It's one the reasons why mass colossi is so dumb, it's exponentially stronger the more you add, as there is no real cap on how many can be in use at once.
I'm far from the biggest Colossi fan (in fact, I'd argue that Dear is literally the first player I've ever seen who uses Colossi in a way that is fun or entertaining at all), but this is simply untrue. Colossi have the worst health per cost in the game (so if you don't have units to tank for them they die super fast), are obviously vulnerable to attacks from air (so you need to balance your Colossi numbers against the anti-air necessary to defend them), and have some incredibly hard counters that cause you to instalose the game if you overbuilt Colossi (like a Tempest switch in PvP, which will simply demolish any Protoss who got more than 4 or so Colossi, or teching to Vipers in ZvP).
Colossi are imo one of the more boring units in the Protoss arsenal, but "players can just build them en masse with no downsides" is actually just not even a little bit true. In all matchups, Colossi are useful, but you want between 2 and 5 depending on your respective army compositions, and once you go over that you become really vulnerable to hardcounters and any air-heavy composition.
I do not like the BW>SC2 comparison and how it took 7 years to balance out.
1) BW was not meant to be a esport of anykind. It was created by it own 2) blizzard did not make the game balanced completely. It was only balanced because of what it became.
SC2 was DESIGNED for 1v1 and DESIGNED for esport with the INTENTION to be as balanced as possible When there is a problem. We need to fucking address it.
It's one the reasons why mass colossi is so dumb, it's exponentially stronger the more you add, as there is no real cap on how many can be in use at once.
I'm far from the biggest Colossi fan (in fact, I'd argue that Dear is literally the first player I've ever seen who uses Colossi in a way that is fun or entertaining at all), but this is simply untrue. Colossi have the worst health per cost in the game (so if you don't have units to tank for them they die super fast), are obviously vulnerable to attacks from air (so you need to balance your Colossi numbers against the anti-air necessary to defend them), and have some incredibly hard counters that cause you to instalose the game if you overbuilt Colossi (like a Tempest switch in PvP, which will simply demolish any Protoss who got more than 4 or so Colossi, or teching to Vipers in ZvP).
Colossi are imo one of the more boring units in the Protoss arsenal, but "players can just build them en masse with no downsides" is actually just not even a little bit true. In all matchups, Colossi are useful, but you want between 2 and 5 depending on your respective army compositions, and once you go over that you become really vulnerable to hardcounters and any air-heavy composition.
That's not actually what I meant, I meant that there is almost no real cap on how many can be in use, as in attacking at once, within the confines of the 200 supply limit and the need for workers and other units. As for army comp, I'm sure there are lots of situations where you want few or even no colossus.
It's not a point about the unit being OP, but merely dumb.
On October 29 2013 01:50 Eggi wrote: I do not like the BW>SC2 comparison and how it took 7 years to balance out.
1) BW was not meant to be a esport of anykind. It was created by it own 2) blizzard did not make the game balanced completely. It was only balanced because of what it became.
SC2 was DESIGNED for 1v1 and DESIGNED for esport with the INTENTION to be as balanced as possible When there is a problem. We need to fucking address it.
You should really read up a lot more on the thought that went into the BW game design. No, E-sports weren't a concept back then, but the designers absolutely were trying to make a balanced competitive game that would really reward skilled play. Sure, some stuff like Muta stacking was unforseen, but people really underestimate how much intentional design went into making BW the game it was.
On October 29 2013 01:50 Eggi wrote: I do not like the BW>SC2 comparison and how it took 7 years to balance out.
1) BW was not meant to be a esport of anykind. It was created by it own 2) blizzard did not make the game balanced completely. It was only balanced because of what it became.
SC2 was DESIGNED for 1v1 and DESIGNED for esport with the INTENTION to be as balanced as possible When there is a problem. We need to fucking address it.
On October 29 2013 01:50 Eggi wrote: I do not like the BW>SC2 comparison and how it took 7 years to balance out.
1) BW was not meant to be a esport of anykind. It was created by it own 2) blizzard did not make the game balanced completely. It was only balanced because of what it became.
SC2 was DESIGNED for 1v1 and DESIGNED for esport with the INTENTION to be as balanced as possible When there is a problem. We need to fucking address it.
What is the problem?
He wants to complain about SC2, but doesn't have a real reason why the game is broken. He just wants to be negative.
On October 29 2013 01:58 mishimaBeef wrote: This thread should be titled:
Backseat Design: Address the Deathball problem in SC2? (Warning: little to no practical advice inside)
These threads should be like poll threads, marked as useless and sent to blogs or closed.
Thats why you are active in this one? The problem of threads like this one is that there are people who exaggerate in both ways. Some people say "sc2 so fuckign bad unwatchable" and others like you seem to think that there are no real negetive factors at all? Both views are a little bit close minded and not very constructive in the end, cause neither side will agree with the other.. (well thats internet there for you i guess) That doesnt mean that these threads are useless per se though.
I don't get people's hate for Protoss. Personally PvP and PvZ are som of my favorite matchups, all-time (well, not WoL PvP...). PvT is getting more appreciation from me lately (thanks to Maru and Dear showing what it can look like). Actually, I like all matchups, and I like that they play out differently and that players may excel in one and be worse in another. It showcases different aspects of the game and of the players. The fact that SC2 has the MUs it has is one of the things that makes me spend more time on watching this game than anything else I do.
Defensive and delaying tactics were removed from SC2. I've said it before, but the huge decrease in time in which you can keep a scouting worker alive is horrible for the game.
The use of lurkers, while sniping observers/vessels gave zerg the opportunity to spread out and defend against multiple attacks or slow down a death ball.
Defilers worked the same way. Not only allowing zerg to defend expansions at critical moments, but also gave zerg the ability to be aggressive at a time in the game in which both terran and protoss would be impregnable if Defilers didn't exist.
Tanks very strong defensively in the early game in BW AND gave the terran the ability to be somewhat aggressive. Totally worthless in SC2 in both regards. Not only that but the repeated nerf to stim timings, blue flame hellions etc. have removed all aggressive openings for Terran. This has only been exacerbated by queen range and nexus cannon.
Currently each race relies so heavily at being successful at a specific point in the game. Because of this it is bound to be stale and unrewarding. Not only because it is impossible for terran to do anything to protoss early game, but because Terran HAS to do damage (or take economic risks) to protoss mid game. This is completely contradictory to creating a challenging, creative, and most importantly REWARDING game for players and spectators. Options need to exist. One example is... medivac boosters, I love them to death, but it only places more emphasis on Terran dominance in the mid game. On a specific timing window that Terran must find an advantage, not some games, not most games, but every bloodly game.
This philosophy has been core to the game since release and is the reason why I enjoyed playing random, and especially mirror match-ups more than any other (besides TvZ before that got stupid). In mirror the "timing window" doesn't exist because both races are theoretically identical in strengths and weaknesses at the same time, decision making over the course of the game is more important than being successful for only 3-5 minutes of it. Random simply because the monotony of "timing windows" didn't set in so quickly and because I was much less likely to hit the "optimal" timing window (due to less practice with each strategy) leading to much more interesting and fun games. Not only for me, but for my opponent.
The goal of the game isn't for it to be balanced, but for the option of unbalance to occur. If you can't do something that can catch the opponent off guard, then the game won't be fun for anyone, it will be a predictable monotony based more upon a single rock-paper-scissors decision per game rather than hundreds if not thousands of individual decisions and themes throughout a best of x series that determine the better player. I'm not saying that cheese specifically should be stronger. I'm saying that strategies outside the "optimal timing window" need to be viable enough so that the game continues to be fresh, strategies are able to develop, and for it to be enjoyable to both players and spectators.
So no.. The deathball isn't the problem. It's the symptom.
On October 29 2013 01:58 mishimaBeef wrote: This thread should be titled:
Backseat Design: Address the Deathball problem in SC2? (Warning: little to no practical advice inside)
These threads should be like poll threads, marked as useless and sent to blogs or closed.
Thats why you are active in this one? The problem of threads like this one is that there are people who exaggerate in both ways. Some people say "sc2 so fuckign bad unwatchable" and others like you seem to think that there are no real negetive factors at all? Both views are a little bit close minded and not very constructive in the end, cause neither side will agree with the other.. (well thats internet there for you i guess) That doesnt mean that these threads are useless per se though.
For the same reason that people are not allowed to make threads about a ranked ladder in the dota 2 forums: because it has been talked to death and everything that can be said has been said. Nothing changes, so why rehash the topic over and over.
I wish we could say SC2 is springing back to life... maybe LOTV will have a blip but without the deathball fix I don't think SC2 is long for this world
On October 28 2013 16:16 flashimba wrote: The deathball is fine as it is. With skill levels rising, we are progressively seeing more and more dynamic gameplay. Look at any match from <insert top 10 player>.
How many years did it take for BW to evolve? 7 years for iloveoov macro, 8 years for Zerg to be revolutionized.
SC2 has only been out for 2 years, which is NOTHING compared to the evolution of BW. Alas, we are all impatient and dismiss any faults we see without giving the game a chance to evolve on its own.
Yep, but that doesn't mean in 5+ years everyone will stop utilizing deathballs. It is the way the game is designed and you can't do anything about it. People will never stop using deathballs because if they do they'll have a higher chance of losing... it's simple.. deathballs are too good to not be used.
On October 29 2013 02:13 HungrySC2 wrote: Defensive and delaying tactics were removed from SC2. I've said it before, but the huge decrease in time in which you can keep a scouting worker alive is horrible for the game.
The use of lurkers, while sniping observers/vessels gave zerg the opportunity to spread out and defend against multiple attacks or slow down a death ball.
Defilers worked the same way. Not only allowing zerg to defend expansions at critical moments, but also gave zerg the ability to be aggressive at a time in the game in which both terran and protoss would be impregnable if Defilers didn't exist.
Tanks very strong defensively in the early game in BW AND gave the terran the ability to be somewhat aggressive. Totally worthless in SC2 in both regards. Not only that but the repeated nerf to stim timings, blue flame hellions etc. have removed all aggressive openings for Terran. This has only been exacerbated by queen range and nexus cannon.
Currently each race relies so heavily at being successful at a specific point in the game. Because of this it is bound to be stale and unrewarding. Not only because it is impossible for terran to do anything to protoss early game, but because Terran HAS to do damage (or take economic risks) to protoss mid game. This is completely contradictory to creating a challenging, creative, and most importantly REWARDING game for players and spectators. Options need to exist. One example is... medivac boosters, I love them to death, but it only places more emphasis on Terran dominance in the mid game. On a specific timing window that Terran must find an advantage, not some games, not most games, but every bloodly game.
This philosophy has been core to the game since release and is the reason why I enjoyed playing random, and especially mirror match-ups more than any other (besides TvZ before that got stupid). In mirror the "timing window" doesn't exist because both races are theoretically identical in strengths and weaknesses at the same time, decision making over the course of the game is more important than being successful for only 3-5 minutes of it. Random simply because the monotony of "timing windows" didn't set in so quickly and because I was much less likely to hit the "optimal" timing window (due to less practice with each strategy) leading to much more interesting and fun games. Not only for me, but for my opponent.
The goal of the game isn't for it to be balanced, but for the option of unbalance to occur. If you can't do something that can catch the opponent off guard, then the game won't be fun for anyone, it will be a predictable monotony based more upon a single rock-paper-scissors decision per game rather than hundreds if not thousands of individual decisions and themes throughout a best of x series that determine the better player. I'm not saying that cheese specifically should be stronger. I'm saying that strategies outside the "optimal timing window" need to be viable enough so that the game continues to be fresh, strategies are able to develop, and for it to be enjoyable to both players and spectators.
So no.. The deathball isn't the problem. It's the symptom.
Where else can you find such a high concentration of people that clearly neither play nor watch the game?
On October 28 2013 16:16 flashimba wrote: The deathball is fine as it is. With skill levels rising, we are progressively seeing more and more dynamic gameplay. Look at any match from <insert top 10 player>.
How many years did it take for BW to evolve? 7 years for iloveoov macro, 8 years for Zerg to be revolutionized.
SC2 has only been out for 2 years, which is NOTHING compared to the evolution of BW. Alas, we are all impatient and dismiss any faults we see without giving the game a chance to evolve on its own.
Yep, but that doesn't mean in 5+ years everyone will stop utilizing deathballs. It is the way the game is designed and you can't do anything about it. People will never stop using deathballs because if they do they'll have a higher chance of losing... it's simple.. deathballs are too good to not be used.
... The pros have stopped using deathballs because they're too BAD to use.
On October 29 2013 01:58 mishimaBeef wrote: This thread should be titled:
Backseat Design: Address the Deathball problem in SC2? (Warning: little to no practical advice inside)
These threads should be like poll threads, marked as useless and sent to blogs or closed.
Thats why you are active in this one? The problem of threads like this one is that there are people who exaggerate in both ways. Some people say "sc2 so fuckign bad unwatchable" and others like you seem to think that there are no real negetive factors at all? Both views are a little bit close minded and not very constructive in the end, cause neither side will agree with the other.. (well thats internet there for you i guess) That doesnt mean that these threads are useless per se though.
For the same reason that people are not allowed to make threads about a ranked ladder in the dota 2 forums: because it has been talked to death and everything that can be said has been said. Nothing changes, so why rehash the topic over and over.
Well yeah, but maybe there could be some real dicussions and if the average post would have a high enough quality then there would be a little chance that somethign changes. The problem isnt that the topic was discussed before, most things were discussed before, but the average posts are horrible.
80% of these threads are like that:
" sc2 dying game lolololol" "get the fuck out of this thread, bb" "protoss so op, dead game" etcpp
But yeah in the end you are probably right, but then there would be no point in discussing anything which is a little bit precarious. I mean thats internet...
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems!
On October 28 2013 16:16 flashimba wrote: The deathball is fine as it is. With skill levels rising, we are progressively seeing more and more dynamic gameplay. Look at any match from <insert top 10 player>.
How many years did it take for BW to evolve? 7 years for iloveoov macro, 8 years for Zerg to be revolutionized.
SC2 has only been out for 2 years, which is NOTHING compared to the evolution of BW. Alas, we are all impatient and dismiss any faults we see without giving the game a chance to evolve on its own.
Yep, but that doesn't mean in 5+ years everyone will stop utilizing deathballs. It is the way the game is designed and you can't do anything about it. People will never stop using deathballs because if they do they'll have a higher chance of losing... it's simple.. deathballs are too good to not be used.
... The pros have stopped using deathballs because they're too BAD to use.
They didnt use to stop deathballs, gosh why are you insisting on that point if its just not true.
On October 29 2013 02:17 RampancyTW wrote: Plansix, as much as these threads are obnoxious, all of the little gems that they squeeze out of the woodwork ALMOST make it all worth it.
On October 29 2013 02:13 HungrySC2 wrote: Defensive and delaying tactics were removed from SC2. I've said it before, but the huge decrease in time in which you can keep a scouting worker alive is horrible for the game.
The use of lurkers, while sniping observers/vessels gave zerg the opportunity to spread out and defend against multiple attacks or slow down a death ball.
Defilers worked the same way. Not only allowing zerg to defend expansions at critical moments, but also gave zerg the ability to be aggressive at a time in the game in which both terran and protoss would be impregnable if Defilers didn't exist.
Tanks very strong defensively in the early game in BW AND gave the terran the ability to be somewhat aggressive. Totally worthless in SC2 in both regards. Not only that but the repeated nerf to stim timings, blue flame hellions etc. have removed all aggressive openings for Terran. This has only been exacerbated by queen range and nexus cannon.
Currently each race relies so heavily at being successful at a specific point in the game. Because of this it is bound to be stale and unrewarding. Not only because it is impossible for terran to do anything to protoss early game, but because Terran HAS to do damage (or take economic risks) to protoss mid game. This is completely contradictory to creating a challenging, creative, and most importantly REWARDING game for players and spectators. Options need to exist. One example is... medivac boosters, I love them to death, but it only places more emphasis on Terran dominance in the mid game. On a specific timing window that Terran must find an advantage, not some games, not most games, but every bloodly game.
This philosophy has been core to the game since release and is the reason why I enjoyed playing random, and especially mirror match-ups more than any other (besides TvZ before that got stupid). In mirror the "timing window" doesn't exist because both races are theoretically identical in strengths and weaknesses at the same time, decision making over the course of the game is more important than being successful for only 3-5 minutes of it. Random simply because the monotony of "timing windows" didn't set in so quickly and because I was much less likely to hit the "optimal" timing window (due to less practice with each strategy) leading to much more interesting and fun games. Not only for me, but for my opponent.
The goal of the game isn't for it to be balanced, but for the option of unbalance to occur. If you can't do something that can catch the opponent off guard, then the game won't be fun for anyone, it will be a predictable monotony based more upon a single rock-paper-scissors decision per game rather than hundreds if not thousands of individual decisions and themes throughout a best of x series that determine the better player. I'm not saying that cheese specifically should be stronger. I'm saying that strategies outside the "optimal timing window" need to be viable enough so that the game continues to be fresh, strategies are able to develop, and for it to be enjoyable to both players and spectators.
So no.. The deathball isn't the problem. It's the symptom.
Where else can you find such a high concentration of people that clearly neither play nor watch the game?
If you think that this post was bad and it has no truth in it, then i think you dont watch the game^^ sc2 is an extremely timing heavy game, yeah he exaggerated a bit, but there is some truth in it..
It's one the reasons why mass colossi is so dumb, it's exponentially stronger the more you add, as there is no real cap on how many can be in use at once.
I'm far from the biggest Colossi fan (in fact, I'd argue that Dear is literally the first player I've ever seen who uses Colossi in a way that is fun or entertaining at all), but this is simply untrue. Colossi have the worst health per cost in the game (so if you don't have units to tank for them they die super fast), are obviously vulnerable to attacks from air (so you need to balance your Colossi numbers against the anti-air necessary to defend them), and have some incredibly hard counters that cause you to instalose the game if you overbuilt Colossi (like a Tempest switch in PvP, which will simply demolish any Protoss who got more than 4 or so Colossi, or teching to Vipers in ZvP).
Colossi are imo one of the more boring units in the Protoss arsenal, but "players can just build them en masse with no downsides" is actually just not even a little bit true. In all matchups, Colossi are useful, but you want between 2 and 5 depending on your respective army compositions, and once you go over that you become really vulnerable to hardcounters and any air-heavy composition.
I know many people aren't too keen on the unit, but one of the reasons reavers didn't make the cut today was because of the engine and clumping. Blizzard thought they were ridiculously imbalanced because of it and yeah there is a rule of thumb as to how many you should have in any composition.
EPT
