|
On October 28 2013 22:42 Suikakuju wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 22:36 IcED Bk wrote:On October 28 2013 15:42 bearhug wrote:
We all know that the deathball problem is a flaw of sc2.
Death ball is not an issue, its part of RTS as well protoss since it is the SAFEST option (to turtle) for them to get their high end tech to be able to SURVIVE mid and late game. I really have to disagree here. I really think it is an issue, if you play the game or if you are an observer, it is really boring to watch/annoying to lose against death balls. Which makes the game uninteresting at some point of watching a game.
For spectating it may be boring, but protoss turtle is because they cant usually be the aggressor. You can't expect a player to play for the entertainment of others. If there play style is to be safe and turtle on 2 base then that's how they wanna play. You can't disagree because it ruins entertainment purposes but yes you can if you feel that its OP or whatever... that has no justification in a game. Player has a play style, unfortunate that majority of protoss games need to turtle or they will get slaughtered. Taking a 3rd against a zerg is hard enough, dont expect pros to not to make a large army and hold because it ruins the viewership's enjoyment.
|
|
|
On October 29 2013 02:28 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 01:46 awesomoecalypse wrote: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.
But its not just reaver vs colossus. Its just that the colossus is one of the most boring units in the game. There is no real micro cause he just can walk wherever he pleases ( ), it is such a big hardcounter to literally any groundarmy, if you have like 2 of them without the opponent prepared for it its GG, there is nothing you can do.
Even roaches are more interesting when used with borrow play, colossi are the most one dimensional unit in the game
|
there used to be some validity to the "death ball" phenomenon.
but, it is no longer an issue.
"death balls" happen in lower level games because its easier to win that way.
these whiners should check out Red Alert 3, Company of Heroes 2, or any other modern RTS for a taste of what a "fundamental flaw destroying the entire game" is.
David Kim, et al are doing a great job. In fact, I'd argue that as Blizzard has given David Kim a more nad more important position within Blizzard he is getting better and better.
And For All Those WCS-Toronto Finals people.
David Kim studied computer science in CANADA!
![[image loading]](http://www.chateauvictoria.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Cdn-flag.jpg)
On October 29 2013 02:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:, colossi are the most one dimensional unit in the game
Collossus requires a whole bunch of baby sitting and other units controlled around them that top guys make look easy.
Collossus eats up a lot of Robo Fac time and cost a lot.. if it gets sniped and Protoss has based their build around it.. they are also screwed.
welcome to the RTS.. terran infantry 10 seconds away from having stim pack dies.... terran infantry just finishing stim pack rolls an army
On October 29 2013 02:35 RampancyTW wrote:
"Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better.
can someone give this guy a free month of TL.Net premium. i'm too cheap.
|
On October 29 2013 02:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote:Oh look, more gems! On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.. The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal.
"Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better.
And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games.
|
The timing of this thread seems very strange to me. I watched a lot of the WCS Finals this weekend, and saw great games, tons of harassment, and no game that involved turtling to 200/200.
I think the real complaint here is that Protoss won something, so obviously deathballs and SC2 game deaign are to blame.
|
On October 29 2013 02:35 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote:Oh look, more gems! On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote: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.. The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal. "Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better. And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games.
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
|
never going to happen maybe in the next life
|
I miss deathballs ;_;
all these different little engagements and points of attention are too much for me to handle as an espectator
blizzard pls fix T_T
|
On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:35 RampancyTW wrote:On October 29 2013 02:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote:Oh look, more gems! On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote: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.. The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal. "Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better. And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games. Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point. That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play.
|
On October 29 2013 02:48 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:35 RampancyTW wrote:On October 29 2013 02:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote:Oh look, more gems! On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote: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.. The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal. "Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better. And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games. Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point. That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play.
i'm the master of teh death ball.
i'll take on any one in platinum ANY ONE!
|
On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
|
This thread is dumb and belongs in the same place that all the other BW>SC2 threads end up in.
Did you watch the Season 3 Finals at all? In my opinion the skill level at the top 16 is the highest it's ever been and the games were incredibly entertaining. The "deathball syndrome" that you talk about is on the decline as new build orders emerge and "safe" build orders phase out. Remember when gasless 3 base was standard for Zerg and if a Zerg stayed on two bases until 6 minutes and got quick ling speed it was just... bad?
Deathball is a result of 2 things: greedy play with limited engagements, and improved pathing (the units can stay closer together). The first doesn't happen that much anymore as skilled players are able to punish greedy opponents better than ever. And when someone executes a greedy strategy and isn't punished for it... they should be abke to make a large army and march it across the map for the win. What's the point otherwise?
The second is actually a positive thing because it allows for units that can be microed better. You can group your units up as tightly as possible while executing a soul train or you can do amazing Marine splits against Banelings to minimize the damage taken. There's a difference between units that can be microed to be effective and units that MUST be microed that I don't think you're seeing.
There are also many situations in which having your army in a ball is a bad idea. Banelings TvZ. Colossus and Psi Storm TvP. Fungal Growth and Ultralisks ZvP. Any situation PvT where not all your units are attacking at the same time.
Seriously. I'm tired of all these platinum Terrans stubbornly fighting against "deathballs" and clinging on to Brood War ideals of what pathing should be simply because they can't scout a Protoss all-in coming or their macro is bad. Games at the pro level are extremely dynamic these days and the players have become very skilled at making good reads on their opponents. Watch some of their games and try to copy them.
|
On October 29 2013 02:48 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:35 RampancyTW wrote:On October 29 2013 02:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote:Oh look, more gems! On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote: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.. The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal. "Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better. And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games. Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point. That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play.
Well no and thats exactly my point. It isnt even that there are deathballs, but how they play out is the stupid thing in sc2.
Dear vs soulkey game two. Dear lost his 3rd several times but got his deathball rolling. He then won the game with one fight and that fight was just stupid and anticlimatic, thats the "problem". (btw i dont say he didnt deserve that win, he harrassed well etc!!).
On October 29 2013 02:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point. They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
yeah but thats not exactly my point. its ok to have "deathballs" as long as there is interesting interactions between them. That part mostly lacks for PvX matchups imo.
|
Some of these comments are useless, I think it should be obvious that Blizzard is not going to change pathfinding or make worse ai so suggest something implementable . I think the main problem with SC2 is not as match the deathball but things like Terran not having much variable strategy (they have variable tactics though),Protoss can be frustrating to play or against and not as fun to watch, also sometimes just general stagnant gameplay. Having said that, I find the state of SC2 is pretty great and you can't compare it to how it was in 2010.
|
On October 29 2013 02:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point. They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
bad analogy.
no hitters are mega intense.
stick to starcraft sir.
|
On October 29 2013 02:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:28 StarStruck wrote:On October 29 2013 01:46 awesomoecalypse wrote: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. But its not just reaver vs colossus. Its just that the colossus is one of the most boring units in the game. There is no real micro cause he just can walk wherever he pleases ( ), it is such a big hardcounter to literally any groundarmy, if you have like 2 of them without the opponent prepared for it its GG, there is nothing you can do. Even roaches are more interesting when used with borrow play, colossi are the most one dimensional unit in the game
Well that's sort of the point I was making with the example. Reavers are really cool units dating back to the brood war days but because of the new engine/a.i. the scarab hits are more lethal. Back in BW even if you had perfect control you would still have to worry about duds. If they were in this game a lot of people would have hissy fits as well and it would only take a few reavers in any unit composition. There is a trade off though. Colossi have way more mobility and can keep up with your army on their own; whereas, Reavers would need a warp prism/shuttle for protection and roaming. They would be much easier to pick off by any air army, which would be higher risk, more reward. Very vulnerable and the protoss would have to protect the transport to no end, unless they decided to sloooooow push, which might be the reality and use the prism as a decoy to only warp in units to pick off expos while they slow push with the reavers and rest of the army. Good luck defending that. :V "Shit, the reavers weren't in the prism. Shit they're coming up with the rest of his army!" I could definitely see the protoss army pulling up to you. Warp prisms drop the reavers in the back of their army so they can closer and begin to seige. Meanwhile the warp prism goes directly to your nat to warp in more units to collapse in on you while the rest of the army knock on your front door. As you lose that battle you'd be losing another battle in your main or expo because the Protoss would be warping more units in behind you. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
At the end of the day, units like this exist for a reason. I won't disagree with you on the boring part. I think many sc2 units are boring in fact and I wrote about it several times, but you have to make the best out of what's given to you.
|
Perhaps the solution is to make multiple units together less effective than single units.
|
On October 29 2013 02:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:48 RampancyTW wrote:On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:35 RampancyTW wrote:On October 29 2013 02:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote:Oh look, more gems! On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote: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.. The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal. "Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better. And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games. Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point. That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play. Well no and thats exactly my point. It isnt even that there are deathballs, but how they play out is the stupid thing in sc2. Dear vs soulkey game two. Dear lost his 3rd several times but got his deathball rolling. He then won the game with one fight and that fight was just stupid and anticlimatic, thats the "problem". (btw i dont say he didnt deserve that win, he harrassed well etc!!). Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:51 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point. They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works. yeah but thats not exactly my point. its ok to have "deathballs" as long as there is interesting interactions between them. That part mostly lacks for PvX matchups imo. . You do know that every SC 2 game is going to end with a big fight and one at least one side having a big army? It's the way the game works. Death ball it a catch all term people who use for the army that winsz
|
On October 29 2013 02:59 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:28 StarStruck wrote:On October 29 2013 01:46 awesomoecalypse wrote: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. But its not just reaver vs colossus. Its just that the colossus is one of the most boring units in the game. There is no real micro cause he just can walk wherever he pleases ( ), it is such a big hardcounter to literally any groundarmy, if you have like 2 of them without the opponent prepared for it its GG, there is nothing you can do. Even roaches are more interesting when used with borrow play, colossi are the most one dimensional unit in the game Well that's sort of the point I was making with the example. Reavers are really cool units dating back to the brood war days but because of the new engine/a.i. the scarab hits are more lethal. Back in BW even if you had perfect control you would still have to worry about duds. If they were in this game a lot of people would have hissy fits as well and it would only take a few reavers in any unit composition. There is a trade off though. Colossi have way more mobility and can keep up with your army on their own; whereas, Reavers would need a warp prism/shuttle for protection and roaming. They would be much easier to pick off by any air army, which would be higher risk, more reward. Very vulnerable and the protoss would have to protect the transport to no end, unless they decided to sloooooow push, which might be the reality and use the prism as a decoy to only warp in units to pick off expos while they slow push with the reavers and rest of the army. Good luck defending that. :V "Shit, the reavers weren't in the prism. Shit they're coming up with the rest of his army!" I could definitely see the protoss army pulling up to you. Warp prisms drop the reavers in the back and then go directly to your nat to warp in more units as the reavers and the rest of the army knock on your front door. As you lose that battle you'd be losing another battle in your main or expo because the Protoss would be warping more units in behind you. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
Yeah i meant that i dont cry for reavers, just for a more interesting unit than the colossus :D
On October 29 2013 03:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 02:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:48 RampancyTW wrote:On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:35 RampancyTW wrote:On October 29 2013 02:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote:Oh look, more gems! On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote: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.. The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal. "Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better. And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games. Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point. That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play. Well no and thats exactly my point. It isnt even that there are deathballs, but how they play out is the stupid thing in sc2. Dear vs soulkey game two. Dear lost his 3rd several times but got his deathball rolling. He then won the game with one fight and that fight was just stupid and anticlimatic, thats the "problem". (btw i dont say he didnt deserve that win, he harrassed well etc!!). On October 29 2013 02:51 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point. They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works. yeah but thats not exactly my point. its ok to have "deathballs" as long as there is interesting interactions between them. That part mostly lacks for PvX matchups imo. . You do know that every SC 2 game is going to end with a big fight and one at least one side having a big army? It's the way the game works. Death ball it a catch all term people who use for the army that winsz
Yes ofc, i didnt blame that fact for anything. I blame that the interaction between 2 blobs is mostly pretty boring. I dont get excited when i see a big toss ball vs a big bio ball most of the time.
The game can be great before and i enjoy it then ofc, but the main fight that happens most of the times isnt that appealing.
Is it appealing that the terran has enough vikings to snipe the colossi and then just walks over the gateway units?
Is it appealing that the toss storms the terran to death cause he didnt get that one money emp off?
That are the things i am arguing about, deathballs are fine, as long as the battle is interesting still.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
