to be the hardest-of-hard counters to armored units, yet it sure as hell can't beat 3 Marauders or 4 Roaches. I'm pretty sure 14 Marines would beat a Colossus too. This contrasting design is the cause of most of the balance problems. 1/1/1 and 11/11 were so dominant in early WoL because they allowed Terran to force a low-economy game, which they would never lose because of their cost-effectiveness advantage. Infestors were broken because they gave free-supply infested terrans that let Zerg take the supply-effectiveness mantle away from Protoss. Now, in HotS, Protoss has the advantage because the games go longer and their 200/200 army is just plain better than the 200/200 armies of the other two races. The resource system is also why you'll never see certain strategies in SC2. Terran Mech HAS to suck, if it was viable, it would be completely overpowered. With the SC2 economy maxing out on only 3 mining bases, there is no effective counter to a Terran mech army slow-pushing over your third and completely destroying your economy. In BW where you could have 5+ expansions you could give up one in exchange for recalling into their main and come out massively ahead if not winning outright. In SC2 if you trade your third base for the Terran's main you've basically lost. Your main is near mined out and you can't possibly produce enough units off your remaining resources simply to beat the units that they have out now. While your points seem correct (specifically terran ones) i've decided to check the protoss ones. Immortal without upgrades beats 4 roaches and 3 marauders without upgrades. Collosi without range beats 14 unupgraded marines with basic stutter step. Just some factual errors. | ||
|
ffadicted
United States3545 Posts
On October 31 2013 03:53 Xequecal wrote: There's no way you can stop "deathball" play in SC2, especially Protoss deathballs, as it's baked into the basic design of the game. In SC2, Terran units are vastly more cost-effective than the units of the other races. In the early game, this is balanced by inefficient and cumbersome production. A barracks takes 25 seconds to make a 50-mineral marine, while a warpgate produces a 100-mineral zealot in 28 seconds. In the late game, this advantage is balanced by poor supply-efficiency. Marines are supremely cost effective, but pretty much every X supply unit in the game beats X marines. Protoss are the exact opposite. None of their units are cost-effective, and this is balanced by cheap, efficient, and quick production in the early game and the best supply-efficiency in the late game. A 300/200 colossus builds in 75 seconds and a 250/150 void ray builds in 45 seconds, while Terran needs 60 seconds to produce a 150/100 banshee or 150/125 siege tank. Protoss HAS to deathball. None of their units can compete resource-for-resource with the other two races. The Immortal is supposed to be the hardest-of-hard counters to armored units, yet it sure as hell can't beat 3 Marauders or 4 Roaches. I'm pretty sure 14 Marines would beat a Colossus too. This contrasting design is the cause of most of the balance problems. 1/1/1 and 11/11 were so dominant in early WoL because they allowed Terran to force a low-economy game, which they would never lose because of their cost-effectiveness advantage. Infestors were broken because they gave free-supply infested terrans that let Zerg take the supply-effectiveness mantle away from Protoss. Now, in HotS, Protoss has the advantage because the games go longer and their 200/200 army is just plain better than the 200/200 armies of the other two races. The resource system is also why you'll never see certain strategies in SC2. Terran Mech HAS to suck, if it was viable, it would be completely overpowered. With the SC2 economy maxing out on only 3 mining bases, there is no effective counter to a Terran mech army slow-pushing over your third and completely destroying your economy. In BW where you could have 5+ expansions you could give up one in exchange for recalling into their main and come out massively ahead if not winning outright. In SC2 if you trade your third base for the Terran's main you've basically lost. Your main is near mined out and you can't possibly produce enough units off your remaining resources simply to beat the units that they have out now. Goddamn this was a good post. Pretty much every point was nailed perfectly here. Just wanted to bring more attention to this post. I think the biggest flaws of sc2 are the quick econ max outs combined with the lack of defender's adv. I think right now if you increase late game defender's adv, the game would just be flat out broken-turtle styles, due to this max out. If both issues were fixed simultaneously though, I think that would go a long way in fixing A LOT of the biggest issues with sc2 (turtle, deathball, game ending after 1 battle, etc etc). IMO, you should struggle to reach max on 3 quick bases | ||
|
SoFrOsTy
United States525 Posts
Wrong. Every match up ground vs ground was a deathball in BW except for TvT and ZvZ. Watch any high Kevel TvP. Aside from run bys and drops which also exist in SC2, a big toss army maxed would crash into a big terran army. Death balls. | ||
|
Startyr
Scotland188 Posts
http://wcs.battle.net/sc2/en#schedule It features constant engagements throughout the game. Maru was dropping in multiple locations, Dear was defending in multiple locations while also doing his own storm drops. Dear's drops ultimately did more damage than Maru's Dear was behind in supply for most of the game yet his gas income was never hurt which allowed him to efficiently defend as well as counter drop. (One ht had 12 kills, later in the series a widow mine had 11 kills before anyone trys to say templar are too efficient) Dear slowly gained a lead throughout the game, towards the end he had a worker lead (53 probes to 39 scv at the end) ahead in tech(chargelot, blink stalker, archon, storm, immortal, colossus vs just marine, marauder, medivac) and ahead in upgrades(3,3 vs 3,2) The loss of his third means he will be weak LATER so it forces him to gather his units and push now or he will eventually be overwhelmed as he wont have the income to keep up. Complaing that there was a final 'deathball' engagement is like whenever you are looking for something and saying it is always in the last place you look, of course it is, once you have found it you stop looking. Games generally build up to a point where one player has to win an engagement, that is part of the strategy. There is a reason that that was a semi final match, many player can not cope with multiple engagements in multiple locations which is why they do not get to be at the finals, so what exactly is the problem? is it more that people are just over saturated with seeing the same units and similar engagements again and again? All races have units that have the potential to be incredibly efficient, the efficiency changes depending on how a game plays out. | ||
|
skipdog172
United States331 Posts
Which pro games are you watching where 1 player sends his deathball into another player's deathball a-move style and the game ends randomly? It is quite clear where and how players win and lose games and I just don't get what the point of this anti-deathball mentality truly is. | ||
|
RifleCow
Canada637 Posts
On October 31 2013 03:26 Logo wrote: They are? That games ends with a ball vs ball fight and that's the problem. If you look at an RTS there's really 2 parts to it: -The part where you stay alive -The part where you win (ie decisively commit to trying to take the game) Staying alive in SC2 has always been reasonably robust. You have the classic turtle, the greedy expander, and the harasser (harassing can give you an advantage/win which is why it's great, but tactically it's also really important as a way to gain space and stay alive). All three get represented to a decent degree. It's the 2nd part that has a problem. In SC2 when it comes down to that 'part where you win' it's almost entirely reliant on the single tactic of 'ball'. Ball being an army that you just jam down your opponents throat in an attempt to choke them. So what is needed is more variety in that 2nd category. When you look at BW by comparison that's where things like mech, Sauron/swarm-y zerg, or arbiters come into play. These styles of winning moves are fundamentally different from ball vs ball attacks in how they execute. It's not longer about facing ball vs ball or just getting lucky in a harass. You're fundamentally relying on some different mechanism of confrontation to resolve the game. Again there's a long list of reasons why, but fundamentally SC2 fails in providing variety at this point and we just see ball vs ball. When ball is the only tactic to really reliably try to make a winning move you see people play entirely towards that. I disagree. Nada's tornado terran last push is definition of death ball. One guy has small army because of vulture harass you have large army -> Unsiege -> A-MOVE. Game winning fights with arbiters is also very similar. Use arbiter, freeze tanks in back -> Spread zealots and dragoons and A-MOVE -> Storm stuff. Whats boring is just sitting in your base until 200/200 and then attacking once. Dear vs Maru was as good or better than most BW games. No other fights except for 1 deathball fight = deathball play. Ending with deathball != deathball play. | ||
|
lamprey1
Canada919 Posts
| ||
|
Joner
51 Posts
The two most criticized units in this game, the colussus and the sentry, have not ever been touched nor tweaked in any way or form, despite numerous complaints from the community since early on in SC2's lifespan. Instead things have been balanced around them. Even maps. The fundamental issues of SC2 revolving deathballs will be around until the design team are willing to recognize the early mistakes made and revert them. Look at diablo 3. It didn't live up to it's name and now it's basically slowly turning into its predecessor, which was actually a good game. I'm not saying make it like broodwar. I'm just saying fix it. | ||
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
On October 31 2013 06:30 Joner wrote: If blizzard had just straight up removed the collossus from the game in early WoL, we could have had alot more to work with now to counteract the deathball phenomenon. It could've been removed and gateway units could've been buffed to meassure the other races early core units. The two most criticized units in this game, the colussus and the sentry, have not ever been touched nor tweaked in any way or form, despite numerous complaints from the community since early on in SC2's lifespan. Instead things have been balanced around them. Even maps. The fundamental issues of SC2 revolving deathballs will be around until the design team are willing to recognize the early mistakes made and revert them. Look at diablo 3. It didn't live up to it's name and now it's basically slowly turning into its predecessor, which was actually a good game. I'm not saying make it like broodwar. I'm just saying fix it. The question is how would you address the missing role of the sentry/colossus. The entire game would have to be re-balanced most likely. Sentries are fine(removing sentries would break it the most) imo but Colossus could probably be removed/altered. | ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
On October 31 2013 05:51 RifleCow wrote: I disagree. Nada's tornado terran last push is definition of death ball. One guy has small army because of vulture harass you have large army -> Unsiege -> A-MOVE. Game winning fights with arbiters is also very similar. Use arbiter, freeze tanks in back -> Spread zealots and dragoons and A-MOVE -> Storm stuff. Whats boring is just sitting in your base until 200/200 and then attacking once. Dear vs Maru was as good or better than most BW games. No other fights except for 1 deathball fight = deathball play. Ending with deathball != deathball play. You should go read my post on the previous page. It not only completely proves you wrong it also shows you a game from Nada himself. In bw Tvp getting 200/200 is just the foreplay. | ||
|
lamprey1
Canada919 Posts
On October 31 2013 06:30 Joner wrote: If blizzard had just straight up removed the collossus from the game in early WoL... The two most criticized units in this game, the colussus and the sentry, have not ever been touched nor tweaked in any way or form, despite numerous complaints from the community since early on in SC2's lifespan. Instead things have been balanced around them. Even maps. I'm not saying make it like broodwar. I'm just saying fix it. to be fair BW maps have been adjusted and tweaked around the Siege Tank. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
The PondCast
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Serral vs TBD
BSL 21
BSL 21
|
|
|
EPT
