We all know that the deathball problem is a flaw of sc2. Sadly, there has been no attempt made by Blizzard to address the issue since the release of the game three years ago. Considering the fact that SC2 is dying ( just joking), there is certainly a sense of urgency to try to attack the problem.
Apparently, it would require some fundamental mechanism redesigns to solve the deathball problem. It cannot be done by doing small tweaks like buffing/nerfing the speed of a certain unit. It cannot be achieved without touching the pathing/collision+ Show Spoiler +
Blog post about pathfinding in sc2: "Broodwar is obviously more dynamic and that SC2 is obviously more rigid."www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=429573
, economy scalability, etc.
There are a few community projects which try to make a better sc2 by either tweaking the units' ablility/dps/range/speed or folking another game, such as:
However, I feel none of these attempt solve the real issue(or is aimed at solving it). I'm hoping someone could make a custom map or mod to redesign the mechanism and avoid the deathball (and make a better SC2). + Show Spoiler +
What happens if sc2 units has less dps: IMBA LEAGUE - ALL UNITS DO HALF DAMAGE
The author has some interesting ideas. Just to quote some: -- Long range is the largest contributing factor to deathballs.Splash damage also frequently leads to deathballs.
-- Many RTS games are not even aware that having a single blob of units is an issue. Many RTS games take it as a matter of course that you keep your entire army together. These games rely on composition to create "strategy." ......The ideal composition of this deathball is indeed a complicated calculus depending on the relative strength of many options and strategies, but "standard play" deathballs will emerge in only a few days or weeks which will then be widely copied.
---The only way to actually slay the dragon and remove the deathball gameplay pathology entirely is to have all units in the game be less efficient to use in very large groups.
I agree quite a bit with the guy and I believe he actually seems to know something about RTS/strategy/death balls. Definitely worth the read. Sadly, I don't think Blizzard would ever change SC2 as drastic as that. It would take a complete rework of so many units. Maybe something they could try to do for LotV? (Such optimism!)
And, I do wonder how that Planetary Annihilation game will turn out. I'd love to see a true competitive "real-time strategy" game.
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.
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.
A game like Chess can never evolve into Football, not even in a million years. The problem lies in the fundamental mechanism, not in the units/maps/players.
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.
That was different. In 8 years we wont even have that many people playing sc2 at this rate. BW was rising in korea due to the recession -> pc bang and whatnot. Sc2 on the other hand is losing viewers and players.
nice read, quite interesting. i don't really agree with the part making units even lower hp though, sc2 fights already end fast enough. they should make them deal less damage and cost less supply, and increase the supply cap instead.
didnt someone link the point about the nature of ranged combat as the problem. when 10 ranged units meet 8 ranged units it doesnt end with 10-8 but instead its something like 10-2 or something that causes the more numerous long ranged guys to survive more or less in tact while annihilating the other group completely.
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.
I don't think that games are better now than they were in 2010-11 skillwise. The builds are more refined and players have deeper knowledge of all the strategic nuances, but they're not any more skilled than they were back in the day.
The game simply doesn't reward high-octane, high skill requirement plays - and more than often ends up punishing them for the smallest of mistakes. It's more of a flashy thing that ultimately doesn't have a lot of impact on the outcome of the game. You can have godly execution, but make one bad decision or misjudge the situation for a minute, and the player who was being taken to school all game long will suddenly get the correct composition and poop all over you. Yawn.
The game will never evolve to the point of rewarding skill based plays, because it was not designed that way.
Heh, this again. Actually Blizzard did try to address this problem with HoTS through widow mines and oracles (not that they really succeeded), so what you state there in OP is blatantly wrong.
Do you think it is possible to block unit from shooting through each other with the map editor? It would kill any deathbally play right there, phenomenally increase the skill level, and also probably turn zealots and lings imba :p
I don't think we absolutely must have a fundamental reworking of the starcraft 2 engine in order to eliminate the deathball. While I agree that these inherent issues exist, Blizzard is unlikely to remake things from the ground up, and I think we can and should focus on ways to tweak things via additions or small patches.
The critical point to be considered is that deathballs will not be used if there is some other, possibly more efficient, way to play. To get this we really only need 2 things.
1. There needs to be some sort of unit that has great capacity for winning small engagements but scales poorly. 2. There should be some way for a suitably positioned/entrenched/composed smaller force to fight reasonably efficiently versus a larger force or "deathball"
Concerning 1: The idea of decreasing marginal utility is brought up in the article and is central to rts gameplay. Ideally, for every unit type, having x number of said unit should be good, but having 2x should be less than twice as good. Melee units, or short range units, naturally tend to follow this as it becomes progressively harder for them too all attack at once as there are more of them. However, this is not the only way to accomplish this. Removing smart targeting from units with large damage and low rate of fire also helps. Players know that these units require manual targeting to be most efficient, but the more of them there are the harder that is to do. Both players can then work to take advantage of this. (i.e. stopping certain units from firing while others do to prevent overkill, or purposely trying to force overkill on a single unit) This example of removing smart targeting is part of a more general concept of units that require a great deal of control or attention in order to perform optimally. Such units can be allowed to have extremely high optimal performance, meaning that small numbers of them can accomplish a great deal, because players will find it increasingly hard to use many of them at once.
Further, these sort of units can discourage "deathball" play even without nerfing the existing "deathball." If these sort of units have the potential to inflict great damage early on in small scale engagements, players will tend to produce them knowing they can injure an opponent going for a "deathball" sufficiently so that they can win through economic advantage later. (Maru makes a great case for mmm as this type of unit. He tends to win games by forcing many small engagements with these efficient forces and then hopes to defeat the eventual deathball by just having more stuff rather than having his own deathball with ghosts and vikings)
Concerning 2: This is often discussed as defenders advantage. If it is possible for a slightly smaller force to defeat a larger force when suitably prepared, then it allows players to set up these minimal supply defenses will also commiting some supply elsewhere on the map (hopefully to aggression of their own) However, identifying this with defenders advantage is too narrowly defining it. Widow mines and burrowed banelings also can fall into this category. They are units which have the potential to inflict casualties greater than their own worth even in the field away from a defensive position. This actually produces better gameplay than giving too strong a defenders advantage which can encourage players not to split for multiple attacks for fear of losing at each point due to defenders advantage, thus encouraging deathball play again. High templars with storm can also fall into this category as they allow a small force to, if not defeat, at least significantly wound larger forces while their effectiveness goes down when facing small groups of units.
Additionally, a point which the author of this article passes by rather quickly, but which I think can be quite helpful is the presence of cheap, easily replaced forces. Having easily replaced forces encourages the use of said forces in engagements where losses can be taken. There should be a real decision concerning taking casualties for the chance to inflict damage in other ways. Losing a small force in order to take out a new mining base or specific tech structure should be an option to be weighed. Too often we see players do this only to lose the game shortly after because their opponent just all ins with their temporary army advantage. This has to do with the efficiency of the deathball as well. The idea being that having the army advantage isn't actually a temporary situation because you can simply force engagements repeatedly, and each will be extremely efficient and leave you with a still greater army advantage.
Very interesting reads! One point in particular that got me thinking was this:
So, what causes a deathball to be the best approach? Simply put, a deathball results when a force can stack DPS sufficient to prevent itself from sustaining casualties. Long range is the largest contributing factor to deathballs. Long range units in sufficient numbers can stack together and kill enemies forces of arbitrary size before they close to range to deal any damage. Splash damage also frequently leads to deathballs because increasing numbers of splash sources start to overlap in higher density, and allow increasingly tougher targets to be wiped out in large numbers.
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.
I agree in most parts. The thing about lowering the hp might work but i prefer the broodwar way. Having units with less hp might solve the deathball problem but might lead to less micro. IMO the pathing is the problem. Too many units can shoot at once (like they are a single unit) and the lack of OP AOE spells/attacks. Also the production output is too high 200/200 is reached too early.
So, what causes a deathball to be the best approach? Simply put, a deathball results when a force can stack DPS sufficient to prevent itself from sustaining casualties. Long range is the largest contributing factor to deathballs. Long range units in sufficient numbers can stack together and kill enemies forces of arbitrary size before they close to range to deal any damage. Splash damage also frequently leads to deathballs because increasing numbers of splash sources start to overlap in higher density, and allow increasingly tougher targets to be wiped out in large numbers.
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.
I think its also interesting that siege tanks, lurkers and scarabs shots could be wasted by either shooting at the same target at the same time causing overkill aka wasted shots. they could also straight up miss. compare THAT to the splash in sc2
On October 28 2013 17:05 NexCa wrote: still dont know why ppl make such threads when it's not even the final version of SC2
Because it basically is? LotV adds a few more units, nerfs some things, buffs some things, and the inherent structural problems of the game remain firmly lodged right where they are.
Unless Blizzard are finally wiling to reconsider sacred cows like FF/warp gate/terrible terrible damage/moronic units like colossus and swarm host etc, then this changes...well nothing. The deathball will exist as long as there are not enough positionally powerfully units that discourage attacking into a defended position even against a smaller force and as long as 3-base capped eco allows and easy and safe turtle to 200/200.
LotV is not going to address any of this unless it is vastly different in nature from HotS.
Something Ive been thinking lately is how much of the deathball revolves around Mechanics as oposed to design. Does infinite unit selection affect deathballs? What would BW have been like with IUS instead of a 12 unit max? Would there have been more deathballs?
makes me want to play a SC2 game with a 12 unit max group to see if theres anything to my theory crafting...
I feel like the meta game will fix this as time rolls on and players learn to use AOE more effectively. A big part of the reason why PvT has started to lean towards Protoss is that players have gotten better at using psionic storm to punish players that rely on the bio ball.
Game design that forces players to control smaller groups of units will certainly help but I think this will solve itself given enough time.
On October 28 2013 17:08 iMAniaC wrote: Very interesting reads! One point in particular that got me thinking was this:
So, what causes a deathball to be the best approach? Simply put, a deathball results when a force can stack DPS sufficient to prevent itself from sustaining casualties. Long range is the largest contributing factor to deathballs. Long range units in sufficient numbers can stack together and kill enemies forces of arbitrary size before they close to range to deal any damage. Splash damage also frequently leads to deathballs because increasing numbers of splash sources start to overlap in higher density, and allow increasingly tougher targets to be wiped out in large numbers.
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.
I think its also interesting that siege tanks, lurkers and scarabs shots could be wasted by either shooting at the same target at the same time causing overkill aka wasted shots. they could also straight up miss. compare THAT to the splash in sc2
True overkill is another thing. SC2 has hardly any overkill because of units targeting AI right?
In StarCraft 2 if your army is at home it will probably win due to shorter supply lines, if it isn't at home and you're being assaulted there ARE NO DELAY TACTICS you can use for your army to arrive home, your only play becomes assaulting their now undefended main base, e.g. a base trade. What do I mean there's no delay tactics? I mean there's nothing you can do to prevent the enemy from crushing your workers and any contingent military forces in the vicinity before your main army arrives. If units had high hp and relatively low damage you would have a lot more opportunity to keep your base in tact, and base trading with death balls wouldn't be your only play.
It goes back to the subject of defender's advantage in buying time to counter the deathball. I miss defender's advantage in this game now that BW is experiencing somewhat of a revival and the difference in strategy is obvious between the two games.
Really, though, watching maru vs dear and severeal other series in the last few months makes me put things iunto perspective.
We are kind of complaining on a high level - that series was action packed and full of multi pronged harass; even though most games were ended by a Deathball style attack, the things leading up to it were great entertainment AND really good play.
On October 28 2013 18:47 monomo wrote: Really, though, watching maru vs dear and severeal other series in the last few months makes me put things iunto perspective.
We are kind of complaining on a high level - that series was action packed and full of multi pronged harass; even though most games were ended by a Deathball style attack, the things leading up to it were great entertainment AND really good play.
tl;dr I don't think this is a problem
That is the problem for me, the anticlimax, the punch in the face. The game just ended with one army just rolling over the other in matter of seconds. This was such a huge let down :s
On October 28 2013 18:47 monomo wrote: We are kind of complaining on a high level - that series was action packed and full of multi pronged harass; even though most games were ended by a Deathball style attack, the things leading up to it were great entertainment AND really good play.
But the things "leading up to it" need to be more influential in terms of match outcome. In their g1 it turns out that all the fast paced action was pretty much just for show, but in the end it was large-scale decision making that determined the end result.
Besides, how many games on average contain that much action anyway? Generally very few, and only a few players choose to initiate that kind of tempo due to stylistic preferences. And they get punished for it all the time. The game is actively discouraging players from doing that, because playing slow and solid with good scouting and positional awareness is always going to win no matter what (often times it's even a simple build order win).
IMO, players like MMA, DRG, Hero, MKP played much better Starcraft earlier in their careers, a year or longer ago, but the game forced them to temper their playstyle in order to actually keep up with results and make money. How many times have these players done incredible things all over the map, but it just wasn't enough, and then they get punished for one or two decisions and stomped by an ideal army composition of their opponent?
It should natural for the game to reward the kind of plays that gets spectators excited and that's actually satisfying for players to execute in the game, things that actually feel "good". But what we have is almost the exact opposite, where the only real purpose of those plays is being flashy and showing off, while the game is decided almost entirely by decision making and risk management.
On October 28 2013 16:03 Mahanaim wrote: Hmm... I don't think Blizzard made no attempts at it, it's just that we haven't seen a radical one so far.
Blizzard didnt understand the reasoning behind "dynamic unit movement" (1) ... so they did NOT make any attempt to fix the pathing from "perfectly boring" to "unpredictable with required micro and thus exciting".
Unit density is at the heart of the problem and behind that we have - pathing and and unit selection plus - economy/(over)production as the real culprits which are sooo deep in the SC2 mechanics that Blizzard cant just "fiddle with some numbers" to fix the problem. They wont do it because it would admit that they screwed up big time AND because it will be a lot of work.
Oh and in one interview from last year (from their tournament in China) Dustin Browder said that "the players WANT their units to clump up" ... which is pretty ridiculous.
BW had a huge advantage over SC2 in its pathing and unit selection, because that made the game easier for casuals.
In SC2 the pathing is "perfect" and the unit selection is unlimited and thus any attacking casual player will have maximum efficiency. This requires the defending casual player to have equally "superb" reactions to counter the threat ... and that isnt the case, which makes losing a game as a casual in SC2 absolutely not fun. In BW the attacker had to control several groups of units AND "force them into a good position", which is something a casual could only do so-so ... which gave the defending casual ample time to react with his mediocre skills.
For professionals there isnt really a difference between the games, they can use armies and defend against them with the required reaction speed ...
On October 28 2013 17:02 NukeD wrote: Im like a broken record here but im gonna say it anyways. Pathing. Fix the damn pathing.
Correct. Units should not squeeze together so tightly (e.g. 15 voids on top of each other, 30 mutas in a space that should hold 3, or a marine blob). There sbould be a small exclusion zone around each unit to prevent absurd and unrealistic levels of unit packing. That would keep deathball DPS in check. Also, it would fix silly problems like when 2 stacked muta packs encounter each other and it is impossible to tell who has more mutas before the fight.
The linked article was interesting (thanks for pointing to it btw) and I fully agree with the idea voiced there: deathballs are detrimental to the quality of RTS gameplay. But some of the solutions he voiced there are just wrong. Everyone should also read one of the responses in that thread: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/there-be-dragons-slaying-the-deathball.45056/#post-700220 It addresses some mistakes/misconceptions made by the author of that article.
To people writing "just add more/stronger AOE damage", this is not a solution per se. As was stated in the linked article AOE damage can also encourage deathballs. To deal with this you need particular sources of splash damage that would not scale well with numbers or be useful in mobile deathball itself. iMAniaC did mention this at the previous page.
And dethballing IS a problem in SC2. This was mentioned countless times by different people in different threads at this very forum. No metagame shifts can change this. The game itself encourages it. Also see Talin's post above.
On October 28 2013 17:02 NukeD wrote: Im like a broken record here but im gonna say it anyways. Pathing. Fix the damn pathing.
Correct. Units should not squeeze together so tightly (e.g. 15 voids on top of each other, 30 mutas in a space that should hold 3, or a marine blob). There sbould be a small exclusion zone around each unit to prevent absurd and unrealistic levels of unit packing. That would keep deathball DPS in check. Also, it would fix silly problems like when 2 stacked muta packs encounter each other and it is impossible to tell who has more mutas before the fight.
The fans/players would lynch Blizzard if they removed mutastacking.
The problem is that the fundamentals of units and balance is based around the gameplay and unit mechanics. It would be easier to make an entire new game than changing the mechanics and balancing starcraft as it is now with the units that Blizzard designed.
On October 28 2013 15:53 Pandain wrote: I don't think deathball is playing as big of a role as you think it is lately.
Same, there were very few deathball games at WCS.
I don't even know how it is considered acceptable that after over three years of development of the game, which is incomparable to the same time period in Brood War's history because of improved knowledge, dedication, organization, that we are finally seeing less death ball play in some match-ups only at the very top level. This from the same community that wants a foreigner only WCS NA/EU, shouldn't we want the potential for interesting games on all levels of play?
On October 28 2013 15:53 Pandain wrote: I don't think deathball is playing as big of a role as you think it is lately.
Same, there were very few deathball games at WCS.
I don't even know how it is considered acceptable that after over three years of development of the game, which is incomparable to the same time period in Brood War's history because of improved knowledge, dedication, organization, that we are finally seeing less death ball play in some match-ups only at the very top level. This from the same community that wants a foreigner only WCS NA/EU, shouldn't we want the potential for interesting games on all levels of play?
"Bad" players want to sit back, build a large army, and then attack with it. That happens in every RTS, even Broodwar. You cannot force interesting games on all levels of play.
On October 28 2013 15:53 Pandain wrote: I don't think deathball is playing as big of a role as you think it is lately.
Same, there were very few deathball games at WCS.
I don't even know how it is considered acceptable that after over three years of development of the game, which is incomparable to the same time period in Brood War's history because of improved knowledge, dedication, organization, that we are finally seeing less death ball play in some match-ups only at the very top level. This from the same community that wants a foreigner only WCS NA/EU, shouldn't we want the potential for interesting games on all levels of play?
"Bad" players want to sit back, build a large army, and then attack with it. That happens in every RTS, even Broodwar. You cannot force interesting games on all levels of play.
I think the big problem is the league system in SC2. C- in BW iccup basically starts at high diamond in SC2. If not even worse. So people think "Well it was even exciting to see C level players but watching platinum players sucks!" So people get the impression that BW was exciting even at low level of play... Well, the difference between platinum and bronze is not as big as people might think. The difference between B and D howver is huge.
On October 28 2013 20:03 Rabiator wrote: Unit density is at the heart of the problem and behind that we have - pathing and and unit selection plus - economy/(over)production
Unit density is only one of the issues. Others were mentioned in the article linked in the OP and response to it I mentioned in my previous post here.
I agree with "economy/(over)production" point, but pathing and unit selection are not necessarily the problem. You can have an RTS game with both unlimited selection and good pathing, that would still discourage deathballing. How to do it is exactly what was explained in the article, response to it I linked before, and even here(this thread and some other threads on this issue at TL forums).
I'm not defending SC2 pathing. I agree that Blizzard overdid it. But it is very much possible to deter deathballs without reverting to the shitty pathing that we had in some older games like SC1.
Deathball armies Reign supreme in sc2 though. Like take for instance Maru vs Dear Match 1. Maru was dropping his heart out kiting zealots doing eco damage at every round but in the end he lost why? #1 yes his trades seemed somewhat cost efficient but he was trading units for eco which would be decent if he was building his own deathball behind it. The reality though Dear had the 3 Insta-kill weapons in PvT Templar + Colo + Archons. It could be argued that if maru had split better in the last engagement he would have been massively ahead but as Terran your control has to be 100% every engagement and you have most of the time kill a death ball (maybe a weakened one) 3 times before you win as Terran whereas Protoss 1 convicingly won fight is gg....
I dont think "deathballs" are really the problem, in my opinion it all comes down to balance. Protoss is forced to deathball vs terran unless they are playing defensive. Terran bio is so ridiculously strong and can stand up to just about anything in the game for basically 0 cost relative to what the protoss player needs to defend it. I don't think the idea of increased aoe damage would be such a bad idea. I myself would like to possibly see storms do the 80 damage they deal, faster than it is now which i believe is 4 seconds. Or even making them stackable does not seem to me to be an issue. Would be nice to have a zerg chime in on the thought of stackable storms or 80dmg < 4 seconds. I play random from time to time but mostly terran so i can really only speak from this perspective.
On October 28 2013 20:54 Pirfiktshon wrote: Deathball armies Reign supreme in sc2 though. Like take for instance Maru vs Dear Match 1. Maru was dropping his heart out kiting zealots doing eco damage at every round but in the end he lost why? #1 yes his trades seemed somewhat cost efficient but he was trading units for eco which would be decent if he was building his own deathball behind it. The reality though Dear had the 3 Insta-kill weapons in PvT Templar + Colo + Archons. It could be argued that if maru had split better in the last engagement he would have been massively ahead but as Terran your control has to be 100% every engagement and you have most of the time kill a death ball (maybe a weakened one) 3 times before you win as Terran whereas Protoss 1 convicingly won fight is gg....
You don't understand the first thing about tech, do you?
Why SHOULDN'T Dear win fights when he continutally techs behind the engagements and continues creating more expensive, higher tech units?
Maru elected to forgo his own tech (Ghosts and Vikings) that would have allowed him to fight against Dear's nearly maxed, high tech army in order to continue doing his low cost, high mobility drops. If he would have chosen to stop medivac/marauder production for about a minute or so and instead used those resources to put down a Ghost Academy or even a second Starport, he would have been in a better position to win another engagement.
It's called strategy and resource management, and the game that Maru played is focused on picking apart the Protoss before he maxes out on t3 tech. His strategy failed, and he didn't have the right units to engage during the final push.
Some time ago I was thinking of a mechanic that would make units deal less damage to their target if other units were in the attacker's line of fire. This would discourage players to keep their army in one tight ball.
A simplified example: a marine is shooting a zealot, and two other marines obscure his line of fire; the mentioned marine deals 4 points of damage to the zealot instead of the normal 6.
But, it would be too simple and unbelievable to leave this mechanic at that (a giant colossus shouldn't deal less damage to the enemy units even if it is surrounded with friendly gateway units for example), so to counter this every ground unit would gain a new property -- HEIGHT.
A unit's damage output would be modified only if its line of fire was obscured by units (allied or enemy) with greater or equal height than the attacking unit.
Examples: A single marauder is tightly surrounded by friendly marines -- the marauder deals full damage the zealots fighting at the outer edge of the "bio ball". A tank in siege mode is attacking a distant building, but a colossus is standing just between the tank and the building under siege -- the tank's damage output is reduced.
Only ground units would be affected by this mechanic -- a blob of marines would still deal full damage to a tightly stacked flock of mutalisks.
That's probably too significant to implement in current sc2, I fear... but I'd definitely like to see something like that in some other RTS. Anyway, what do you guys & girls out here think of such an idea?
On October 28 2013 21:32 Tritanis wrote: Some time ago I was thinking of a mechanic that would make units deal less damage to their target if other units were in the attacker's line of fire. This would discourage players to keep their army in one tight ball.
A simplified example: a marine is shooting a zealot, and two other marines obscure his line of fire; the mentioned marine deals 4 points of damage to the zealot instead of the normal 6.
But, it would be too simple and unbelievable to leave this mechanic at that (a giant colossus shouldn't deal less damage to the enemy units even if it is surrounded with friendly gateway units for example), so to counter this every ground unit would gain a new property -- HEIGHT.
A unit's damage output would be modified only if its line of fire was obscured by units (allied or enemy) with greater or equal height than the attacking unit.
Examples: A single marauder is tightly surrounded by friendly marines -- the marauder deals full damage the zealots fighting at the outer edge of the "bio ball". A tank in siege mode is attacking a distant building, but a colossus is standing just between the tank and the building under siege -- the tank's damage output is reduced.
Only ground units would be affected by this mechanic -- a blob of marines would still deal full damage to a tightly stacked flock of mutalisks.
That's probably too significant to implement in current sc2, I fear... but I'd definitely like to see something like that in some other RTS. Anyway, what do you guys & girls out here think of such an idea?
I don't think that would be easy to understand when you're playing or when you're observing.
How do you explain such a concept to someone who is just watching Starcraft for the first time? How can a progamer be sure about the effectiveness of his timings and compositions when Height units provide such a large defender's advantage?
On October 28 2013 21:32 Tritanis wrote: Some time ago I was thinking of a mechanic that would make units deal less damage to their target if other units were in the attacker's line of fire. This would discourage players to keep their army in one tight ball.
A simplified example: a marine is shooting a zealot, and two other marines obscure his line of fire; the mentioned marine deals 4 points of damage to the zealot instead of the normal 6.
But, it would be too simple and unbelievable to leave this mechanic at that (a giant colossus shouldn't deal less damage to the enemy units even if it is surrounded with friendly gateway units for example), so to counter this every ground unit would gain a new property -- HEIGHT.
A unit's damage output would be modified only if its line of fire was obscured by units (allied or enemy) with greater or equal height than the attacking unit.
Examples: A single marauder is tightly surrounded by friendly marines -- the marauder deals full damage the zealots fighting at the outer edge of the "bio ball". A tank in siege mode is attacking a distant building, but a colossus is standing just between the tank and the building under siege -- the tank's damage output is reduced.
Only ground units would be affected by this mechanic -- a blob of marines would still deal full damage to a tightly stacked flock of mutalisks.
That's probably too significant to implement in current sc2, I fear... but I'd definitely like to see something like that in some other RTS. Anyway, what do you guys & girls out here think of such an idea?
Bad example with the tank. Colossus are (essentially) flying units. A tank can just shoot between its legs.
"---The only way to actually slay the dragon and remove the deathball gameplay pathology entirely is to have all units in the game be less efficient to use in very large groups."
this. i doubt they'll redesign every unit though. imagine how differently the game would play (not that this would be anything but a good thing). unless a new design team comes in, all we will see are slow, tiny tweaks which do very little to address this
On October 28 2013 15:53 Pandain wrote: I don't think deathball is playing as big of a role as you think it is lately.
Same, there were very few deathball games at WCS.
I don't even know how it is considered acceptable that after over three years of development of the game, which is incomparable to the same time period in Brood War's history because of improved knowledge, dedication, organization, that we are finally seeing less death ball play in some match-ups only at the very top level. This from the same community that wants a foreigner only WCS NA/EU, shouldn't we want the potential for interesting games on all levels of play?
"Bad" players want to sit back, build a large army, and then attack with it. That happens in every RTS, even Broodwar. You cannot force interesting games on all levels of play.
Ding, ding, ding but I wouldn't really call Flash, or the Tornado Terran NaDa a bad player at BW. Honestly guys deathballs have been around for quite some time and it doesn't just pertain to one race either. Even though you'll still see a lot of hit squads in BW at the same time the death balls originated from BW in the macro eras and continued onward.
Units are just too squishy in this game. Players are discouraged from skirmishing and poking because units get mowed down so easily. One slight slip-up and 500 resources of units disappear. Keep DPS the same and triple the HP of all units.
The other issue is food cap. It should be lowered to 100. Games would be more action-packed, because nobody's waiting around for 200/200. Your ball of units would also be more manageable from a control perspective. You could manage more micro (especially now that your units have triple the HP and don't evaporate in 2 seconds).
On October 28 2013 21:32 Tritanis wrote: Some time ago I was thinking of a mechanic that would make units deal less damage to their target if other units were in the attacker's line of fire. This would discourage players to keep their army in one tight ball.
A simplified example: a marine is shooting a zealot, and two other marines obscure his line of fire; the mentioned marine deals 4 points of damage to the zealot instead of the normal 6.
But, it would be too simple and unbelievable to leave this mechanic at that (a giant colossus shouldn't deal less damage to the enemy units even if it is surrounded with friendly gateway units for example), so to counter this every ground unit would gain a new property -- HEIGHT.
A unit's damage output would be modified only if its line of fire was obscured by units (allied or enemy) with greater or equal height than the attacking unit.
Examples: A single marauder is tightly surrounded by friendly marines -- the marauder deals full damage the zealots fighting at the outer edge of the "bio ball". A tank in siege mode is attacking a distant building, but a colossus is standing just between the tank and the building under siege -- the tank's damage output is reduced.
Only ground units would be affected by this mechanic -- a blob of marines would still deal full damage to a tightly stacked flock of mutalisks.
That's probably too significant to implement in current sc2, I fear... but I'd definitely like to see something like that in some other RTS. Anyway, what do you guys & girls out here think of such an idea?
I don't think that would be easy to understand when you're playing or when you're observing.
How do you explain such a concept to someone who is just watching Starcraft for the first time? How can a progamer be sure about the effectiveness of his timings and compositions when Height units provide such a large defender's advantage?
For me it's simple -- a unit doesn't deal full damage to something not directly in its line of fire.
I actually like the deathball problem in BW alot. Made the game the great thing it was. But because people think death balls are a flaw it will make it almost impossible to recreate this masterpiece.
and wow the article is from 2013 and the author writes that the only way to remove the deathballs is to make units less effective in large groups, while there are a few rts games available that had different approaches.
I think this is not an appropriate time to pull up the death-ball again, since what we've seen lately has only been beautiful Starcraft as of late. I've always thought there were too many ranged units, give those damned Marauders some Sledgehammers! AoE in my book, should break up the death-ball? and of course the much brought up topic, no need to get more than 3 base, so you can just sit in the one good position with your blob, defending all 3 bases at once.
The issue isn't so much that people attack in deathballs, it's the fact unlike BW where say you were a toss and you chipped away most of a mech army, the game didn't just instantly end and the Terran could defend long enough to come back into the game. In SC2, you lose the deathball fight and you usually lose it by landslide so they just instantly go to your base and you lose.
On October 28 2013 20:54 Pirfiktshon wrote: Deathball armies Reign supreme in sc2 though. Like take for instance Maru vs Dear Match 1. Maru was dropping his heart out kiting zealots doing eco damage at every round but in the end he lost why? #1 yes his trades seemed somewhat cost efficient but he was trading units for eco which would be decent if he was building his own deathball behind it. The reality though Dear had the 3 Insta-kill weapons in PvT Templar + Colo + Archons. It could be argued that if maru had split better in the last engagement he would have been massively ahead but as Terran your control has to be 100% every engagement and you have most of the time kill a death ball (maybe a weakened one) 3 times before you win as Terran whereas Protoss 1 convicingly won fight is gg....
Go watch that game again please. Dear won because he handled Maru's aggression perfectly with his splendid crisis management, he won by having a superior tech army which should win because that's how the game works, what if Maru have Ghosts and Vikings?
"The game will never evolve to the point of rewarding skill based plays, because it was not designed that way." -Talin
This is def true, The main problem with SC2 is and will always be that some units kill stuff to easily compared to others, a single mistake ends u the game, sometimes u spend the whole game winning small advantages just to loose to 2 colossus because u dind't build 6 vikings/corruptorsthat's just bad design, many units in this game reward players in a monstruous way that it shoudn't, There are too many situations where a player loose independant of what happened before. Right now this game is all about preparation, as long as you have the right composition( usually a deathball army) u'll prob win the game no matter what happened, that's why Toss can do the (well i just lost my third so i'll just defend on 2 base build a massive army and hope my opponent doesn't build the counter)
I'd define deathball as a tight group of units with such high ranged damage output per area that it is hard to even get close to it and do any damage at all. Splash damage and high range are unit characteristics that scale very well in a deathball. One solution to this would be to lower the overall damage output, especially on units with splash damage. Another approach would be to increase unit collision size so the deathball is spread out more and opposing units can do damage without being attacked by the whole deathball at once. This would be a nerf to splash units and a buff to melee units, so one would have to balance unit stats accordingly.
Bearhug, thanks for taking the time to find these resources and put them together! I absolutely agree, especially in terms of the protoss mid-late game. They are, unfortunately, largely confined to massing 'efficient' units, which cannot easily be split.
ALso, someone should get the OP some shiny graphics
Direct unit damage for many units needs to be increased while simultaneously decreasing hard counter damage.
Right now the game is just to AoE and hard counter dependent. It makes the outcomes of fights to predictable negating micro or positioning when you simply have the wrong composition.
This relates to death balls because death balls are the easiest way to put out the most dps possible against any composition. Basically protect your high dps/AoE units and let your lesser units be worthless cannon fodder.
I just think what happens in games is that when you realize you have the wrong composition players delay and ball their units up, wait for the best possible trade while banking resources in an attempt to get the right units.
More units in sc2 need to be viable so that each race isn't so dependent on a few useful units, most of which perform best balled together.
I think people should worry about defining why the deathballs are so effective in this game IMO it boils down to these and correct me if i'm wrong.
The Terran problem... since the pathing in this game allows units to cluster so much terran Bio Ball Is better the more you have it blizzard acknowledge this very early on, the units themselves create a wall around them making so that only a small group can be hit at a time hence the more u have the higher the percentage of units that are pretty much immune, if u add the fact that they also have very nice range... enough said
The Protoss problem... very simple actually, that's how their designed... warp gate/forcefield/blink/storm are all mechanics that increase the power of the units exponentially so the units have to be garbage on their own, add that to the fact that protoss have units with insane (I MEAN INSANE) dmg in the form of colossus which can 2 shot something like half the units in the game, immortals have the same charectristic but only vs armored and void rays the same... basically since their dps outputs is so insane they have to be trash on their own or they would be invencible.
The Zerg problem... Blizzard stated very early on they wanted Zerg to be the "mass" race basically they made all units bad so that ur forced to have many or their just bad... Examples 2 broods are terrible... 2 ultras are terrible... 10 roachs are terrible(forget that roaches are almost allways terrible[in the early game cause their week and in the late cause they cost too much supply] sorry for the rant) anyway my point about Zerg is that Zerg is very bad in low numbers, a few of anything on Zerg is just bad... U do a drop of 4 Hydras and u just laugh at how bad and cost inneficient they are on low numbers etc...
These are just a few examples of major design (IMO mistakes) that have forced this deathball game we all love and cherish.
Honestly if I could ask for something is for the game to not be so swingy sunddently i'm destroying my opponent he remembers he has dt's sends 2 to each expo and I proceed to loose a game that I have been destroying for the last 30m this has happened so many over the last few years is not even funny...
On October 28 2013 15:42 bearhug wrote: We all know that the deathball problem is a flaw of sc2.
... no offence that's just a dumb topic to start and assuming 100% of sc2 players agree with that statement. Essentially you started a flame war now between protoss vs zerg/terran. This was only posted because Dear won WCS champion and showed us unbelievable skill in micro and macro to hold off attacks, tech, and counter attack to win. Understand this is Dear, your not going to click find game and find anyone with similar abilities (maybe 1% I'm not even sure but its rare). Played all 3 races its hard for protoss to be the aggressor unless its some sort of all in. Hellons and speedlings give good map control and vision and come sooner then blink stalkers (there still good tho). Protoss turtle will just happen during this time, and then it leads into a death ball situation since zerg more then terran can somewhat throw away units at a better expense then a protoss army. Losing a couple units like sentry or immo can cost you the game if your army is outside the base and 50 speedlings run by or a stem bio ball rolls on top of your army. So why risk it?
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.
That's my opinion of the whole death ball ordeal. Hopefully people feel its not an issue with the game its how protoss has to survive. Its not like I particularly enjoy sitting in my base as if stepping outside is a high chance of death if I'm not comfortable.
I question if people know what death balls truly are and if they've ever seen a Protoss deathball or Terran deathball in BW? Reason I don't mention the Zerg is because you got swarmed whether it be the endless crackling/ultra/defiler combo just mauling you down or something else. In many cases you brought that upon yourself because you just didn't harass them enough and turtled waiting to get your own army big enough that you could try to plow through. You couldn't wait too long or else the Zerg would have you sieged with lurkers scattered throughout to keep you contained, which meant you really had to know what you were doing when it came to your breakout. Else you BE DEAD.
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.
On October 28 2013 22:30 Bazik wrote: I think people should worry about defining why the deathballs are so effective in this game IMO it boils down to these and correct me if i'm wrong.
The Terran problem... since the pathing in this game allows units to cluster so much terran Bio Ball Is better the more you have it blizzard acknowledge this very early on, the units themselves create a wall around them making so that only a small group can be hit at a time hence the more u have the higher the percentage of units that are pretty much immune, if u add the fact that they also have very nice range... enough said
The Protoss problem... very simple actually, that's how their designed... warp gate/forcefield/blink/storm are all mechanics that increase the power of the units exponentially so the units have to be garbage on their own, add that to the fact that protoss have units with insane (I MEAN INSANE) dmg in the form of colossus which can 2 shot something like half the units in the game, immortals have the same charectristic but only vs armored and void rays the same... basically since their dps outputs is so insane they have to be trash on their own or they would be invencible.
The Zerg problem... Blizzard stated very early on they wanted Zerg to be the "mass" race basically they made all units bad so that ur forced to have many or their just bad... Examples 2 broods are terrible... 2 ultras are terrible... 10 roachs are terrible(forget that roaches are almost allways terrible[in the early game cause their week and in the late cause they cost too much supply] sorry for the rant) anyway my point about Zerg is that Zerg is very bad in low numbers, a few of anything on Zerg is just bad... U do a drop of 4 Hydras and u just laugh at how bad and cost inneficient they are on low numbers etc...
These are just a few examples of major design (IMO mistakes) that have forced this deathball game we all love and cherish.
Honestly if I could ask for something is for the game to not be so swingy sunddently i'm destroying my opponent he remembers he has dt's sends 2 to each expo and I proceed to loose a game that I have been destroying for the last 30m this has happened so many over the last few years is not even funny...
My 2 cents
Such a bad post, not only are some statements pretty wrong (roaches bad in small numbers), you then complain about dts in a thread that is about deathballs, you cant be serious. At least you gave me a good laugh, ty for that.
The game at the highest level is currently less deathbally than its been at any point since the WoL beta. Virtually every game now features at least some degree of harass by both sides throughout the game, and multi-pronged attacks throughout the mid and late game are the norm in most matchups at this point. If you look at the most recent WCS Finals and the GSL right before that, the games where one side just turtled and macroed up a big ball and a-moved it across the map to win with one big battle are absolutely the minority at this point, and most of the games feature at least some degree of action on multiple fronts at various points throughout the game.
I think the biggest issues with the game at this point aren't anything to do with "deathballing", which is a largely solved problem on the highest level, but rather to do with viability of tech trees in certain matchups. Terrran in particular is forced into compositions that, while fun and micro intensive and rewarding of multitask, tend to be very samey from game to game in both TvP and TvZ. Blizzard's top priority at this point should be to solve the Terran tech tree issue.
Deathballs are a problem. But its negligable if there are proper options for retreating and delaying. BW had deathballs too, but it balanced this with the fact that they were either slow or easy to stall for time, and if you did a bad attack against a deathball, you could retreat with reasonable losses. Another balancing factor was that the actual deathball was more like a large army. Only a third to half of a maxed army could be attacking at the same time in a full on engagement.
Finally there were real tradeoffs to unit power in BW. Any unit with super strong abilities or splash attacks had some kind of massive disadvantage than meant they needed positioning or micro to not be easy targets. Siege tanks were immobile and had overkill/friendly fire, Lurkers were fairly short ranged and took a lot of time to build. Reavers were slow and had a really bad attack that just haapended to do a lot of damage.
All units that could do a lot of damage with splash were significantly hindered in functioning as a deathball.
I'm not saying that BW pathing and design are the direction to go, but we should look at the things in BW that forced players to play in exiting ways and find the reasons they worked.
Make units that do a lot of damage have severe trouble fighting on the move or functioning without some level of micro. Let armies have good options for disengaging. Area control is being used as a buzz word far to often, but some kind of mechanic is needed to delay a big push to allow army repositioning.
To discourage Deathballs you actually want to to have lots of AOE with areas that are as large as possible. The OP is correct that you want to have smaller ranges. You always want to prevent stacking of units (flying units and colossus promote death balls) Also having ability that do not stack on each other (Storm + Fungal) discourages deathballs. Basically there is little point in running around with 20 High Templar since you cannot storm with all of them at once. You are better off having a few here and a few there. Finally it is important to be able to disengage. If you can simultaneously attack on 3 fronts and then retreat where ever the death ball is but do economic damage on the other fronts then that forces players to split their armies. If instead the army that engages the deathball is stuck and unable to retreat then you lose 1/3 of your army for some economic damage and the multi-pronged attack loses some of its power.
On October 28 2013 22:55 awesomoecalypse wrote: The game at the highest level is currently less deathbally than its been at any point since the WoL beta. Virtually every game now features at least some degree of harass by both sides throughout the game, and multi-pronged attacks throughout the mid and late game are the norm in most matchups at this point. If you look at the most recent WCS Finals and the GSL right before that, the games where one side just turtled and macroed up a big ball and a-moved it across the map to win with one big battle are absolutely the minority at this point, and most of the games feature at least some degree of action on multiple fronts at various points throughout the game.
I think the biggest issues with the game at this point aren't anything to do with "deathballing", which is a largely solved problem on the highest level, but rather to do with viability of tech trees in certain matchups. Terrran in particular is forced into compositions that, while fun and micro intensive and rewarding of multitask, tend to be very samey from game to game in both TvP and TvZ. Blizzard's top priority at this point should be to solve the Terran tech tree issue.
It's definitely gotten better, though it still has a long way to go. Problem is, sooner or later you run into a ceiling for how much you can buff harassment tools, before they just take over gameplay.
If we truly want to break the mold of 3 bases - turtle - 200 supply - move out in big clump scenario, there needs to be some real, substantial benefits to aggressive expansion all over the map, and units or defenses that can reliably defend outlying expansions against a superior force long enough for the player being attacked to have a realistic chance of responding, and also preferably making attacking into a defended position much less of an enticing prospect, even with a larger force. Right now, if a maxed army rolls into an expo with 20-ish supply of units and some static def there to defend, the blob army just sweeps everything aside while taking token damage at worst.
This is why TvT is so amazing in HotS, because positional play and zone control is actually a viable method of taking and holding expansions. In ZvP, unless your maxed army is in position to defend your base against your opponents maxed army, that base is fucked. It's like watching two different games.
This is why TvT is so amazing in HotS, because positional play and zone control is actually a viable method of taking and holding expansions. In ZvP, unless your maxed army is in position to defend your base against your opponents maxed army, that base is fucked. It's like watching two different games.
Thats the thing though. Actually watching ZvP, I don't think its actually that deathbally at all, apart from a few specific builds (like the 2-1 all-in timings Stardust was using in every ZvP during the summer). If you watch Her0, or sOs, or Dear (all 3 of whom rank among the top PvZ players in the world), none of them have a playstyle that is deathbally at all. They're harassing with stalkers, prisms or stargate units throughout the entire game, they're active all over the map probing for weaknesses and counterattacking all over the place. Hell, when he played against Soulkey, Dear even managed to make Colossus fun, because he was just constantly moving them into better positions, splitting them up , pulling them back at the last second to save them ,etc. When I think PvZ deathball, I think stuff like a PartinG soultrain, or the old school Colossus+Gateway+Void Ray bigass ball a-moved for the win. But most of the best PvZ players in the world play nothing like that at this point. They play harass-oriented, multitask heavy styles with lots of prism, stargate and gateway heavy play often with blink.
PvZ is a fun matchup these days. PvP is a great matchup. PvT has evolved the least in terms of composition, but the level of play has gotten unbelievably high. I don't think Protoss is in a bad place in terms of either spectator value or skill ceiling, and I don't think deathballing is really a big problem these days.
This is why TvT is so amazing in HotS, because positional play and zone control is actually a viable method of taking and holding expansions. In ZvP, unless your maxed army is in position to defend your base against your opponents maxed army, that base is fucked. It's like watching two different games.
Thats the thing though. Actually watching ZvP, I don't think its actually that deathbally at all, apart from a few specific builds (like the 2-1 all-in timings Stardust was using in every ZvP during the summer). If you watch Her0, or sOs, or Dear (all 3 of whom rank among the top PvZ players in the world), none of them have a playstyle that is deathbally at all. They're harassing with stalkers, prisms or stargate units throughout the entire game, they're active all over the map probing for weaknesses and counterattacking all over the place. Hell, when he played against Soulkey, Dear even managed to make Colossus fun, because he was just constantly moving them into better positions, splitting them up , pulling them back at the last second to save them ,etc. When I think PvZ deathball, I think stuff like a PartinG soultrain, or the old school Colossus+Gateway+Void Ray bigass ball a-moved for the win. But most of the best PvZ players in the world play nothing like that at this point. They play harass-oriented, multitask heavy styles with lots of prism, stargate and gateway heavy play often with blink.
PvZ is a fun matchup these days. PvP is a great matchup. PvT has evolved the least in terms of composition, but the level of play has gotten unbelievably high. I don't think Protoss is in a bad place in terms of either spectator value or skill ceiling, and I don't think deathballing is really a big problem these days.
Eh, agree to disagree then, I find any protoss matchup about as fun as shaving my balls with a cheese grater. It's better, but nearly good enough.
The doompush is still far too powerful imo, and I would like to see the shit nerfed out of colossus/ff/swarm hosts/vipers. The less I ever have to watch those things, the better. TvT is still the only genuinely good match in SC2, maybe ZvT with some exceptions.
As I said, I would like to see some real changes to the economy system and much better defensive tools against blob armies.
Oh hey, look! Another thread where people who don't even play SC2 (or play it poorly) and definitely don't watch high-level SC2 talk about the game-breaking problems the game has that, uh, literally don't exist.
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.
I don't think that games are better now than they were in 2010-11 skillwise. The builds are more refined and players have deeper knowledge of all the strategic nuances, but they're not any more skilled than they were back in the day.
The game simply doesn't reward high-octane, high skill requirement plays - and more than often ends up punishing them for the smallest of mistakes. It's more of a flashy thing that ultimately doesn't have a lot of impact on the outcome of the game. You can have godly execution, but make one bad decision or misjudge the situation for a minute, and the player who was being taken to school all game long will suddenly get the correct composition and poop all over you. Yawn.
The game will never evolve to the point of rewarding skill based plays, because it was not designed that way.
I like that the more high-level players show that deathball play is suboptimal, the more idiots on TL whine about how the deathball is the death knell of SC2.
Newsflash: the solution to deathball play is to stop playing with a deathball, because good non-deathball play will trump good deathball play almost every time.
Eh, agree to disagree then, I find any protoss matchup about as fun as shaving my balls with a cheese grater. It's better, but nearly good enough.
Yeah, I don't understand or agree with that at all. These most recent WCS finals were fucking fantastic and had tons of great games, and it was the most Protoss-heavy major tournament of the year. Nearly every match involved a Protoss, and it produced tons and tons of amazing games. Dear especially was just showcasing incredible play in every single game, and his series with Maru was jaw-droppingly good...and, more relevant to the thread at hand, almost none of the games featured "deathball" play in any meaningful sense.
On October 29 2013 00:08 RampancyTW wrote: Oh hey, look! Another thread where people who don't even play SC2 (or play it poorly) and definitely don't watch high-level SC2 talk about the game-breaking problems the game has that, uh, literally don't exist.
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.
I don't think that games are better now than they were in 2010-11 skillwise. The builds are more refined and players have deeper knowledge of all the strategic nuances, but they're not any more skilled than they were back in the day.
The game simply doesn't reward high-octane, high skill requirement plays - and more than often ends up punishing them for the smallest of mistakes. It's more of a flashy thing that ultimately doesn't have a lot of impact on the outcome of the game. You can have godly execution, but make one bad decision or misjudge the situation for a minute, and the player who was being taken to school all game long will suddenly get the correct composition and poop all over you. Yawn.
The game will never evolve to the point of rewarding skill based plays, because it was not designed that way.
I like that the more high-level players show that deathball play is suboptimal, the more idiots on TL whine about how the deathball is the death knell of SC2.
Newsflash: the solution to deathball play is to stop playing with a deathball, because good non-deathball play will trump good deathball play almost every time.
Yeah, this. Not a single top player plays in a deathball style these days, because its been shown repeatedly to be sub-optimal on the highest level, and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't been paying attention.
The deathball is surely going out of style, but I didn't mind it too much in the first place either. In comparison to the scrappy fights in BW, I much prefer the slick army movement of sc2, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I can understand why some people dislike the way in which units handle in sc2, but for most people the pathing and clumping makes the game more playable. However, the clumping is, as already mentioned, fading away in progames, so it's becoming a non-issue when it comes to viewing sc2 either way.
I think the problem lies more within how the deathballs play out in the game. Deathballs happened in WC3 and BW all the time to but the difference was the interaction of the units was much better.
TvP hit 200/200 relatively quickly in almost every game in BW. However the unit interaction with the deathballs made it amazing to play out this late game scenario. First position was supremely important. The T had to gain a lot of space and get a nice tank spread that would effectively cover all of his expansions yet remain tight enough that the P couldnt just walk over one area. Then we had a lot of tactics on going in the battles such as templar storm drops on the tank line, zeal bombs, and drops both players had access to effective drops not just one race.
The most important part was that if one race won a big battle the game was not over yet, because if T won the battle the mech army was slow so his gain was to take more space and squeeze P out of the map. If the P won the battle he would be met by a mine field and a bunch of tanks so he would take a battle victory and turn it into more map control and expansions.
Do you guys see how in depth that is?
Now compare that to the bullshit that is SC2 TvP.
TvP unit interaction is terrible. Gateway units suck against Bio at the early stages. So the P is forced to turtle up into higher tech units. Map control pointless? The whole point is to get the endgame army. T can take the whole map and still lose. T has to keep harrassing protoss or he will die, no point in taking a ton of expansions and setting up a good position on the map just harass and if you do enough damage you can pull all scvs and just win.
If both players get to 200 the MU is now highly favoring Protoss yet now there is really no point in map control just grab the neccessary expansions and walk over to a T expo and force their blob vs your blob. Instead of worrying about real positional stuff like map control and distance to base and flanks, instead just worry that army is kind of split so you dont get emped. Both sides engage, the only real micro is emp vs storm. One side wins, GG.
Im not saying BW 2 PLZ. SO please dont give me that response. Just analyzing and comparing. I dont care if TvP ends up with Thor BC vs something else or something wierd like that, it just needs to be fun and have more DEPTH. There is 0 depth to TvP right now and for the last 3 years.
On October 29 2013 00:27 XXXSmOke wrote: I think the problem lies more within how the deathballs play out in the game. Deathballs happened in WC3 and BW all the time to but the difference was the interaction of the units was much better.
TvP hit 200/200 relatively quickly in almost every game in BW. However the unit interaction with the deathballs made it amazing to play out this late game scenario. First position was supremely important. The T had to gain a lot of space and get a nice tank spread that would effectively cover all of his expansions yet remain tight enough that the P couldnt just walk over one area. Then we had a lot of tactics on going in the battles such as templar storm drops on the tank line, zeal bombs, and drops both players had access to effective drops not just one race.
The most important part was that if one race won a big battle the game was not over yet, because if T won the battle the mech army was slow so his gain was to take more space and squeeze P out of the map. If the P won the battle he would be met by a mine field and a bunch of tanks so he would take a battle victory and turn it into more map control and expansions.
Do you guys see how in depth that is?
Now compare that to the bullshit that is SC2 TvP.
TvP unit interaction is terrible. Gateway units suck against Bio at the early stages. So the P is forced to turtle up into higher tech units. Map control pointless? The whole point is to get the endgame army. T can take the whole map and still lose. T has to keep harrassing protoss or he will die, no point in taking a ton of expansions and setting up a good position on the map just harass and if you do enough damage you can pull all scvs and just win.
If both players get to 200 the MU is now highly favoring Protoss yet now there is really no point in map control just grab the neccessary expansions and walk over to a T expo and force their blob vs your blob. Instead of worrying about real positional stuff like map control and distance to base and flanks, instead just worry that army is kind of split so you dont get emped. Both sides engage, the only real micro is emp vs storm. One side wins, GG.
This is a problem in PvZ and PvP too.... It all boils down to Protoss unit design. Individually Protoss units stink, except blink stalkers in early game. Its really stupid when a situation happen where if protoss units are caught split they die in seconds but if the same units are bunched together they kill everything in seconds. From what I understand of BW dragoons and zealots had some autonomy but in SC2 the protoss blob attacks as one.
WTF are you talking about? The WCS season 3 finals had great PvT and very little death ball like play. There was amazing flanks, storm drops, early aggression and punishing builds. I swear the guy posting above was right, these threads are filled with people who don't play or watch SC2.
From watching WCS this weekend, I don't think the Deathball was an issue. There was a lot of harassment from Dear (harassing with Oracles, Phoenixes and drops) to gain some advantage before assembling an attack. Maru certainly didn't deathball at all, and the zerg deathballs usually lost (except against another zerg).
I don't really see a problem with positioning, composition, and timing in a big fight winning games though.
Eh, agree to disagree then, I find any protoss matchup about as fun as shaving my balls with a cheese grater. It's better, but nearly good enough.
Yeah, I don't understand or agree with that at all. These most recent WCS finals were fucking fantastic and had tons of great games, and it was the most Protoss-heavy major tournament of the year. Nearly every match involved a Protoss, and it produced tons and tons of amazing games. Dear especially was just showcasing incredible play in every single game, and his series with Maru was jaw-droppingly good...and, more relevant to the thread at hand, almost none of the games featured "deathball" play in any meaningful sense.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
On October 29 2013 00:27 XXXSmOke wrote: I think the problem lies more within how the deathballs play out in the game. Deathballs happened in WC3 and BW all the time to but the difference was the interaction of the units was much better.
TvP hit 200/200 relatively quickly in almost every game in BW. However the unit interaction with the deathballs made it amazing to play out this late game scenario. First position was supremely important. The T had to gain a lot of space and get a nice tank spread that would effectively cover all of his expansions yet remain tight enough that the P couldnt just walk over one area. Then we had a lot of tactics on going in the battles such as templar storm drops on the tank line, zeal bombs, and drops both players had access to effective drops not just one race.
The most important part was that if one race won a big battle the game was not over yet, because if T won the battle the mech army was slow so his gain was to take more space and squeeze P out of the map. If the P won the battle he would be met by a mine field and a bunch of tanks so he would take a battle victory and turn it into more map control and expansions.
Do you guys see how in depth that is?
Now compare that to the bullshit that is SC2 TvP.
TvP unit interaction is terrible. Gateway units suck against Bio at the early stages. So the P is forced to turtle up into higher tech units. Map control pointless? The whole point is to get the endgame army. T can take the whole map and still lose. T has to keep harrassing protoss or he will die, no point in taking a ton of expansions and setting up a good position on the map just harass and if you do enough damage you can pull all scvs and just win.
If both players get to 200 the MU is now highly favoring Protoss yet now there is really no point in map control just grab the neccessary expansions and walk over to a T expo and force their blob vs your blob. Instead of worrying about real positional stuff like map control and distance to base and flanks, instead just worry that army is kind of split so you dont get emped. Both sides engage, the only real micro is emp vs storm. One side wins, GG.
This is a problem in PvZ and PvP too.... It all boils down to Protoss unit design. Individually Protoss units stink, except blink stalkers in early game. Its really stupid when a situation happen where if protoss units are caught split they die in seconds but if the same units are bunched together they kill everything in seconds. From what I understand of BW dragoons and zealots had some autonomy but in SC2 the protoss blob attacks as one.
Yea, PvZ had a lot of deathballs in BW to, but then again PvZ had some of the coolest shit in BW. The standard PvZ had the craziest midgame with just shit happening everywhere once P broke out of the contain on his forge expo. So by the time you had a big ball of P units the people watching the game already had there mind blown.
Then you also had the bisu style which was a very clever strategy that relied on notable harassment into a hopefully won late game. But the PvZ deathballs were insane. Ultra+Crackling+deflier vs a mixed P army instead of a 10 second fight that battle could just go on and on and on as the Z would just keep pounding the P army to submission.
I will agree that in SC2 P is unanimously the biggest problem race in the game. TvZ in SC2 has had some very very good games back in 2011. At that time PvZ was horribad with collsus void ray lulz. And TvP was in the same boat as it is now. If the other MU's were good at that point we could of seen an actual good game. But you cant just have one MU be good and have a successful RTS because at that point your playing warcraft 2.
Eh, agree to disagree then, I find any protoss matchup about as fun as shaving my balls with a cheese grater. It's better, but nearly good enough.
Yeah, I don't understand or agree with that at all. These most recent WCS finals were fucking fantastic and had tons of great games, and it was the most Protoss-heavy major tournament of the year. Nearly every match involved a Protoss, and it produced tons and tons of amazing games. Dear especially was just showcasing incredible play in every single game, and his series with Maru was jaw-droppingly good...and, more relevant to the thread at hand, almost none of the games featured "deathball" play in any meaningful sense.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
You really don't get it.
The "big showdown" is essentially a coup de grace. It's one player knowing that he's good enough to capitalize on his advantages and end the game. It's all of the little attacks and engagements before the big showdown that led to the win.
You're saying that the little things don't matter because the big thing ended it. But the reality is that the little things are EXACTLY what matters because the big thing wouldn't have ended it without them.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
99% of Protoss would fold to the sort of aggression Maru was putting out on multiple fronts at all point, and at every single stage Dear had just enough to barely hold it off with perfect micro. And there was never "one big showdown" that decided the entire game--once Dear had his desired composition, he had Maru on the defensive, but where were still numerous back and forth engagements and counterattacks, and both players were dropping continuously, including some really impressive storm drops by Dear.
If you weren't impressed by that series, than frankly I just don't think you enjoy SC2, and you should probably stop watching it and posting about it.
On October 28 2013 15:42 bearhug wrote: We all know that the deathball problem is a flaw of sc2. Sadly, there has been no attempt made by Blizzard to address the issue since the release of the game three years ago.
On October 29 2013 00:35 Plansix wrote: WTF are you talking about? The WCS season 3 finals had great PvT and very little death ball like play. There was amazing flanks, storm drops, early aggression and punishing builds. I swear the guy posting above was right, these threads are filled with people who don't play or watch SC2.
Eh, agree to disagree then, I find any protoss matchup about as fun as shaving my balls with a cheese grater. It's better, but nearly good enough.
Yeah, I don't understand or agree with that at all. These most recent WCS finals were fucking fantastic and had tons of great games, and it was the most Protoss-heavy major tournament of the year. Nearly every match involved a Protoss, and it produced tons and tons of amazing games. Dear especially was just showcasing incredible play in every single game, and his series with Maru was jaw-droppingly good...and, more relevant to the thread at hand, almost none of the games featured "deathball" play in any meaningful sense.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
You really don't get it.
The "big showdown" is essentially a coup de grace. It's one player knowing that he's good enough to capitalize on his advantages and end the game. It's all of the little attacks and engagements before the big showdown that led to the win.
You're saying that the little things don't matter because the big thing ended it. But the reality is that the little things are EXACTLY what matters because the big thing wouldn't have ended it without them.
Its like in MC vs. Hack--MC ended up killing the bulk of Hack's army by landing perfect storms, but the only reason he was able to do that was because he was continuously sniping medivacs throughout the game, so that in a major engagement Hack didn't have the healing he needed. If you just looked at the 10 seconds where Hack got romped by storms and concluded that the storms were what one the game, that would be an incredibly shallow understanding of the game, but that seems to be the level some people operate at.
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.
I don't think that games are better now than they were in 2010-11 skillwise. The builds are more refined and players have deeper knowledge of all the strategic nuances, but they're not any more skilled than they were back in the day.
The game simply doesn't reward high-octane, high skill requirement plays - and more than often ends up punishing them for the smallest of mistakes. It's more of a flashy thing that ultimately doesn't have a lot of impact on the outcome of the game. You can have godly execution, but make one bad decision or misjudge the situation for a minute, and the player who was being taken to school all game long will suddenly get the correct composition and poop all over you. Yawn.
The game will never evolve to the point of rewarding skill based plays, because it was not designed that way.
I guess you haven't been watching carefully enough. Every player has pretty much increased skill wise. The games now are just significantly better than they were before. Players are splitting up armies, attacking on multiple fronts without the use of mobility giving units or with the use of them, and, most importantly, are being significantly more creative. The game definitely rewards high octane, high skill plays, the only issue is that the game also allows for the immediate loss of all units in one battle which is a problem. Also, having "godly execution" would mean that the mistakes you mentioned shouldn't happen by definition.
I think a lot of people talk past each other here. I think everybody can agree that there is usually no "build one army while doing nothing else, then push" anymore. But thats not really the point of the deathballs in sc2. YES they is more harass, but in the end it oftem comes down to the one big toss army nonetheless. While i agree that the games are much better than before, to say there is no deathballplay is just ignorant. There are deathballs in every PvX , cause toss HAS to use their big ball cause its so fucking effective. The interactions between these deathballs is what is lacking in sc2 the most, tvt, tvz and to a lesse extent zvz (maybe roach vs roach not so much) are much better in that perspective cause it feels more rewarding to play these big fights (and it doesnt snowball that hard most of the time). So yeah i can totally understand why anyone would say he doesnt like most of the PvX matchups (that doesnt mean that there are only bad games, but ehy could be MUCH MUCH better still)
Eh, agree to disagree then, I find any protoss matchup about as fun as shaving my balls with a cheese grater. It's better, but nearly good enough.
Yeah, I don't understand or agree with that at all. These most recent WCS finals were fucking fantastic and had tons of great games, and it was the most Protoss-heavy major tournament of the year. Nearly every match involved a Protoss, and it produced tons and tons of amazing games. Dear especially was just showcasing incredible play in every single game, and his series with Maru was jaw-droppingly good...and, more relevant to the thread at hand, almost none of the games featured "deathball" play in any meaningful sense.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
You really don't get it.
The "big showdown" is essentially a coup de grace. It's one player knowing that he's good enough to capitalize on his advantages and end the game. It's all of the little attacks and engagements before the big showdown that led to the win.
You're saying that the little things don't matter because the big thing ended it. But the reality is that the little things are EXACTLY what matters because the big thing wouldn't have ended it without them.
I get it just fine, I just don't agree with you. I've seen the exact same result after watching one player get mauled for 20 minutes, only to get one good engagement and crush his opponent's army and promptly win.
As I said, I'm not denying it's gotten a lot better, I just don't think it's anywhere near good enough yet. PvT is not nearly as bad as PvZ though, there's that.
Eh, agree to disagree then, I find any protoss matchup about as fun as shaving my balls with a cheese grater. It's better, but nearly good enough.
Yeah, I don't understand or agree with that at all. These most recent WCS finals were fucking fantastic and had tons of great games, and it was the most Protoss-heavy major tournament of the year. Nearly every match involved a Protoss, and it produced tons and tons of amazing games. Dear especially was just showcasing incredible play in every single game, and his series with Maru was jaw-droppingly good...and, more relevant to the thread at hand, almost none of the games featured "deathball" play in any meaningful sense.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
You really don't get it.
The "big showdown" is essentially a coup de grace. It's one player knowing that he's good enough to capitalize on his advantages and end the game. It's all of the little attacks and engagements before the big showdown that led to the win.
You're saying that the little things don't matter because the big thing ended it. But the reality is that the little things are EXACTLY what matters because the big thing wouldn't have ended it without them.
Its like in MC vs. Hack--MC ended up killing the bulk of Hack's army by landing perfect storms, but the only reason he was able to do that was because he was continuously sniping medivacs throughout the game, so that in a major engagement Hack didn't have the healing he needed. If you just looked at the 10 seconds where Hack got romped by storms and concluded that the storms were what one the game, that would be an incredibly shallow understanding of the game, but that seems to be the level some people operate at.
Yeah. I think a lot of people would just see "oh okay MC is just trying to snipe some units oh wow he lost 2 stalkers for only a single medivac that's not a good resource trade etc." and end up thinking Hack is ahead, when really MC is pulling ahead every time he's able to trade a few stalkers for a couple medivacs because it makes his tech units so much more effective.
So they just see "Wow Hack was winning and MC just killed him with a few storms at the end" while the reality is "Wow, MC orchestrated that game almost perfectly to ensure he would be able to conduct a killing blow."
So much issues with the game come directly from Protoss' design :/ TvT and TvZ are really fun to watch and play, (ZvZ can't comment since I play T), but TvP is such a horrible matchup :/
I'd go as far as saying that if they just straight up removed P from the game it'll actually improve TvT/TvZ/ZvZ gameplay since it would remove quite a lot of map design constraints and allow a much more diverse map pool as a consequence
Eh, agree to disagree then, I find any protoss matchup about as fun as shaving my balls with a cheese grater. It's better, but nearly good enough.
Yeah, I don't understand or agree with that at all. These most recent WCS finals were fucking fantastic and had tons of great games, and it was the most Protoss-heavy major tournament of the year. Nearly every match involved a Protoss, and it produced tons and tons of amazing games. Dear especially was just showcasing incredible play in every single game, and his series with Maru was jaw-droppingly good...and, more relevant to the thread at hand, almost none of the games featured "deathball" play in any meaningful sense.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
You really don't get it.
The "big showdown" is essentially a coup de grace. It's one player knowing that he's good enough to capitalize on his advantages and end the game. It's all of the little attacks and engagements before the big showdown that led to the win.
You're saying that the little things don't matter because the big thing ended it. But the reality is that the little things are EXACTLY what matters because the big thing wouldn't have ended it without them.
I get it just fine, I just don't agree with you. I've seen the exact same result after watching one player get mauled for 20 minutes, only to get one good engagement and crush his opponent's army and promptly win.
As I said, I'm not denying it's gotten a lot better, I just don't think it's anywhere near good enough yet. PvT is not nearly as bad as PvZ though, there's that.
If you think this is the case, you really don't understand the game. I'm not saying that to be insulting. I'm saying that because you aren't aware of all of the factors going into a high-level game if you think one player can get truly mauled for 20 minutes and win in one good engagement willy-nilly.
I've seen players have LEADS for 20 minutes, sometimes crushing leads, throw them away by leaving 10 tanks unguarded while simultaneously throwing 2000min/1500gas into extraneous upgrades, unnecessary CCs, and what have you and be left without enough resources to rebuild their army, but that's not the game's fault. That's a player misjudging his position and losing. And he deserves to lose, for making such a glaring mistake against an opponent that was clearly not as behind as he thought.
Eh, agree to disagree then, I find any protoss matchup about as fun as shaving my balls with a cheese grater. It's better, but nearly good enough.
Yeah, I don't understand or agree with that at all. These most recent WCS finals were fucking fantastic and had tons of great games, and it was the most Protoss-heavy major tournament of the year. Nearly every match involved a Protoss, and it produced tons and tons of amazing games. Dear especially was just showcasing incredible play in every single game, and his series with Maru was jaw-droppingly good...and, more relevant to the thread at hand, almost none of the games featured "deathball" play in any meaningful sense.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
You really don't get it.
The "big showdown" is essentially a coup de grace. It's one player knowing that he's good enough to capitalize on his advantages and end the game. It's all of the little attacks and engagements before the big showdown that led to the win.
You're saying that the little things don't matter because the big thing ended it. But the reality is that the little things are EXACTLY what matters because the big thing wouldn't have ended it without them.
I get it just fine, I just don't agree with you. I've seen the exact same result after watching one player get mauled for 20 minutes, only to get one good engagement and crush his opponent's army and promptly win.
As I said, I'm not denying it's gotten a lot better, I just don't think it's anywhere near good enough yet. PvT is not nearly as bad as PvZ though, there's that.
I'm guessing you didn't watch WCS KR Finals. That was some of the best PvZ I've seen, and as a Terran I sometimes skip PvZ. Not anymore.
So much issues with the game come directly from Protoss' design :/ TvT and TvZ are really fun to watch and play, (ZvZ can't comment since I play T), but TvP is such a horrible matchup :/
I'd go as far as saying that if they just straight up removed P from the game it'll actually improve TvT/TvZ/ZvZ gameplay since it would remove quite a lot of map design constraints and allow a much more diverse map pool as a consequence
These most recent GSL Finals were both the best tournament of the year so far, and the most Protoss heavy tournament of the year so far.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
99% of Protoss would fold to the sort of aggression Maru was putting out on multiple fronts at all point, and at every single stage Dear had just enough to barely hold it off with perfect micro. And there was never "one big showdown" that decided the entire game--once Dear had his desired composition, he had Maru on the defensive, but where were still numerous back and forth engagements and counterattacks, and both players were dropping continuously, including some really impressive storm drops by Dear.
If you weren't impressed by that series, than frankly I just don't think you enjoy SC2, and you should probably stop watching it and posting about it.
Well said. Dear vs maru were some of the best, non deathbally pvt we have seen. The match up only gets better over time. If people just thought the games were some turtle fest, they might need to accept that sc2 is not the game for them and move on.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
99% of Protoss would fold to the sort of aggression Maru was putting out on multiple fronts at all point, and at every single stage Dear had just enough to barely hold it off with perfect micro. And there was never "one big showdown" that decided the entire game--once Dear had his desired composition, he had Maru on the defensive, but where were still numerous back and forth engagements and counterattacks, and both players were dropping continuously, including some really impressive storm drops by Dear.
If you weren't impressed by that series, than frankly I just don't think you enjoy SC2, and you should probably stop watching it and posting about it.
Well said. Dear vs maru were some of the best, non deathbally pvt we have seen. The match up only gets better over time. If people just thought the games were some turtle fest, they might need to accept that sc2 is not the game for them and move on.
Or they only enjoy tvt and tzv and zvz? I enjoyed maru vs dear too, but in the end it all came down to the big toss army with lasers completely destroying the terran. Yeah there were sick moves etc, but the big battles itself are as shitty as ever.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
99% of Protoss would fold to the sort of aggression Maru was putting out on multiple fronts at all point, and at every single stage Dear had just enough to barely hold it off with perfect micro. And there was never "one big showdown" that decided the entire game--once Dear had his desired composition, he had Maru on the defensive, but where were still numerous back and forth engagements and counterattacks, and both players were dropping continuously, including some really impressive storm drops by Dear.
If you weren't impressed by that series, than frankly I just don't think you enjoy SC2, and you should probably stop watching it and posting about it.
Well said. Dear vs maru were some of the best, non deathbally pvt we have seen. The match up only gets better over time. If people just thought the games were some turtle fest, they might need to accept that sc2 is not the game for them and move on.
Or they only enjoy tvt and tzv and zvz? I enjoyed maru vs dear too, but in the end it all came down to the big toss army with lasers completely destroying the terran. Yeah there were sick moves etc, but the big battles itself are as shitty as ever.
So even if a game features tons of sick action all over the map, on multiple fronts at all times, tons of back and forth with the lead changing, amazing micro by both players, and absolutely stellar army control in major engagements (seriously, the way Dear was controlling his army was a masterclass in positioning and perfect spell placement, and Maru's dodging and spreading in response was insane), its still "shitty" because...Protoss attack animations involve lasers, and the Terran lost? Its not like there was ever any one big battle where the game was instantly over either, even once Dear got the army comp he wanted and put Maru on the defensive, there was still a shitload of counterattacking and multi-pronged engagements.
Eh, agree to disagree then, I find any protoss matchup about as fun as shaving my balls with a cheese grater. It's better, but nearly good enough.
Yeah, I don't understand or agree with that at all. These most recent WCS finals were fucking fantastic and had tons of great games, and it was the most Protoss-heavy major tournament of the year. Nearly every match involved a Protoss, and it produced tons and tons of amazing games. Dear especially was just showcasing incredible play in every single game, and his series with Maru was jaw-droppingly good...and, more relevant to the thread at hand, almost none of the games featured "deathball" play in any meaningful sense.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
You really don't get it.
The "big showdown" is essentially a coup de grace. It's one player knowing that he's good enough to capitalize on his advantages and end the game. It's all of the little attacks and engagements before the big showdown that led to the win.
You're saying that the little things don't matter because the big thing ended it. But the reality is that the little things are EXACTLY what matters because the big thing wouldn't have ended it without them.
I get it just fine, I just don't agree with you. I've seen the exact same result after watching one player get mauled for 20 minutes, only to get one good engagement and crush his opponent's army and promptly win.
As I said, I'm not denying it's gotten a lot better, I just don't think it's anywhere near good enough yet. PvT is not nearly as bad as PvZ though, there's that.
I'm guessing you didn't watch WCS KR Finals. That was some of the best PvZ I've seen, and as a Terran I sometimes skip PvZ. Not anymore.
I watched the first three games, they were ok, good timings and excellent reads from Dear, but again it was nothing I'd consider good enough. Some of the best PvZ I've seen is like saying Steven Seagal's best movie, not really saying much.
I understand this game fine, I watch(or well watched) it quite a bit, and played it for quite a while too. I'm just not overly impressed by what I saw at Toronto. I expect more, I expect better.
It is totally true. The same people come in and make the same rehashed arguments that have been thrown around for like 3 years, even if they no longer apply. If I see "Protoss design" used as a argument one more time, I might vomit in my mouth. It's the same bs over and over that is moving farther and farther way from reality of what SC2 really is.
On October 29 2013 01:23 Plansix wrote: It is totally true. The same people come in and make the same rehashed arguments that have been thrown around for like 3 years, even if they no longer apply. If I see "Protoss design" used as a argument one more time, I might vomit in my mouth. It's the same bs over and over that is moving farther and farther way from reality of what SC2 really is.
It helps to remember that they're simply the vocal minority. Look in any LR thread or watch the crowds at major events, and its obvious the vast majority of fans can look at series like Dear vs Maru and appreciate how amazing it is.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
99% of Protoss would fold to the sort of aggression Maru was putting out on multiple fronts at all point, and at every single stage Dear had just enough to barely hold it off with perfect micro. And there was never "one big showdown" that decided the entire game--once Dear had his desired composition, he had Maru on the defensive, but where were still numerous back and forth engagements and counterattacks, and both players were dropping continuously, including some really impressive storm drops by Dear.
If you weren't impressed by that series, than frankly I just don't think you enjoy SC2, and you should probably stop watching it and posting about it.
Well said. Dear vs maru were some of the best, non deathbally pvt we have seen. The match up only gets better over time. If people just thought the games were some turtle fest, they might need to accept that sc2 is not the game for them and move on.
Or they only enjoy tvt and tzv and zvz? I enjoyed maru vs dear too, but in the end it all came down to the big toss army with lasers completely destroying the terran. Yeah there were sick moves etc, but the big battles itself are as shitty as ever.
So even if a game features tons of sick action all over the map, on multiple fronts at all times, tons of back and forth with the lead changing, amazing micro by both players, and absolutely stellar army control in major engagements (seriously, the way Dear was controlling his army was a masterclass in positioning and perfect spell placement, and Maru's dodging and spreading in response was insane), its still "shitty" because...Protoss attack animations involve lasers, and the Terran lost? Its not like there was ever any one big battle where the game was instantly over either, even once Dear got the army comp he wanted and put Maru on the defensive, there was still a shitload of counterattacking and multi-pronged engagements.
And awesome storm drops. Protoss need to do more storm drops because they are so awesome and tense. Dear is a tiny thunder god for pulling some of those off.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
99% of Protoss would fold to the sort of aggression Maru was putting out on multiple fronts at all point, and at every single stage Dear had just enough to barely hold it off with perfect micro. And there was never "one big showdown" that decided the entire game--once Dear had his desired composition, he had Maru on the defensive, but where were still numerous back and forth engagements and counterattacks, and both players were dropping continuously, including some really impressive storm drops by Dear.
If you weren't impressed by that series, than frankly I just don't think you enjoy SC2, and you should probably stop watching it and posting about it.
Well said. Dear vs maru were some of the best, non deathbally pvt we have seen. The match up only gets better over time. If people just thought the games were some turtle fest, they might need to accept that sc2 is not the game for them and move on.
Or they only enjoy tvt and tzv and zvz? I enjoyed maru vs dear too, but in the end it all came down to the big toss army with lasers completely destroying the terran. Yeah there were sick moves etc, but the big battles itself are as shitty as ever.
So even if a game features tons of sick action all over the map, on multiple fronts at all times, tons of back and forth with the lead changing, amazing micro by both players, and absolutely stellar army control in major engagements (seriously, the way Dear was controlling his army was a masterclass in positioning and perfect spell placement, and Maru's dodging and spreading in response was insane), its still "shitty" because...Protoss attack animations involve lasers, and the Terran lost? Its not like there was ever any one big battle where the game was instantly over either, even once Dear got the army comp he wanted and put Maru on the defensive, there was still a shitload of counterattacking and multi-pronged engagements.
I'm glad people like you still have the stamina to argue with these people. SC2 could give people blowjobs while they play and there would still be criticism.
BW also had death balls. Try playing against against a toss when their army is full of reavers, storm and archons. The thing with SC2 is that everyone blames the game and not the players or the meta game. Oh a Protoss won, must be because of Protoss OP. Where were these people when Protoss was going 2 base carrier turtle on Katrina/Andromeda every single game?
I think what needs to change is people's mindset, everyone is so negative when we have tons of Starcraft to watch. But, back when we had to proxy to Korea and watch OSL on Daum player at 4am we were glad with what we got.
On October 29 2013 01:23 Plansix wrote: It is totally true. The same people come in and make the same rehashed arguments that have been thrown around for like 3 years, even if they no longer apply. If I see "Protoss design" used as a argument one more time, I might vomit in my mouth. It's the same bs over and over that is moving farther and farther way from reality of what SC2 really is.
It helps to remember that they're simply the vocal minority. Look in any LR thread or watch the crowds at major events, and its obvious the vast majority of fans can look at series like Dear vs Maru and appreciate how amazing it is.
It still important to voice that fact and make sure people are aware of it. Otherwise people get the impression from TL that everyone dislikes SC2 or thinks its a "flawed game" which is simply not the case. Everything can be made better, but that doesn't mean that the game is flawed .
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
99% of Protoss would fold to the sort of aggression Maru was putting out on multiple fronts at all point, and at every single stage Dear had just enough to barely hold it off with perfect micro. And there was never "one big showdown" that decided the entire game--once Dear had his desired composition, he had Maru on the defensive, but where were still numerous back and forth engagements and counterattacks, and both players were dropping continuously, including some really impressive storm drops by Dear.
If you weren't impressed by that series, than frankly I just don't think you enjoy SC2, and you should probably stop watching it and posting about it.
Well said. Dear vs maru were some of the best, non deathbally pvt we have seen. The match up only gets better over time. If people just thought the games were some turtle fest, they might need to accept that sc2 is not the game for them and move on.
Or they only enjoy tvt and tzv and zvz? I enjoyed maru vs dear too, but in the end it all came down to the big toss army with lasers completely destroying the terran. Yeah there were sick moves etc, but the big battles itself are as shitty as ever.
So even if a game features tons of sick action all over the map, on multiple fronts at all times, tons of back and forth with the lead changing, amazing micro by both players, and absolutely stellar army control in major engagements (seriously, the way Dear was controlling his army was a masterclass in positioning and perfect spell placement, and Maru's dodging and spreading in response was insane), its still "shitty" because...Protoss attack animations involve lasers, and the Terran lost? Its not like there was ever any one big battle where the game was instantly over either, even once Dear got the army comp he wanted and put Maru on the defensive, there was still a shitload of counterattacking and multi-pronged engagements.
And awesome storm drops. Protoss need to do more storm drops because they are so awesome and tense. Dear is a tiny thunder god for pulling some of those off.
Yeah without those Storm drops Maru would have taken an insurmountable lead. Several times, Maru would sneak past Dear's defenses and get tons of worker kills and I would think Dear was done...and then the Observer would click to the other side of the map and Dear would be wiping out Maru's workers with a storm drop in response.
On October 28 2013 15:53 Pandain wrote: I don't think deathball is playing as big of a role as you think it is lately.
Same, there were very few deathball games at WCS.
I don't even know how it is considered acceptable that after over three years of development of the game, which is incomparable to the same time period in Brood War's history because of improved knowledge, dedication, organization, that we are finally seeing less death ball play in some match-ups only at the very top level. This from the same community that wants a foreigner only WCS NA/EU, shouldn't we want the potential for interesting games on all levels of play?
"Bad" players want to sit back, build a large army, and then attack with it. That happens in every RTS, even Broodwar. You cannot force interesting games on all levels of play.
You can't force interesting games on all levels of play. Apparently it's okay if it's only fun at 0.001% of levels of play. You realize you have judged that virtually all players that play this game don't deserve to have fun? How appallingly elitist. This is why e-sports can be dumb, you have people that only watch and don't play that find it perfectly acceptable that the game isn't balanced for lower levels, is too difficult for lower levels, is not fun for lower levels and it doesn't matter to them since they only care if watching Soulkey vs Innovation is enjoyable.
I don't think those games were anywhere near as good or fun as any above average TvT. Dear vs Maru was a series of very ambitious but sometimes overeager attacks by Maru, with no tech behind, and when Dear stabilized he just moved out with a better army and crushed him.
If anything, that was a perfect example of how more or less every fight before the big showdown becomes almost inconsequential compared to the big 20 second battle that decides the game.
99% of Protoss would fold to the sort of aggression Maru was putting out on multiple fronts at all point, and at every single stage Dear had just enough to barely hold it off with perfect micro. And there was never "one big showdown" that decided the entire game--once Dear had his desired composition, he had Maru on the defensive, but where were still numerous back and forth engagements and counterattacks, and both players were dropping continuously, including some really impressive storm drops by Dear.
If you weren't impressed by that series, than frankly I just don't think you enjoy SC2, and you should probably stop watching it and posting about it.
Well said. Dear vs maru were some of the best, non deathbally pvt we have seen. The match up only gets better over time. If people just thought the games were some turtle fest, they might need to accept that sc2 is not the game for them and move on.
Or they only enjoy tvt and tzv and zvz? I enjoyed maru vs dear too, but in the end it all came down to the big toss army with lasers completely destroying the terran. Yeah there were sick moves etc, but the big battles itself are as shitty as ever.
So even if a game features tons of sick action all over the map, on multiple fronts at all times, tons of back and forth with the lead changing, amazing micro by both players, and absolutely stellar army control in major engagements (seriously, the way Dear was controlling his army was a masterclass in positioning and perfect spell placement, and Maru's dodging and spreading in response was insane), its still "shitty" because...Protoss attack animations involve lasers, and the Terran lost? Its not like there was ever any one big battle where the game was instantly over either, even once Dear got the army comp he wanted and put Maru on the defensive, there was still a shitload of counterattacking and multi-pronged engagements.
Ah cmon now, i give you dear vs maru, but thats probably the best pvt in a very long time. And no its not about the lasers, its about the shitty interaction between two big "deathballs" in the matchups. There is no real interesting interaction between a big bio ball and a toss deathball. Yeah storms are kinda "interesting" (split of marines etc), but the rest is pretty straight forward, if you dont have enough vikings you simply lose.
PvP is so much better than ZvZ at this point its not even funny.
Yeah cause all what you say is the truth right. i agree that pvp is enjoyable but thats mostly cause there is much variety. In zvz the excitement comes from ling bling wars and endless counterattacks with lings/ burrowed roaches etc.
On October 29 2013 01:23 Plansix wrote: It is totally true. The same people come in and make the same rehashed arguments that have been thrown around for like 3 years, even if they no longer apply. If I see "Protoss design" used as a argument one more time, I might vomit in my mouth. It's the same bs over and over that is moving farther and farther way from reality of what SC2 really is.
No it is not. The same statement is still true: If the toss has enough lasers and storm he simply shits on you cause that tossball is totally retarded in dps. I mean lets be honest here. Quote from the finals recap:
Sending zealots and warp-prisms to harass Soulkey and keep him occupied, he built up a powerful deathball of stalkers, colossi, templar, and void rays.
One brilliant engagement was all Dear needed to conclusively swing the game, goading Soulkey's swarm host-hydra-corruptor-infestor army into a head on fight. With perfect use of spells, Dear melted Soulkey's late game army into a bloody puddle, forcing yet another GG.
You wanna say thats no deathball? It is inteersting to see that fight? Cmon you cant be serious.
On October 28 2013 16:44 Sub40APM wrote: didnt someone link the point about the nature of ranged combat as the problem. when 10 ranged units meet 8 ranged units it doesnt end with 10-8 but instead its something like 10-2 or something that causes the more numerous long ranged guys to survive more or less in tact while annihilating the other group completely.
That's just how it works with any group of units fighting eachother (same with melee units). There is loss of attack power thus the one who has fewer units will lose them quicker and because of that lose them even quicker, thus losing exponentially more units than the other player. That's the core of deathballs, and it is unfixable in any game where units can die.
On October 28 2013 15:53 Pandain wrote: I don't think deathball is playing as big of a role as you think it is lately.
Same, there were very few deathball games at WCS.
I don't even know how it is considered acceptable that after over three years of development of the game, which is incomparable to the same time period in Brood War's history because of improved knowledge, dedication, organization, that we are finally seeing less death ball play in some match-ups only at the very top level. This from the same community that wants a foreigner only WCS NA/EU, shouldn't we want the potential for interesting games on all levels of play?
"Bad" players want to sit back, build a large army, and then attack with it. That happens in every RTS, even Broodwar. You cannot force interesting games on all levels of play.
You can't force interesting games on all levels of play. Apparently it's okay if it's only fun at 0.001% of levels of play. You realize you have judged that virtually all players that play this game don't deserve to have fun? How appallingly elitist. This is why e-sports can be dumb, you have people that only watch and don't play that find it perfectly acceptable that the game isn't balanced for lower levels, is too difficult for lower levels, is not fun for lower levels and it doesn't matter to them since they only care if watching Soulkey vs Innovation is enjoyable.
BW was the same way. Protoss was openly acknowledged as simply better at low levels, and Terran was insanely hard to win with if you were bad. Did people bitch and moan? No, because they understood that the game shouldn't be designed around bad players, it should be balanced at the highest possible level.
On October 28 2013 16:44 Sub40APM wrote: didnt someone link the point about the nature of ranged combat as the problem. when 10 ranged units meet 8 ranged units it doesnt end with 10-8 but instead its something like 10-2 or something that causes the more numerous long ranged guys to survive more or less in tact while annihilating the other group completely.
That's just how it works with any group of units fighting eachother (same with melee units). There is loss of attack power thus the one who has fewer units will lose them quicker and because of that lose them even quicker, thus losing exponentially more units than the other player. That's the core of deathballs, and it is unfixable in any game where units can die.
It's much less pronounced with melee units because of limited surface area, it's much easier to use terrain to stymie melee assaults than ranged attacks. At some point, adding in more melee units is not worth it as they'll never actually get to fight.
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.
On October 28 2013 15:53 Pandain wrote: I don't think deathball is playing as big of a role as you think it is lately.
Same, there were very few deathball games at WCS.
I don't even know how it is considered acceptable that after over three years of development of the game, which is incomparable to the same time period in Brood War's history because of improved knowledge, dedication, organization, that we are finally seeing less death ball play in some match-ups only at the very top level. This from the same community that wants a foreigner only WCS NA/EU, shouldn't we want the potential for interesting games on all levels of play?
"Bad" players want to sit back, build a large army, and then attack with it. That happens in every RTS, even Broodwar. You cannot force interesting games on all levels of play.
You can't force interesting games on all levels of play. Apparently it's okay if it's only fun at 0.001% of levels of play. You realize you have judged that virtually all players that play this game don't deserve to have fun? How appallingly elitist. This is why e-sports can be dumb, you have people that only watch and don't play that find it perfectly acceptable that the game isn't balanced for lower levels, is too difficult for lower levels, is not fun for lower levels and it doesn't matter to them since they only care if watching Soulkey vs Innovation is enjoyable.
No one is forcing you to play that way. I play games with heavy harassment and multiprong attacks. I am fucking terrible and I lose sometimes because I am bad and it is hard, but who cares? Sure building. 200/200 army is easier, but who cares? There are plenty of heroes in dota that are easier that Visage, but I still play him.
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.
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.
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!
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 02:18 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.
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 02:18 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.
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 02:18 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 02:18 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 02:45 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 02:45 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.
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.
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 02:45 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
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 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.
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.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
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
Many people don't know what a death ball is. They do exist, but many people don't know what a true death ball is or where it originated from. It's okay though. Many people misuse a lot of the terms all the time including the casters, i.e. all-ins. Gretrop was guilty of that the other day. >_<
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!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
So wonderful to see a lot of positive post acknowledging that it's actually not as bad as some people try to paint it! Delightful to read! :D
Lots of TL threads are just filled with negativity for negativity's own sake so this is a nice change of pace! Sometimes it even seems some posters only hang around for this aspect alone
A lot of negative comments in the past has over time shown to have been completely wrong, but these have all been forgotten as people move on to the new topic of the day to complain about.
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!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
Thank you for saying this. Nada's tornado Terran was a vulture harass into deathball unsieged tank A-move. New game, same tricks.
On October 29 2013 03:05 The_Red_Viper wrote: 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.
When was the last time you actually saw a battle between high-level opponents play out like this?
Most of the TvP engagement I see usually last anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes with constant probing and sparring and trying to get casters in favorable positions etc. If you only count the brief period of fully-committed fighting as the battle then yeah, of course it's not going to be interesting. But the total engagement is wayyyy more than that.
I wish more people would separate these absurdly long deathball posts with a paragraph break or two
Changing the unit pathing seems way to harsh for me, I think the newer maps are discouraging the turtle strategy, but let's face it, the game still has another expansion and you cannot say that Blizzard isn't trying to improve the game.
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!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
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.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
looks like everyone is having a good time.
the Larson perfect game is one of the most celebrated games in the history of the World Series.
the Dave Stieb no-hitter got a standing ovation even though it was in the opposition ball park. and his "near misses" of no-hitters were equally intense. it was in old cleveland municipal stadium.. and again.. everyone had a great time even though the "Blue Jays" are the worst road draw in Major League Baseball.. by a huge margin.
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.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
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.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
the Larson perfect game is one of the most celebrated games in the history of the World Series.
Yeah every no-hitter I've ever seen, everyone in the crowd is on the edges of their seats, and the announcers won't even mention that its in play for fear of jinxing it. No hitters are awesome for anyone who appreciates good pitching, and if you can't appreciate good pitching you probably don't like baseball.
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!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
I actually posted about this right above. The actual army engagements are more than just the fully-committed fighting that occurs. There's a lot of dancing and sparring that leads to that end few seconds of fighting, and even those few seconds of fighting can last a longgg time if both players are on top of their micro and positioning and reinforcing.
The real issue in tvp is that toss is forced to turtle, unless of course they do 1 of their 100 all ins at their disposal. Assuming they went for a macro game, toss best choice to win is to get a huge army 3/3 with a billion gateways to remax instantly. This was worse before, now with prism speed and buffs in general, toss can try more harras focus strategies. The question is why toss would risk to spend money on zlots instead of upgrades, Templar and collosi. In summary, if toss player deflect harassment, their best choice is to go for unbeatable collosi, Templar, archon, zlots army. On the other hand, we have Terran. This race can play the match up in basically two ways. First, we have Maru. Mmm the whole game, harras like a god, replace army keep harrasing, do enough damage to jeopardize toss so much, that they can't get the unbeatable army. Second, go for late game army, get Vikings, ghosts. With this style u can actually face to face fight a toss mighty army, and for the surprise of Terran players themselves, actually beat it. U heard correct, a 200/200 Terran army with ghost Viking mmm actually defeats a toss unbeatable army. The reason is easy to understand, Terran army would be almost two times more expensive than toss (u can see this on any test map). So the real question is which style is better. One would like to think the second, but that would be to easy. Maru played the only viable style to actually be able to defeat toss. The explanation to this is more complex and difficult to understand. The problem with fighting straight up toss is that u can be cost efficient, but u will lose an army that is harder to remake. after the fight finish Terran will have some ghost remaining with no energy, a hand full of Vikings, some marine and rauders. Toss will instantly warp 15 to 20 zlots, will morph their 10 Templars that storm ur whole army into the most fearful unit in the game that actually rape bio units, the archon. Terran will try to pump some bio units, some ghost and medivacs but toss will definetly overtake Terran production, and damage ur economy while expanding and getting map control. U can think it like this, Terran wins the battle but toss in 2 mine will have a remax with archons and 2 collosi a billion zlots. It would take like 5 mins for Terran to be able to fight again. So Maru was forced to mmm, cause it is the best style to play.
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!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
I'm a big fan of SC's, Bomber's, and Maru's terran deathballs in both TvZ and TvP
Sure it looks like a train of terran infantry streaming the length of 4-8 screens as they stutter step, split, do drops, and land emps/burrow micro mines/target fire tanks, but its the same thing as a deathball.
Mechanically speaking that is. Visually it looks very different and in the end I think most people's actual complaints about the deathball is not *how* it works but is instead *what* it looks like.
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems!
On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote: [quote]
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.
[quote]
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!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
I actually posted about this right above. The actual army engagements are more than just the fully-committed fighting that occurs. There's a lot of dancing and sparring that leads to that end few seconds of fighting, and even those few seconds of fighting can last a longgg time if both players are on top of their micro and positioning and reinforcing.
Well i dont think i can add much more to my thoughts. I think it could still be better and more appealing to watch. I think a big reason why mobas are so successfull is that the teamfights are pretty cool to watch most of the time (and i am not even a big moba fan per se). I think sc2 lacks in these aspects in a lot of matchups. Its not "bad enough" for me to not watch it (i like sc2, i started with it and just now got into BW too), but i can acknowledge that it could be better i guess.
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems!
On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote: [quote]
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.
[quote]
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!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
I'm a big fan of SC's, Bomber's, and Maru's terran deathballs in both TvZ and TvP
Sure it looks like a train of terran infantry streaming the length of 4-8 screens as they stutter step, split, do drops, and land emps/burrow micro mines/target fire tanks, but its the same thing as a deathball.
Mechanically speaking that is. Visually it looks very different and in the end I think most people's actual complaints about the deathball is not *how* it works but is instead *what* it looks like.
yeah kinda, but thats not the whole truth. tvz engagements are way way cooler, cause terran has to split vs banelings, drop, spread the mines out. Zerg has to split vs the mines, split the banelings too, if possible surround the terran, micro your mutas to pick up the mines etcpp. You could argue that it only looks better, but thats the whole point, it looks better cause the interaction is way better designed.
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.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
Quite the generalization there. And why are we talking about baseball?
to steer this back on topic,
i think the other guy is trying to claim that other games have "boring aspects to them". which is a reasonable claim. he should probably just say that.
every major league in North America has dull aspects to its play which is why these leagues are constantly amending the rules and adjusting the execution of "game day"... all these major sports are attempting to create the 'perfect entertainment experience'. and Blizzard is trying to do the same with SC2.
i dont see any other company attempting to make this happen with an RTS game. Blizzard.. take a bow.
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.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
Nothing about baseball could ever be intense, it's literally the worst "sport" lol I have trouble even calling it a sport, it's more of a hobby or activity tbh.
And I agree with what someone else here was saying. Deathballs are a NECESSITY. If deathballs didn't work, it would just be a "who's the best multitasker" game, not an overall game like starcraft is. Dear vs. Maru is perfect example, Dear's defense was absolutely amazing, and eventually he amazed an army big enough to "deathball" maru's mobile bio that had no way of dealing with it (ie: no ghosts).
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.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
the Larson perfect game is one of the most celebrated games in the history of the World Series.
the Dave Stieb no-hitter got a standing ovation even though it was in the opposition ball park. and his "near misses" of no-hitters were equally intense. it was in old cleveland municipal stadium.. and again.. everyone had a great time even though the "Blue Jays" are the worst road draw in Major League Baseball.. by a huge margin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kreyr64V86M
this is way off topic though.
Opinions and personal taste are things that cannot be disproven. Your argument is both fruitless and proves very little.
On October 29 2013 02:51 Plansix wrote: There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
that is not a statement of "personal taste" that is an incorrect over generalization. i,and millions of baseball fans love no hitters. and as u've already stated.. personal tastes can'tt be disproven. stick to starcraft, this is off topic.
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.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
the Larson perfect game is one of the most celebrated games in the history of the World Series.
the Dave Stieb no-hitter got a standing ovation even though it was in the opposition ball park. and his "near misses" of no-hitters were equally intense. it was in old cleveland municipal stadium.. and again.. everyone had a great time even though the "Blue Jays" are the worst road draw in Major League Baseball.. by a huge margin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kreyr64V86M
this is way off topic though.
Opinions and personal taste are things that cannot be disproven. Your argument is both fruitless and proves very little.
I have to say, reading that, followed by reading your quote, quite funny.
Still not sure why we are talking about this though.
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems![quote]... 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.
[quote]
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!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
I actually posted about this right above. The actual army engagements are more than just the fully-committed fighting that occurs. There's a lot of dancing and sparring that leads to that end few seconds of fighting, and even those few seconds of fighting can last a longgg time if both players are on top of their micro and positioning and reinforcing.
Well i dont think i can add much more to my thoughts. I think it could still be better and more appealing to watch. I think a big reason why mobas are so successfull is that the teamfights are pretty cool to watch most of the time (and i am not even a big moba fan per se). I think sc2 lacks in these aspects in a lot of matchups. Its not "bad enough" for me to not watch it (i like sc2, i started with it and just now got into BW too), but i can acknowledge that it could be better i guess.
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems![quote]... 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.
[quote]
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!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
I'm a big fan of SC's, Bomber's, and Maru's terran deathballs in both TvZ and TvP
Sure it looks like a train of terran infantry streaming the length of 4-8 screens as they stutter step, split, do drops, and land emps/burrow micro mines/target fire tanks, but its the same thing as a deathball.
Mechanically speaking that is. Visually it looks very different and in the end I think most people's actual complaints about the deathball is not *how* it works but is instead *what* it looks like.
yeah kinda, but thats not the whole truth. tvz engagements are way way cooler, cause terran has to split vs banelings, drop, spread the mines out. Zerg has to split vs the mines, split the banelings too, if possible surround the terran, micro your mutas to pick up the mines etcpp. You could argue that it only looks better, but thats the whole point, it looks better cause the interaction is way better designed.
I'm mostly just trying to point out that even the Protoss deathball has a LOT going on to it, mechanically speaking. It has lots of pre-splitting, storm flanks, Colossus kiting, proper blink play, target firing, observer placement, etc...
It also "technically" takes up a large area of the map. But observers don't look cool as "map control" elements the way a pack of marines or lings take up space. 1-2 templars engaging a flanking storm doesn't look as badass as a contingent of bio/roaches doing a surround. And stalker target firing doesn't excite like marine splits excite.
There is a lot of VERY impressive things happening with a protoss deathball. But I agree with you that it sucks how much of it is so transparent (in a bad way). We just can't see it very well like we can when watching zerg surrounds (looking like ants swarming a spider) or watching bio engagements (splits, stutters, etc...).
On October 29 2013 02:51 Plansix wrote: There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
that is not a statement of "personal taste" that is an incorrect over generalization. i,and millions of baseball fans love no hitters. and as u've already stated.. personal tastes can'tt be disproven. stick to starcraft, this is off topic.
Sorry, I should have said I found them boring an dull and a lot of my friends do too. I didn't think my statement would be mistaken to include every baseball fan in creation. I sincerely apologize for its inaccuracy and to those who were offended or hurt by it.
"Deathball" in the traditional sense is pretty much gone from the pro scene. If you watched any of the Season 3 finals you'd know this.
This thread is about 1 page of insightful commentary and 9 pages of Terrans complaining that they can't beat Protoss "because deathball" despite the fact that bunching all your units (especially HT) is one of the worst things you can do against Terran.
On October 29 2013 02:51 Plansix wrote: There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
that is not a statement of "personal taste" that is an incorrect over generalization. i,and millions of baseball fans love no hitters. and as u've already stated.. personal tastes can'tt be disproven. stick to starcraft, this is off topic.
Sorry, I should have said I found them boring an dull and a lot of my friends do too. I didn't think my statement would be mistaken to include every baseball fan in creation. I sincerely apologize for its inaccuracy and to those who were offended or hurt by it.
In fairness to Planxis, I still don't understand why in the hell you'd be entertained by a no hitter. Unless it was the giants of course, that goes without saying
But really, other than the fact that you enjoy watching your team winning, a no hitter is literally baseball minus the baseball team. Turns the game into a bunch of guys standing around grass watching their friends play catch.
All my objectivity disappears when I see the giants do it, but really though. Fanboyism is just that, fanboyism.
I don't think that death balls (defined as large groups of units with exceptional power) are bad per se. I also don't think that death ball play is necessarily bad, but I suppose that every play style has the potential to degenerate. In Starcraft II's case it can be that economy, map control, production and so on all don't matter because you simply can't kill or even dent the death ball once it exists.
I was watching Planetary Annihilation videos after reading about it in the first post and I would say that the game seems to have severe problems. It is played on a sphere, but there is no meaningful terrain, so you have to defend sections of your base with turrets and that sort of thing and I would say that the entire game can be reduced to attacking at many different fronts and constantly multitasking. Much like one of those games of risk that you can play on the arcade actually. I would say that the inability to create cost effective armies once you're down on economy and an inability to defend your territory without investing too much into static defense probably makes the game more one dimensional. (this is my analysis based off of 1h of PA footage though )
On October 29 2013 04:11 Grumbels wrote: I don't think that death balls (defined as large groups of units with exceptional power) are bad per se. I also don't think that death ball play is necessarily bad, but I suppose that every play style has the potential to degenerate. In Starcraft II's case it can be that economy, map control, production and so on all don't matter because you simply can't kill or even dent the death ball once it exists.
I was watching Planetary Annihilation videos after reading about it in the first post and I would say that the game seems to have severe problems. It is played on a sphere, but there is no meaningful terrain, so you have to defend sections of your base with turrets and that sort of thing and I would say that the entire game can be reduced to attacking at many different fronts and constantly multitasking. Much like one of those games of risk that you can play on the arcade actually. I would say that the inability to create cost effective armies once you're down on economy and an inability to defend your territory without investing too much into static defense probably makes the game more one dimensional. (this is my analysis based off of 1h of PA footage though )
I'm hoping someone can make a custom map to truly modify the pathfinding， etc.
On October 29 2013 04:04 DinoMight wrote: "Deathball" in the traditional sense is pretty much gone from the pro scene. If you watched any of the Season 3 finals you'd know this.
This thread is about 1 page of insightful commentary and 9 pages of Terrans complaining that they can't beat Protoss "because deathball" despite the fact that bunching all your units (especially HT) is one of the worst things you can do against Terran.
Bunching all your stuff is bad in general in SC2. The only time you actually want to bunch up stuff is when you are against melee only stuff that lacks huge amounts of splash like banes and even then some prefer to keep stuff bunched up and just focus it down before it hurts (see: Innovation).
On October 29 2013 22:12 NeThZOR wrote: Map design is the way forward. It is not up to Blizzard, but up to the mapmaking community and pros to change the way maps are made.
It is now up to Blizzard to make those maps used though due to WCS'n'stuff.
On October 29 2013 22:12 NeThZOR wrote: Map design is the way forward. It is not up to Blizzard, but up to the mapmaking community and pros to change the way maps are made.
It is now up to Blizzard to make those maps used though due to WCS'n'stuff.
Lots of non-WCS tournaments that could do it; but won't since players won't test new maps at the cost losing practice time on WCS maps.
On October 29 2013 22:12 NeThZOR wrote: Map design is the way forward. It is not up to Blizzard, but up to the mapmaking community and pros to change the way maps are made.
It is now up to Blizzard to make those maps used though due to WCS'n'stuff.
Lots of non-WCS tournaments that could do it; but won't since players won't test new maps at the cost losing practice time on WCS maps.
On October 29 2013 04:11 Grumbels wrote: I don't think that death balls (defined as large groups of units with exceptional power) are bad per se. I also don't think that death ball play is necessarily bad, but I suppose that every play style has the potential to degenerate. In Starcraft II's case it can be that economy, map control, production and so on all don't matter because you simply can't kill or even dent the death ball once it exists.
I was watching Planetary Annihilation videos after reading about it in the first post and I would say that the game seems to have severe problems. It is played on a sphere, but there is no meaningful terrain, so you have to defend sections of your base with turrets and that sort of thing and I would say that the entire game can be reduced to attacking at many different fronts and constantly multitasking. Much like one of those games of risk that you can play on the arcade actually. I would say that the inability to create cost effective armies once you're down on economy and an inability to defend your territory without investing too much into static defense probably makes the game more one dimensional. (this is my analysis based off of 1h of PA footage though )
I'm hoping someone can make a custom map to truly modify the pathfinding， etc.
There are already a few of those maps in sc2. SC2:BW and maybe Starbow use custom scripts to simulate BW-like pathing. There was a big thread last year about a map that modified one value in the editor to greatly increase the size of magic boxes so that units can move in a spread formation but can still clump up manually if needed.
not a new issue...and certainly one that the devs at blizzard are aware of. i imagine they think about every detail of their games to a greater depth than we forum warriors do, to be honest.
the deathball is good...it't a valid formation of units on the battlefield. i don't know if it should be the default though...i think i should have to choose it.
i don't like the look of it...can't see the ground between your units so your army doesn't feel impressive, and you miss all of those beautiful animations blizz worked hard to create.
as a concept, i think a strategy game should allow for options, innovations and creativity in solving any one particular problem, and movement on the field, maneuvers in battle could benefit with more diversity in SC2. i think.
On October 29 2013 04:11 Grumbels wrote: I don't think that death balls (defined as large groups of units with exceptional power) are bad per se. I also don't think that death ball play is necessarily bad, but I suppose that every play style has the potential to degenerate. In Starcraft II's case it can be that economy, map control, production and so on all don't matter because you simply can't kill or even dent the death ball once it exists.
I was watching Planetary Annihilation videos after reading about it in the first post and I would say that the game seems to have severe problems. It is played on a sphere, but there is no meaningful terrain, so you have to defend sections of your base with turrets and that sort of thing and I would say that the entire game can be reduced to attacking at many different fronts and constantly multitasking. Much like one of those games of risk that you can play on the arcade actually. I would say that the inability to create cost effective armies once you're down on economy and an inability to defend your territory without investing too much into static defense probably makes the game more one dimensional. (this is my analysis based off of 1h of PA footage though )
I'm hoping someone can make a custom map to truly modify the pathfinding， etc.
There are already a few of those maps in sc2. SC2:BW and maybe Starbow use custom scripts to simulate BW-like pathing. There was a big thread last year about a map that modified one value in the editor to greatly increase the size of magic boxes so that units can move in a spread formation but can still clump up manually if needed.
Barrin's maps with less mineral patches also simulated the 4-6 base map spread that naturally broke up the deathball just because the bases were too spread out to protect otherwise.
On October 29 2013 04:11 Grumbels wrote: I don't think that death balls (defined as large groups of units with exceptional power) are bad per se. I also don't think that death ball play is necessarily bad, but I suppose that every play style has the potential to degenerate. In Starcraft II's case it can be that economy, map control, production and so on all don't matter because you simply can't kill or even dent the death ball once it exists.
I was watching Planetary Annihilation videos after reading about it in the first post and I would say that the game seems to have severe problems. It is played on a sphere, but there is no meaningful terrain, so you have to defend sections of your base with turrets and that sort of thing and I would say that the entire game can be reduced to attacking at many different fronts and constantly multitasking. Much like one of those games of risk that you can play on the arcade actually. I would say that the inability to create cost effective armies once you're down on economy and an inability to defend your territory without investing too much into static defense probably makes the game more one dimensional. (this is my analysis based off of 1h of PA footage though )
I'm hoping someone can make a custom map to truly modify the pathfinding， etc.
There are already a few of those maps in sc2. SC2:BW and maybe Starbow use custom scripts to simulate BW-like pathing. There was a big thread last year about a map that modified one value in the editor to greatly increase the size of magic boxes so that units can move in a spread formation but can still clump up manually if needed.
Barrin's maps with less mineral patches also simulated the 4-6 base map spread that naturally broke up the deathball just because the bases were too spread out to protect otherwise.
I also recall playing another map that increased unit radii as a dps nerf to clumping, though with pathing unchanged. It honestly felt awkward to play, but it's always interesting to try out these ideas in various custom maps.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
Honestly, this isn't even something that looks like it needs "fixing" at this point. I wouldn't be opposed to some tweaking IF it could be shown that it improved the game, but things look pretttty damn good at the top level right now.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Cmon thats no valid point, 3 bases full mining... But yeah i dont think they will change that either.
In SC2, a 4rth base is needed because you mine out the main.
In BW, a 4rth and 5th base was needed to increase income.
There are many ways to amend the SC2 issue. Some maps mimic bad pathing to decrease the max worker count of a base forcing you to have to get more bases to get the same income. Barrin reduced the number of mineral patches per base decreasing income rate as well as decreasing the total amount of minerals mined per base thereby requiring more expansions to maximize econ potential.
In BW, it was slower to max out but you still only made 70-80 workers, it just took longer to do so and required more bases in order to maximize their potential.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Cmon thats no valid point, 3 bases full mining... But yeah i dont think they will change that either.
In SC2, a 4rth base is needed because you mine out the main.
In BW, a 4rth and 5th base was needed to increase income.
There are many ways to amend the SC2 issue. Some maps mimic bad pathing to decrease the max worker count of a base forcing you to have to get more bases to get the same income. Barrin reduced the number of mineral patches per base decreasing income rate as well as decreasing the total amount of minerals mined per base thereby requiring more expansions to maximize econ potential.
In BW, it was slower to max out but you still only made 70-80 workers, it just took longer to do so and required more bases in order to maximize their potential.
IF the game is long enough, then yes you need a 4th base. But you only need to defend 3 places at once (income), thats the point here. And yhea ofc there are solutions, but blizzard doesnt care, so it will stay like that.
Yeah i know, and that leads to more harass and action what is a good thing i think.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Cmon thats no valid point, 3 bases full mining... But yeah i dont think they will change that either.
In SC2, a 4rth base is needed because you mine out the main.
In BW, a 4rth and 5th base was needed to increase income.
There are many ways to amend the SC2 issue. Some maps mimic bad pathing to decrease the max worker count of a base forcing you to have to get more bases to get the same income. Barrin reduced the number of mineral patches per base decreasing income rate as well as decreasing the total amount of minerals mined per base thereby requiring more expansions to maximize econ potential.
In BW, it was slower to max out but you still only made 70-80 workers, it just took longer to do so and required more bases in order to maximize their potential.
IF the game is long enough, then yes you need a 4th base. But you only need to defend 3 places at once (income), thats the point here. And yhea ofc there are solutions, but blizzard doesnt care, so it will stay like that.
Yeah i know, and that leads to more harass and action what is a good thing i think.
Sorry, I was simply clarifying the arguments being made
I agree that more bases is better because it creates the dynamic of Harass > Turtle > Aggression > Harass which should be the lynchpin of all RTS games but isn't it SC2. Right now Turtle > Aggression and Harass > Moving out of base so we end up with a game where one person turtles until he moves out and the other attacks only when the opponent moves out.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would players would have to defend multiple location at once, often to far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
This isn't remotely true for Protoss, Zerg, and meching Terran. Those additional gases are extremely important.
The only time more than 3 bases is not ideal is for bio-Terran, but they need additional bases before the other races because MULEs lead to earlier mine-outs. So despite not needing the additional gas income, their need for more mineral income than the other races produces the same need to expand. It's why a 3-base Terran parade push vs. Z is considered an all-in, even though ZOMG IT'S 3 BASES.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Cmon thats no valid point, 3 bases full mining... But yeah i dont think they will change that either.
In SC2, a 4rth base is needed because you mine out the main.
In BW, a 4rth and 5th base was needed to increase income.
There are many ways to amend the SC2 issue. Some maps mimic bad pathing to decrease the max worker count of a base forcing you to have to get more bases to get the same income. Barrin reduced the number of mineral patches per base decreasing income rate as well as decreasing the total amount of minerals mined per base thereby requiring more expansions to maximize econ potential.
In BW, it was slower to max out but you still only made 70-80 workers, it just took longer to do so and required more bases in order to maximize their potential.
IF the game is long enough, then yes you need a 4th base. But you only need to defend 3 places at once (income), thats the point here. And yhea ofc there are solutions, but blizzard doesnt care, so it will stay like that.
Yeah i know, and that leads to more harass and action what is a good thing i think.
Sorry, I was simply clarifying the arguments being made
I agree that more bases is better because it creates the dynamic of Harass > Turtle > Aggression > Harass which should be the lynchpin of all RTS games but isn't it SC2. Right now Turtle > Aggression and Harass > Moving out of base so we end up with a game where one person turtles until he moves out and the other attacks only when the opponent moves out.
This is not the case in current high-level gameplay. It's an outdated critique.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Cmon thats no valid point, 3 bases full mining... But yeah i dont think they will change that either.
In SC2, a 4rth base is needed because you mine out the main.
In BW, a 4rth and 5th base was needed to increase income.
There are many ways to amend the SC2 issue. Some maps mimic bad pathing to decrease the max worker count of a base forcing you to have to get more bases to get the same income. Barrin reduced the number of mineral patches per base decreasing income rate as well as decreasing the total amount of minerals mined per base thereby requiring more expansions to maximize econ potential.
In BW, it was slower to max out but you still only made 70-80 workers, it just took longer to do so and required more bases in order to maximize their potential.
There was a map floating around on Reddit these past few days where the mapmaker moved some mineral patches in a base to increase the mining distance, simulating some kind of diminishing return per base to encourage expanding.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would players would have to defend multiple location at once, often to far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
This isn't remotely true for Protoss, Zerg, and meching Terran. Those additional gases are extremely important.
The only time more than 3 bases is not ideal is for bio-Terran, but they need additional bases before the other races because MULEs lead to earlier mine-outs. So despite not needing the additional gas income, their need for more mineral income than the other races produces the same need to expand. It's why a 3-base Terran parade push vs. Z is considered an all-in, even though ZOMG IT'S 3 BASES.
Not ideal does not mean essential. The problem is that it is far too easy to build a good army and max out on 3 bases, if it took longer because of lower resource intake it would mean a player who successfully establishes 5-6 mining bases would reach a larger and more powerful army way before someone turtling on 3 bases could have enough to move out, thus putting pressure on that player to try and shut those expansions down early, or take more himself.
If one base gave 66% or so percent of the current income rates, players would not have a choice if they wanted to build a good army, you'd be forced to move out and be active on the map very quickly, and things like toss 3 base turtle into a fourth once you have a huge army on Akilon would no longer be possible. I can only see good coming from that.
On October 30 2013 00:46 HeeroFX wrote: Death balls always exist, you had them in WC 3, and BW. I think it's up to the players to figure out how to slow down the existence of a death ball
See i dont want to sound harsh or anything but i find it extremely annoying when people like you come in a thread, post a comment that was posted like 50 times by now and you can clearly see that you didnt read anything in here. If i go in a new thread i read at least the last 2 pages before i feel the need to post something. I know this is off topic but i dont understand it...
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Cmon thats no valid point, 3 bases full mining... But yeah i dont think they will change that either.
In SC2, a 4rth base is needed because you mine out the main.
In BW, a 4rth and 5th base was needed to increase income.
There are many ways to amend the SC2 issue. Some maps mimic bad pathing to decrease the max worker count of a base forcing you to have to get more bases to get the same income. Barrin reduced the number of mineral patches per base decreasing income rate as well as decreasing the total amount of minerals mined per base thereby requiring more expansions to maximize econ potential.
In BW, it was slower to max out but you still only made 70-80 workers, it just took longer to do so and required more bases in order to maximize their potential.
There was a map floating around on Reddit these past few days where the mapmaker moved some mineral patches in a base to increase the mining distance, simulating some kind of diminishing return per base to encourage expanding.
Yeah i saw it too, i think it was flawed though, cause the workers were so spread out in the base (less effective harass). I would prefer to slow down the mining rate.
On October 30 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: I agree that more bases is better because it creates the dynamic of Harass > Turtle > Aggression > Harass which should be the lynchpin of all RTS games but isn't it SC2. Right now Turtle > Aggression and Harass > Moving out of base so we end up with a game where one person turtles until he moves out and the other attacks only when the opponent moves out.
Harass > turtle??? No. Just no.
When someone is turtling they are spending lots of money on defense, sacrificing mobility and offense. The right strategy against a turtle, in every strategy game ever made, is to expand a lot and out-econ them because they cannot punish your greed because they are turtling.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
On October 30 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: I agree that more bases is better because it creates the dynamic of Harass > Turtle > Aggression > Harass which should be the lynchpin of all RTS games but isn't it SC2. Right now Turtle > Aggression and Harass > Moving out of base so we end up with a game where one person turtles until he moves out and the other attacks only when the opponent moves out.
Harass > turtle??? No. Just no.
When someone is turtling they are spending lots of money on defense, sacrificing mobility and offense. The right strategy against a turtle, in every strategy game ever made, is to expand a lot and out-econ them because they cannot punish your greed because they are turtling.
And one of the reasons why this is broken in SC2 is because of.... turtling player actually having a serious way to harass overly expanding player. Without like perfect map control and/or insane reaction it is hard to shut down harass of player that turtles. And that is while turtling player is building deathball behind this.
On October 30 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: I agree that more bases is better because it creates the dynamic of Harass > Turtle > Aggression > Harass which should be the lynchpin of all RTS games but isn't it SC2. Right now Turtle > Aggression and Harass > Moving out of base so we end up with a game where one person turtles until he moves out and the other attacks only when the opponent moves out.
Harass > turtle??? No. Just no.
When someone is turtling they are spending lots of money on defense, sacrificing mobility and offense. The right strategy against a turtle, in every strategy game ever made, is to expand a lot and out-econ them because they cannot punish your greed because they are turtling.
And one of the reasons why this is broken in SC2 is because of.... turtling player actually having a serious way to harass overly expanding player. Without like perfect map control and/or insane reaction it is hard to shut down harass of player that turtles. And that is while turtling player is building deathball behind this.
It isn't really broken, though. If you're expanding and abusing your mobility to keep your own bases relatively safe and counter-harrass, you should be able to come out "even" in those scenarios with similar levels of play. And the turtling player is at the mercy of the more mobile player the moment he decides to move out, because the more mobile player with the stronger economy can force the person turtling into tough decisions/engagements.
On October 30 2013 00:11 SoFrOsTy wrote: Watch WCS Season 3 finals. Death balls are used by lesser players. BW had deathballs as well. TvP. And TvZ. Oh and PvZ. Yeah every match up.
Not really. Lots of people use deathballs because some units are garbage without synergy.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would players would have to defend multiple location at once, often to far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
This isn't remotely true for Protoss, Zerg, and meching Terran. Those additional gases are extremely important.
The only time more than 3 bases is not ideal is for bio-Terran, but they need additional bases before the other races because MULEs lead to earlier mine-outs. So despite not needing the additional gas income, their need for more mineral income than the other races produces the same need to expand. It's why a 3-base Terran parade push vs. Z is considered an all-in, even though ZOMG IT'S 3 BASES.
Not ideal does not mean essential. The problem is that it is far too easy to build a good army and max out on 3 bases, if it took longer because of lower resource intake it would mean a player who successfully establishes 5-6 mining bases would reach a larger and more powerful army way before someone turtling on 3 bases could have enough to move out, thus putting pressure on that player to try and shut those expansions down early, or take more himself.
If one base gave 66% or so percent of the current income rates, players would not have a choice if they wanted to build a good army, you'd be forced to move out and be active on the map very quickly, and things like toss 3 base turtle into a fourth once you have a huge army on Akilon would no longer be possible. I can only see good coming from that.
But this would literally remove turtling from the game. It's already suboptimal as an option (precisely BECAUSE 3 bases is not ideal), but can be a less-mentally strenuous option to fall back on, which leaves it viable despite it being suboptimal.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
On October 30 2013 00:11 SoFrOsTy wrote: Watch WCS Season 3 finals. Death balls are used by lesser players. BW had deathballs as well. TvP. And TvZ. Oh and PvZ. Yeah every match up.
Not really. Lots of people use deathballs because some units are garbage without synergy.
Yet the really good players find a way to make those "garbage" units work outside of a deathball context. Hmmm.
On October 30 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: I agree that more bases is better because it creates the dynamic of Harass > Turtle > Aggression > Harass which should be the lynchpin of all RTS games but isn't it SC2. Right now Turtle > Aggression and Harass > Moving out of base so we end up with a game where one person turtles until he moves out and the other attacks only when the opponent moves out.
Harass > turtle??? No. Just no.
When someone is turtling they are spending lots of money on defense, sacrificing mobility and offense. The right strategy against a turtle, in every strategy game ever made, is to expand a lot and out-econ them because they cannot punish your greed because they are turtling.
Sorry for the mistake in terms.
Harass, to me, equates to high mobility. Harass heavy play always has mass expansion along with it. Bio drops, Muta play, etc...
The player who moves faster expands more. They also harass more and is why I label them as harass. The more generalized terms should be.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
On October 29 2013 23:27 Azelja wrote: If Blizzard would just "fix" the 3-base max income thing...
You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
On October 29 2013 23:54 lolfail9001 wrote: [quote] You mean the part where having less than 130 army supply is deadly for yourself :D?
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote: [quote]
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
The idea is that all players can work hard enough to be as good as Dear. But the current system allows them to be relaxed enough to simply play well instead of their best.
Good example of this is Demuslim. Same build all day err day. Doesn't scout, doesn't innovate. Why? Because he wins often enough with his style that he'd rather make less mistakes doing the easier play than push himself to be perfect.
The belief is that if we make the easy play no longer as effective as the difficult play, then people will start only practicing the difficult play. Because we believe that the current players are good enough to handle it.
On October 30 2013 00:10 The_Red_Viper wrote: [quote]
He means the part where it doesnt matter on how many bases you have your 66 workers (starting at 3 ofc ), you will always get the same income.
True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
They don't remove pieces from chess to make it easier for a mediocre player to compete with a grand master.
Edit: Magpie has it about right there, people will rarely leave their comfort zone unless forcibly ejected.
On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote: [quote] True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
They don't remove pieces from chess to make it easier for a mediocre player to compete with a grand master.
Edit: Magpie has it about right there, people will rarely leave their comfort zone unless forcibly ejected.
They don't remove chess pieces to make it harder, either.
On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote: [quote] Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
They don't remove pieces from chess to make it easier for a mediocre player to compete with a grand master.
Edit: Magpie has it about right there, people will rarely leave their comfort zone unless forcibly ejected.
They don't remove chess pieces to make it harder, either.
That would not make it harder, it would make it more simplistic. Forcing people to use difficult strats by buffing them and nerfing easy builds is what is being proposed, not removing things. If people want to turtle and deathball they could still do that, only it would terrible strategy, not just at the WCS finals level, but anywhere above diamond.
I see that as a good goal to aim for, I think the game should constantly try to emphasize difficult strategies and discourage easy and safe ones.
On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote: [quote] Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
They don't remove pieces from chess to make it easier for a mediocre player to compete with a grand master.
Edit: Magpie has it about right there, people will rarely leave their comfort zone unless forcibly ejected.
They don't remove chess pieces to make it harder, either.
That would not make it harder, it would make it more simplistic. Forcing people to use difficult strats by buffing them and nerfing easy builds is what is being proposed, not removing things. If people want to turtle and deathball they could still do that, only it would terrible strategy, not just at the WCS finals level, but anywhere above diamond.
I see that as a good goal to aim for, I think the game should constantly try to emphasize difficult strategies and discourage easy and safe ones.
In order for this to work, you'd have to make SC2 more simplistic as well. Slow units would be pretty much obsolete, unless they were horribly overpowered in low numbers, which would presumably make them overpowered in the context of an eventual deathball.
Turtling being a viable strategy is fine, and a necessary part of the game. Turtle-->deathball might not always be exciting, but it should be at the high level as the turtler seeks to harrass their opponent and the their opponent seeks to abuse mobility etc. Without that option it would be nearly-exclusively a multitasking/mobility war in every single matchup, which would simplify the game and stagnate variety.
The game is fine as is, and the amount of work that would be required to change it in a remotely interesting/balanced way would not be at all worth the minimal reward.
On October 30 2013 02:58 RampancyTW wrote: ...So now it's the game's fault that players are choosing not to play and practice better strategies. Got it.
How about we let this correct itself, which it will inevitably do?
It depends on what you're responding to.
I provided examples that the tools are already present for exciting gameplay. However, the base mechanics of how units move and how resources are collected creates unnecessary dead time that could be amended.
Some people believe things can be fixed by bringing in units or removing units; I disagree with that because it would not remove the dead time, it would simply change the unit choices.
barrin's changes (for example) does nothing to the game save remove mineral patches. Its the least invasive and does not change how the game plays.
we could also do the starbow change where units are in essence forced to glitch just to change timings. I disagree with that method but I will not disagree with its effectiveness.
Units don't have to be removed. Ai doesn't need to be tweaked. If they help they help but they're not necessary. What is being asked by me and by others (I presume) is for 3 things.
A.) force players to build more bases. That way more of the map is filled up. B.) Reduce the early game dead time currently in the game that way action starts in 5ish minutes instead of 10ish minutes. C.) easier to spot micro movements. I'm not asking for MORE micro, I just want to be able to better see the micro we already have.
On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote: [quote] Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. [quote] I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
They don't remove pieces from chess to make it easier for a mediocre player to compete with a grand master.
Edit: Magpie has it about right there, people will rarely leave their comfort zone unless forcibly ejected.
They don't remove chess pieces to make it harder, either.
That would not make it harder, it would make it more simplistic. Forcing people to use difficult strats by buffing them and nerfing easy builds is what is being proposed, not removing things. If people want to turtle and deathball they could still do that, only it would terrible strategy, not just at the WCS finals level, but anywhere above diamond.
I see that as a good goal to aim for, I think the game should constantly try to emphasize difficult strategies and discourage easy and safe ones.
In order for this to work, you'd have to make SC2 more simplistic as well. Slow units would be pretty much obsolete, unless they were horribly overpowered in low numbers, which would presumably make them overpowered in the context of an eventual deathball.
Turtling being a viable strategy is fine, and a necessary part of the game. Turtle-->deathball might not always be exciting, but it should be at the high level as the turtler seeks to harrass their opponent and the their opponent seeks to abuse mobility etc. Without that option it would be nearly-exclusively a multitasking/mobility war in every single matchup, which would simplify the game and stagnate variety.
The game is fine as is, and the amount of work that would be required to change it in a remotely interesting/balanced way would not be at all worth the minimal reward.
Fair enough, seems like we've exhausted this. You see the game as largely fine, I don't, and I doubt that's going to change either way.
On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote: [quote] True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
The idea is that all players can work hard enough to be as good as Dear. But the current system allows them to be relaxed enough to simply play well instead of their best.
Good example of this is Demuslim. Same build all day err day. Doesn't scout, doesn't innovate. Why? Because he wins often enough with his style that he'd rather make less mistakes doing the easier play than push himself to be perfect.
The belief is that if we make the easy play no longer as effective as the difficult play, then people will start only practicing the difficult play. Because we believe that the current players are good enough to handle it.
fair enough in regards to the idea
getting an appropriate set of changes in place would be far more difficult, but that's probably what discussion and testing are for
On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote: [quote] Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
The idea is that all players can work hard enough to be as good as Dear. But the current system allows them to be relaxed enough to simply play well instead of their best.
Good example of this is Demuslim. Same build all day err day. Doesn't scout, doesn't innovate. Why? Because he wins often enough with his style that he'd rather make less mistakes doing the easier play than push himself to be perfect.
The belief is that if we make the easy play no longer as effective as the difficult play, then people will start only practicing the difficult play. Because we believe that the current players are good enough to handle it.
fair enough in regards to the idea
getting an appropriate set of changes in place would be far more difficult, but that's probably what discussion and testing are for
cough queens cough
I firmly believe range 8 queens would be highly conducive to entertaining and rewarding gameplay. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I die to hellion/banshee in 50% of my ZvTs.
On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote: [quote] Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. [quote] I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
They don't remove pieces from chess to make it easier for a mediocre player to compete with a grand master.
Edit: Magpie has it about right there, people will rarely leave their comfort zone unless forcibly ejected.
They don't remove chess pieces to make it harder, either.
That would not make it harder, it would make it more simplistic. Forcing people to use difficult strats by buffing them and nerfing easy builds is what is being proposed, not removing things. If people want to turtle and deathball they could still do that, only it would terrible strategy, not just at the WCS finals level, but anywhere above diamond.
I see that as a good goal to aim for, I think the game should constantly try to emphasize difficult strategies and discourage easy and safe ones.
In order for this to work, you'd have to make SC2 more simplistic as well. Slow units would be pretty much obsolete, unless they were horribly overpowered in low numbers, which would presumably make them overpowered in the context of an eventual deathball.
Turtling being a viable strategy is fine, and a necessary part of the game. Turtle-->deathball might not always be exciting, but it should be at the high level as the turtler seeks to harrass their opponent and the their opponent seeks to abuse mobility etc. Without that option it would be nearly-exclusively a multitasking/mobility war in every single matchup, which would simplify the game and stagnate variety.
The game is fine as is, and the amount of work that would be required to change it in a remotely interesting/balanced way would not be at all worth the minimal reward.
The problem isnt that you can turtle and make a deathball, the problem is that the deathball IS literally a deathball (he can engage 10% lesser armies and lose next to nothing). That is the case for a lot of tossdeathballs and this didnt change since the beginning. A lot of people in this thread disagree that there are deathballs at high lvl , but thats just not right. Toss uses deathballs in pretty much every game (a bit exaggerated). That doesnt mean that they dont harass or anything besides sit back and build it, but it means that the direct engagements are still extremely!!!! about the right composition and less about execution (there is execution, but it doesnt matter when the deathball has the right composition).That is the biggest thing that annoys me about sc2, i enjoy it most of the time but i see a lot of potential that just isnt used.
The most important part in a rts isnt how much stuff is in there (i guess you think "more stuff = more complex"), its about how these things interact with each other. You could only have half the units in sc2 as of now, redesign the interaction between them and still come out on top with the level of depth. I understand that my posts seem to be pretty "anti sc2", but i am not. I really like sc2, but it kinda frustrates me that the developers didnt use the knowledge they could have (BW) and use it for the better.
On October 30 2013 01:04 lolfail9001 wrote: [quote] Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
The idea is that all players can work hard enough to be as good as Dear. But the current system allows them to be relaxed enough to simply play well instead of their best.
Good example of this is Demuslim. Same build all day err day. Doesn't scout, doesn't innovate. Why? Because he wins often enough with his style that he'd rather make less mistakes doing the easier play than push himself to be perfect.
The belief is that if we make the easy play no longer as effective as the difficult play, then people will start only practicing the difficult play. Because we believe that the current players are good enough to handle it.
fair enough in regards to the idea
getting an appropriate set of changes in place would be far more difficult, but that's probably what discussion and testing are for
cough queens cough
I firmly believe range 8 queens would be highly conducive to entertaining and rewarding gameplay. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I die to hellion/banshee in 50% of my ZvTs.
As a MutaLingBling player I would greatly appreciate 8range Banelings as well
On October 30 2013 01:45 Squat wrote: [quote] Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine. [quote] I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
The idea is that all players can work hard enough to be as good as Dear. But the current system allows them to be relaxed enough to simply play well instead of their best.
Good example of this is Demuslim. Same build all day err day. Doesn't scout, doesn't innovate. Why? Because he wins often enough with his style that he'd rather make less mistakes doing the easier play than push himself to be perfect.
The belief is that if we make the easy play no longer as effective as the difficult play, then people will start only practicing the difficult play. Because we believe that the current players are good enough to handle it.
fair enough in regards to the idea
getting an appropriate set of changes in place would be far more difficult, but that's probably what discussion and testing are for
cough queens cough
I firmly believe range 8 queens would be highly conducive to entertaining and rewarding gameplay. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I die to hellion/banshee in 50% of my ZvTs.
As a MutaLingBling player I would greatly appreciate 8range Banelings as well
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
Watch brood war and compare the games.
Careful with that, implying that SC2 has something to learn from brood war tends to incite high amounts of anger and hostility.
But yeah, when I watched BW in 2006-2011, that was completely standard play, if I had read the polls from the WCS games and then watched them I would have been disappointed. I am not really sure what I can say other than that I disagree with the assertion that those games were exceptionally good. I still see too much of everything that we've complained about since beta.
The problem with SC2 isn't so much about the dealthball and OP units. Blizz's approach toward the designed of micro and macro was flawed. Imagine if you’re only able to select 12 units at a time, hotkey 1 building at a time, and casters has to be control manually like in BW.
This would be more of a sensible approach rather than tweaking units and implementing small changes that ultimately effect the current meta game.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
Watch brood war and compare the games.
*Watches Flash turtle until 200-200 and roll random protoss* Whoa?
Mech in BW works nothing like an Sc2 deathball, it's extremely positional and clumping up and moving forwards is a death sentence. It's built around area control and multiple lines of defense, with constant vulture harassment to slow protoss down.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
Watch brood war and compare the games.
*Watches Flash turtle until 200-200 and roll random protoss* Whoa?
Mech in BW works nothing like an Sc2 deathball, it's extremely positional and clumping up and moving forwards is a death sentence. It's built around area control and multiple lines of defense, with constant vulture harassment to slow protoss down.
Yep, yet it is essentially 3 base turtle until 200-200 into rolling over protoss. Not with deathball, but with large map, that is just slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly moves across the map.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
Watch brood war and compare the games.
*Watches Flash turtle until 200-200 and roll random protoss* Whoa?
Why are all of you in the above quote afraid of building a legitimate argument. Is it more rewarding to prove you can complete a sentence rather then contribute to the actual thread? There is proof from both sides of the issue on why we still have death ball style battles in SC2. Take a side and start investing some thought onto why you chose that side and then share it with the thread. I'll go ahead and help you out by talking on this issue.
Brood War is a game that isn't home free of death ball issues either. PvP matchups are very easy to reference in this manner. Archon+reaver+zlot+ht compositions tend to ball up and the players always wait for huge engagements to occur. So what elevates game play from here so it's not a standard PvP eveytime. Brood War PvP Deathball anlysis: Point 1: PvP deathballs are not dull to watch in BW because the battles last over a longer period of time and you can see all the micro and damaging happen as a spectator. This brings up the argument the OP had about halving the dps of SC2 units. If you missed it, go back to the OP asap. Point 2: Map terrain. Maps have been used for the past decade to alter metagame and encourage differnt army compositions, build orders, and military tactics. So maybe if we can't solve the death ball isue through drastic Blizzard programming we can solve the issue through a redesign on 1v1 maps. More time in my opinion should be spent invested in map development and how it could improve the game.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
Watch brood war and compare the games.
*Watches Flash turtle until 200-200 and roll random protoss* Whoa?
Mech in BW works nothing like an Sc2 deathball, it's extremely positional and clumping up and moving forwards is a death sentence. It's built around area control and multiple lines of defense, with constant vulture harassment to slow protoss down.
Yep, yet it is essentially 3 base turtle until 200-200 into rolling over protoss. Not with deathball, but with large map, that is just slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly moves across the map.
Protoss has every tool needed to stop the maxed mech army, and the matchup was/is considered favoured for toss.
The slowness of mech was a big part of this, it led to multiple running engagements where toss could use minedrags and stasis field and zealot drops to break up siege lines to land storms and reaver shots. Really, if a toss got rolled over by a terran who turtled to 200, he got outplayed pretty hard.
Why are all of you in the above quote afraid of building a legitimate argument. Is it more rewarding to prove you can complete a sentence rather then contribute to the actual thread? There is proof from both sides of the issue on why we still have death ball style battles in SC2. Take a side and start investing some thought onto why you chose that side and then share it with the thread. I'll go ahead and help you out by talking on this issue.
Well he picked that sentence from a 3 paragraph post to quote, not much I can do about that.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
Watch brood war and compare the games.
*Watches Flash turtle until 200-200 and roll random protoss* Whoa?
Why are all of you in the above quote afraid of building a legitimate argument. Is it more rewarding to prove you can complete a sentence rather then contribute to the actual thread? There is proof from both sides of the issue on why we still have death ball style battles in SC2. Take a side and start investing some thought onto why you chose that side and then share it with the thread. I'll go ahead and help you out by talking on this issue.
Brood War is a game that isn't home free of death ball issues either. PvP matchups are very easy to reference in this manner. Archon+reaver+zlot+ht compositions tend to ball up and the players always wait for huge engagements to occur. So what elevates game play from here so it's not a standard PvP eveytime. Brood War PvP Deathball anlysis: Point 1: PvP deathballs are not dull to watch in BW because the battles last over a longer period of time and you can see all the micro and damaging happen as a spectator. This brings up the argument the OP had about halving the dps of SC2 units. If you missed it, go back to the OP asap. Point 2: Map terrain. Maps have been used for the past decade to alter metagame and encourage differnt army compositions, build orders, and military tactics. So maybe if we can't solve the death ball isue through drastic Blizzard programming we can solve the issue through a redesign on 1v1 maps. More time in my opinion should be spent invested in map development and how it could improve the game.
Thanks again, now that is a valid point for the thread instead of an one-liner i and the person i quoted have written.
Well he picked that sentence from a 3 paragraph post to quote, not much I can do about that.
Pay attention to phrase i've quoted. I can agree with educated statement about BW and it's specific of what essentially is a deathball. I cannot agree with one-liner stating to watch some BW games and compare.
Protoss has every tool needed to stop the maxed mech army, and the matchup was/is considered favoured for toss.
You forgot to add depending on map. Because on different maps PvT winrate across a rather big amount of games varies from 70% to 30%.
The slowness of mech was a big part of this, it led to multiple running engagements where toss could use minedrags and stasis field and zealot drops to break up siege lines to land storms and reaver shots. Really, if a toss got rolled over by a terran who turtled to 200, he got outplayed pretty hard.
Nobody denies outplayed pretty hard part. I just deny that it is always valid to compare SC2 with BW, so statement of Grumbels is not correct.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
Watch brood war and compare the games.
*Watches Flash turtle until 200-200 and roll random protoss* Whoa?
Mech in BW works nothing like an Sc2 deathball, it's extremely positional and clumping up and moving forwards is a death sentence. It's built around area control and multiple lines of defense, with constant vulture harassment to slow protoss down.
Yep, yet it is essentially 3 base turtle until 200-200 into rolling over protoss. Not with deathball, but with large map, that is just slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly moves across the map.
There is no point in anyone replying to this guy at this point. You don't take the time to understand BW. You just want to point fingers at something else to offend people. It's not working and it's a waste of your energy. If you want to understand BW mech so you can provide argument there is a generous amount of kind BW fans in the BW section of TL that will provide you with ample information so you can come back to this thread with out looking so droll.
On October 30 2013 00:11 SoFrOsTy wrote: Watch WCS Season 3 finals. Death balls are used by lesser players. BW had deathballs as well. TvP. And TvZ. Oh and PvZ. Yeah every match up.
Not really. Lots of people use deathballs because some units are garbage without synergy.
Yet the really good players find a way to make those "garbage" units work outside of a deathball context. Hmmm.
No they don't. Who roams around with naked Colossi?
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
Watch brood war and compare the games.
*Watches Flash turtle until 200-200 and roll random protoss* Whoa?
Mech in BW works nothing like an Sc2 deathball, it's extremely positional and clumping up and moving forwards is a death sentence. It's built around area control and multiple lines of defense, with constant vulture harassment to slow protoss down.
Yep, yet it is essentially 3 base turtle until 200-200 into rolling over protoss. Not with deathball, but with large map, that is just slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly moves across the map.
There is no point in anyone replying to this guy at this point. You don't take the time to understand BW. You just want to point fingers at something else to offend people. It's not working and it's a waste of your energy. If you want to understand BW mech so you can provide argument there is a generous amount of kind BW fans in the BW section of TL that will provide you with ample information so you can come back to this thread with out looking so droll.
I don't see the correlation with BW and this thread? BW and SC2 are different engines entirely, this thread continues to get thrown off course.
The deathball "issue" or however you want to describe it, is something that will continue to play out as the game continues to evolve. The highest level seems to be settling down a bit in terms of a deathball, so from my point of view, things seem on the up..
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
Watch brood war and compare the games.
*Watches Flash turtle until 200-200 and roll random protoss* Whoa?
Mech in BW works nothing like an Sc2 deathball, it's extremely positional and clumping up and moving forwards is a death sentence. It's built around area control and multiple lines of defense, with constant vulture harassment to slow protoss down.
Yep, yet it is essentially 3 base turtle until 200-200 into rolling over protoss. Not with deathball, but with large map, that is just slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly moves across the map.
There is no point in anyone replying to this guy at this point. You don't take the time to understand BW. You just want to point fingers at something else to offend people. It's not working and it's a waste of your energy. If you want to understand BW mech so you can provide argument there is a generous amount of kind BW fans in the BW section of TL that will provide you with ample information so you can come back to this thread with out looking so droll.
I don't see the correlation with BW and this thread? BW and SC2 are different engines entirely, this thread continues to get thrown off course.
The deathball "issue" or however you want to describe it, is something that will continue to play out as the game continues to evolve. The highest level seems to be settling down a bit in terms of a deathball, so from my point of view, things seem on the up..
I'm not sure why you are saying this to me. I didn't bring BW up. I attempted make it relevant since some many misinformed posters were just pointing fingers and making false statements about BW in this thread.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
Watch brood war and compare the games.
*Watches Flash turtle until 200-200 and roll random protoss* Whoa?
Mech in BW works nothing like an Sc2 deathball, it's extremely positional and clumping up and moving forwards is a death sentence. It's built around area control and multiple lines of defense, with constant vulture harassment to slow protoss down.
Yep, yet it is essentially 3 base turtle until 200-200 into rolling over protoss. Not with deathball, but with large map, that is just slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowly moves across the map.
There is no point in anyone replying to this guy at this point. You don't take the time to understand BW. You just want to point fingers at something else to offend people. It's not working and it's a waste of your energy. If you want to understand BW mech so you can provide argument there is a generous amount of kind BW fans in the BW section of TL that will provide you with ample information so you can come back to this thread with out looking so droll.
I don't see the correlation with BW and this thread? BW and SC2 are different engines entirely, this thread continues to get thrown off course.
The deathball "issue" or however you want to describe it, is something that will continue to play out as the game continues to evolve. The highest level seems to be settling down a bit in terms of a deathball, so from my point of view, things seem on the up..
I'm not sure why you are saying this to me. I didn't bring BW up. I attempted make it relevant since some many misinformed posters were just pointing fingers and making false statements about BW in this thread.
Wasn't trying to point a finger at you or anything. You were saying not to listen to that guy and to research BW before coming back to the thread, but I now realize you only said that due to his misinformed comments.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
...For arbitrary reasons that you have yet to specify beyond just saying it wasn't good enough for you.
Watch brood war and compare the games.
*Watches Flash turtle until 200-200 and roll random protoss* Whoa?
Mech in BW works nothing like an Sc2 deathball, it's extremely positional and clumping up and moving forwards is a death sentence. It's built around area control and multiple lines of defense, with constant vulture harassment to slow protoss down.
Protoss in SC2 works nothing like a BW Mech deathball, it's extremely reactive and spreading thin and turtling with multiple layers of defense is a death sentence. It's built around strategical dynamics with your opponent and multiple timing possibilities, with constant defensive posturing and offensive threatening to slow Terran down.
... you can make anything sound fancy if you just have enough in-depth knowledge about it. For the viewer what is left is a guy building tanks for 15+mins and then moving over to the opponent, or a guy building Colossi and Gateway units for 15+mins and then moving over to the opponent. How crucial that turret ring or that blink research for drop defense was is rather uninteresting if at the end of the day it simply prevented it.
On October 30 2013 03:56 AZN)Boy wrote: The problem with SC2 isn't so much about the dealthball and OP units. Blizz's approach toward the designed of micro and macro was flawed. Imagine if you’re only able to select 12 units at a time, hotkey 1 building at a time, and casters has to be control manually like in BW.
This would be more of a sensible approach rather than tweaking units and implementing small changes that ultimately effect the current meta game.
The good part of BW is neither unit selection nor limited building hotkey (I hate those wired features). As I said in the post, it is the pathfinding. I doubt you have read the post, especially the very comprehensive blog article regarding pathfinding mentioned in the post.
On October 30 2013 03:56 AZN)Boy wrote: The problem with SC2 isn't so much about the dealthball and OP units. Blizz's approach toward the designed of micro and macro was flawed. Imagine if you’re only able to select 12 units at a time, hotkey 1 building at a time, and casters has to be control manually like in BW.
This would be more of a sensible approach rather than tweaking units and implementing small changes that ultimately effect the current meta game.
The good part of BW is neither unit selection nor limited building hotkey (I hate those wired features). As I said in the post, it is the pathfinding. I doubt you have read the post, especially the very comprehensive blog article regarding pathfinding mentioned in the post.
Don't forget the mining. There is actually a benefit to spreading harvesters across more than 3 bases. And the micro of each and every unit is much more skillful- no much that an expert of a unit could do amazing things with it and people actually specialized in certain play styles.
On October 30 2013 00:11 SoFrOsTy wrote: BW had deathballs as well.
Only really for air units due to the movement mechanics and NEVER in a casual game ... unlike SC2, where you are basically forced to use the deathball because it is the "automatic" way.
Every race had countermeasures against air deathballs in BW, but there cant be the same anti-deathball mechanics in SC2 because they would become too efficient and have been nerfed to the ground already. They even gave Mutalisks super regeneration to lessen the risk of using them ...
On October 30 2013 00:11 SoFrOsTy wrote: BW had deathballs as well.
Only really for air units due to the movement mechanics and NEVER in a casual game ... unlike SC2, where you are basically forced to use the deathball because it is the "automatic" way.
Every race had countermeasures against air deathballs in BW, but there cant be the same anti-deathball mechanics in SC2 because they would become too efficient and have been nerfed to the ground already. They even gave Mutalisks super regeneration to lessen the risk of using them ...
Just stop. You make it too obvious that you don't play the game.
On October 28 2013 17:08 iMAniaC wrote: Very interesting reads! One point in particular that got me thinking was this:
So, what causes a deathball to be the best approach? Simply put, a deathball results when a force can stack DPS sufficient to prevent itself from sustaining casualties. Long range is the largest contributing factor to deathballs. Long range units in sufficient numbers can stack together and kill enemies forces of arbitrary size before they close to range to deal any damage. Splash damage also frequently leads to deathballs because increasing numbers of splash sources start to overlap in higher density, and allow increasingly tougher targets to be wiped out in large numbers.
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.
I think its also interesting that siege tanks, lurkers and scarabs shots could be wasted by either shooting at the same target at the same time causing overkill aka wasted shots. they could also straight up miss. compare THAT to the splash in sc2
True overkill is another thing. SC2 has hardly any overkill because of units targeting AI right?
overkill happens a lot in sc2 in high damage low speed projectile attacks like vikings
On October 30 2013 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote: [quote] True, what about mining out part :3?
Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
The idea is that all players can work hard enough to be as good as Dear. But the current system allows them to be relaxed enough to simply play well instead of their best.
Good example of this is Demuslim. Same build all day err day. Doesn't scout, doesn't innovate. Why? Because he wins often enough with his style that he'd rather make less mistakes doing the easier play than push himself to be perfect.
The belief is that if we make the easy play no longer as effective as the difficult play, then people will start only practicing the difficult play. Because we believe that the current players are good enough to handle it.
For those of you who dont think there are deathballs in BW watch the following
Nada turtles to 200 after an early attack. He makes the deathball and wins in one punch right?
Absolutely not the deathball is just the preface, the battle then goes 30+ minutes after max out and shit just happens everywhere. Expos are taken everywhere, they are fighting tooth and nail for every expansion taking it away from there opponent
What I am trying to get at here is it may not be the deathball that is the problem its the fact that once SC2 games get to 200/200 the game is going to end very soon as recovery from a big battle is very hard. I think where we would like to be in SC2 is to have it that 200/200 is just merely the start of the game. IMO if there is to much harassment and to many small scale battles (8marines dropped in base) it kind of gets redundant. So I think large armies can be a good thing for the game, I think blizz needs to patch the after effect of Deathball vs Deathball. This is why a lot of people didnt get so crazed about Maru vs Dear, yes the action was really good but then before you knew it all his shit got vaproized and randomly it was over. The tables turned to quickly. Imagine if that game went on for another 20 minutes with huge 200/200 armies smashing each other? Would be very amazing to go from insane mid game into even crazier end game. Sign me up when we get to that point Il be back in a heartbeat. That is the intensity the spectators and the players deserve for the game. Not a 10 second clean up job.
Please no BW hate cuz I posted a video of it.
Also side note that video is amazing because of the positive mindset he has that can be applied to any game. I learned a lot about mindset right there.
On October 30 2013 00:34 Squat wrote: [quote] Then you take another base and simply abandon the base that's mined out. At no point in the game do you need more than 3 bases at once, and the benefits for taking more than 3 are subject to extreme diminishing returns.
If there was a way to make it imperative to continuously secure and hold bases past 3, that would mean players would have to defend multiple location at once, often too far away for the main army to arrive in time, which is a good thing.
Dunno, my favorite style of trading stuff all the time benefits from having lower amount of workers per base but keeping worker count in 70s. Just for the sake of A. not feeling too bad about losing whole mineral line tor random drop, since it is only 10 workers B. it's not like favorite compositions are slow (muta ling <3). Also, want it or not, but armies in BW sucked at defending multitude of bases. They had a benefit of ramps being overpowered against units. So forcing base spread has a single problem: drops become a SERIOUS problem, since stimmed bio can easily pick off bunch of warping zealots with micro and then you have a problem with base spread. And single benefit of having better economy than turtling player. But it's not like turtling player does not have a serious means to harass and can still gather deathball meanwhile with decent defense.
Of course it would be very hard, that's the whole point. The more difficult the basic metagame is to execute properly, and the more simultaneous activity there is, the more the truly great players can distinguish themselves from the merely good. Also, I liked how ramps would make aggression more difficult, it made massing units less effective, which is good.
If stimmed bio is dropping your base, and zealots are being warped in response, the toss has essentially already failed. That base was supposed to have HTs feedbacking the medivacs as they came in, and cannons with a small force of units to respond. Having to effectively and consistently defend multiple locations is one of the most difficult things in an RTS, and one of the best opportunities to shine.
There isn't anything wrong with the current dynamics, as pro games are now showing.
I disagree, I think the progames even from WCS aren't as good in this aspect as they could or should be.
Dear vs Maru and Dear vs Soulkey are what one sided matchups should look like.
Despite a 4-0 score, Dear vs Soulkey was a nailbiter EVERY SINGLE MATCH
And game 1 vs Maru was heavenly.
Sadly, we only have 1 Dear, we only have 1 Innovation. It'd be nice if we see more of these types of plays.
Absolutely, I think the fact that amazing players can make the game look good is awesome, my concern is these players are making the game look better than it actually is by sheer, very impressive, level of skill.
That should be the norm, not exceptions, that playstyle should be the style you HAVE to use every macro game at the professional level, outside of timings/all ins.
...And as players reach that level of skill, that WILL be the case.
They're not making the game look better than it is. That's impossible. They're showing a better idea of what the game actually is.
As more player elevate their play, these sorts of games will be FORCED to become the norm, because the ones that can't hack it will be left in the dust.
And I think we could expedite that process by making the game less forgiving of turtling and massing units in general. I think the game makes it too easy for lesser players to use easy strategies and achieve disproportionate results with them. All ins and timings especially, mainly because it's too easy to get a good army off too few bases.
As long these simple strategies exist and are as viable as they are, I think that is holding the game back.
there are so many more ways in which that could go wrong not sure it would actually be that much more entertaining for those lesser players to pretty much have to use these styles and then fuck them up by being, well, lesser players
The idea is that all players can work hard enough to be as good as Dear. But the current system allows them to be relaxed enough to simply play well instead of their best.
Good example of this is Demuslim. Same build all day err day. Doesn't scout, doesn't innovate. Why? Because he wins often enough with his style that he'd rather make less mistakes doing the easier play than push himself to be perfect.
The belief is that if we make the easy play no longer as effective as the difficult play, then people will start only practicing the difficult play. Because we believe that the current players are good enough to handle it.
And a majority of the people want region lock....
Well, in fairness, I only want region lock because I'm a scarlett fanboy who wants to see her win all the NA money. She can share it with polt even. So I'm very much a biased twat when it comes to region locks.
More effective change would be to provide better low tier compensation to allow for money to be earned through grinding games and less by making top 8 which gives incentives to teamless players to keep going to the qualifiers and getting their face smashed by Koreans because they at least get $50-$100 for their efforts. An increase in low level player entry will naturally increase competition and lead to a more robust economic system.
But maybe I'm just not a fan of a trickle down style compensation system and am instead a believer in higher minimum wage to provide incentive for amateurs to improve themselves.
There was an RTS called Rise of Nations that had very tactical gameplay because the game punished deathballs and overkill. For every unit that was attacking a single target they would inflict less damage. So you had an incentive to keep the army spread out and attacking multiple targets. This is the only way to cure the deathball imo. The crappiest thing about SC2 is Bioballs bulldozing everything and concencrated fire sniping important units.
Ok, now I think that we have a huge mess with all threads about Sc2 problems. Every few pages I read totally oposite ideas/solutions a few examples:
- AOE units should be more powerfull <---> AOE are too powerfull because all units move together. - Mules, warp and larvas make achieve 200/200 army too easy <---> if you lose you army, maxing again 200/200 its too hard. - More advantages for defenders!!! <----> dont let people turtle!!, they will be making deathballs and its boring.
On October 31 2013 01:57 drkcid wrote: Ok, now I think that we have a huge mess with all threads about Sc2 problems. Every few pages I read totally oposite ideas/solutions a few examples:
- AOE units should be more powerfull <---> AOE are too powerfull because all units move together. - Mules, warp and larvas make achieve 200/200 army too easy <---> if you lose you army, maxing again 200/200 its too hard. - More advantages for defenders!!! <----> dont let people turtle!!, they will be making deathballs and its boring.
So can we just make a summary of all SC2 problems: Game has bad music and bad story. Bang, that's all.
On October 31 2013 01:57 drkcid wrote: Ok, now I think that we have a huge mess with all threads about Sc2 problems. Every few pages I read totally oposite ideas/solutions a few examples:
- AOE units should be more powerfull <---> AOE are too powerfull because all units move together. - Mules, warp and larvas make achieve 200/200 army too easy <---> if you lose you army, maxing again 200/200 its too hard. - More advantages for defenders!!! <----> dont let people turtle!!, they will be making deathballs and its boring.
So can we just make a summary of all SC2 problems: Game has bad music and bad story. Bang, that's all.
The Terran space trucker music majestic. The rest is pretty middling.
On October 31 2013 01:24 scaban84 wrote: There was an RTS called Rise of Nations that had very tactical gameplay because the game punished deathballs and overkill. For every unit that was attacking a single target they would inflict less damage. So you had an incentive to keep the army spread out and attacking multiple targets. This is the only way to cure the deathball imo. The crappiest thing about SC2 is Bioballs bulldozing everything and concencrated fire sniping important units.
And whats with the games that used capture points, where there was constantly actions at 3 places at onces. They also cured Deathballs, so omg 2 ways proven to work already! The issue was you couldn't follow everything that was going on, so rather bad for spectators. Especially if the obs just caught the moments where the player didn't payed attention.
Sc2 also punishes overkill heavily by the way and targeting the wrong unit. Thats why those units are not used alot, since the game is to fast paced that only the current top of the top can actually not mess it up. But macroing and using the newb friendly units is just easier. And of course not fighting against the game pathfinding.
It was common in BW to do fight the pathfinding. But in Sc2 people gave into the pathfinding and life with it, despite the game being mechanical less demanding and deathballs usually being easy to abuse on alot of the maps.
WCS S3 finals were absolutely fantastic. I hope tournaments continue to look that way as time goes on. The better players have realized multi-pronged aggression wins games. Somehow Dear v HerO made Colossus v Colossus look awesome (never thought I'd say that). Also, I think the map pool is much better than it's ever been.
On October 31 2013 01:57 drkcid wrote: Ok, now I think that we have a huge mess with all threads about Sc2 problems. Every few pages I read totally oposite ideas/solutions a few examples:
- AOE units should be more powerfull <---> AOE are too powerfull because all units move together. - Mules, warp and larvas make achieve 200/200 army too easy <---> if you lose you army, maxing again 200/200 its too hard. - More advantages for defenders!!! <----> dont let people turtle!!, they will be making deathballs and its boring.
Did you expect something else?
Though my favorite posts are always the random BW videos that show the highlights of 10years of Broodwar and then conclude what's wrong with SC2 when they compare them to the (subjectively) worst gameplay aspects that can happen in SC2. I think watching all VoDs in this thread should be comprehensive before posting any video of a different game http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=419703
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.
I don't think that games are better now than they were in 2010-11 skillwise.
On October 31 2013 01:57 drkcid wrote: Ok, now I think that we have a huge mess with all threads about Sc2 problems. Every few pages I read totally oposite ideas/solutions a few examples:
- AOE units should be more powerfull <---> AOE are too powerfull because all units move together. - Mules, warp and larvas make achieve 200/200 army too easy <---> if you lose you army, maxing again 200/200 its too hard. - More advantages for defenders!!! <----> dont let people turtle!!, they will be making deathballs and its boring.
Problem is a lot of the issues are intertwined and people are trying to pin all of SC2s problems on a single thing. AOE should be more powerful but you can't implement that without changing the pathing (which would increase micro potential too). 200/200 is too easy to achieve, but terran has a more difficult time remaxing than zerg creating an imbalance so larva mechanic needs to be nerfed in combination with lowering some unit supply stats or increasing supply cap. But then Terran would be too strong so you'd have to rebalance it, perhaps nerf mules. p.s. when people say remaxing is too hard they mean its too difficult to make a comeback after losing a 200/200 fight because of the snowball effect.
SC2 lacks space control units and defenders advantage but because you only need a 3 base economy and the first 3 expos are easy to take especially for P with forcefields, increasing defenders advantage would only make it more turtle-y. So you'd have to change the optimal harvester count and map & base layouts in tandum with an defender's advantage change (not to mention a unit redesign for collo/sentry/mothership core).
tl;dr a lot of changes would have to be made simultaneously to fix the perceived problem in SC2. There's no silver bullet.
On October 31 2013 01:57 drkcid wrote: Ok, now I think that we have a huge mess with all threads about Sc2 problems. Every few pages I read totally oposite ideas/solutions a few examples:
- AOE units should be more powerfull <---> AOE are too powerfull because all units move together. - Mules, warp and larvas make achieve 200/200 army too easy <---> if you lose you army, maxing again 200/200 its too hard. - More advantages for defenders!!! <----> dont let people turtle!!, they will be making deathballs and its boring.
So can we just make a summary of all SC2 problems: Game has bad music and bad story. Bang, that's all.
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.
So, what causes a deathball to be the best approach? Simply put, a deathball results when a force can stack DPS sufficient to prevent itself from sustaining casualties. Long range is the largest contributing factor to deathballs. Long range units in sufficient numbers can stack together and kill enemies forces of arbitrary size before they close to range to deal any damage. Splash damage also frequently leads to deathballs because increasing numbers of splash sources start to overlap in higher density, and allow increasingly tougher targets to be wiped out in large numbers.
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.
On October 28 2013 17:08 iMAniaC wrote: Very interesting reads! One point in particular that got me thinking was this:
So, what causes a deathball to be the best approach? Simply put, a deathball results when a force can stack DPS sufficient to prevent itself from sustaining casualties. Long range is the largest contributing factor to deathballs. Long range units in sufficient numbers can stack together and kill enemies forces of arbitrary size before they close to range to deal any damage. Splash damage also frequently leads to deathballs because increasing numbers of splash sources start to overlap in higher density, and allow increasingly tougher targets to be wiped out in large numbers.
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.
I know you meant "more fun" but I love the idea of making death balls Funnier
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.
On October 28 2013 17:08 iMAniaC wrote: Very interesting reads! One point in particular that got me thinking was this:
So, what causes a deathball to be the best approach? Simply put, a deathball results when a force can stack DPS sufficient to prevent itself from sustaining casualties. Long range is the largest contributing factor to deathballs. Long range units in sufficient numbers can stack together and kill enemies forces of arbitrary size before they close to range to deal any damage. Splash damage also frequently leads to deathballs because increasing numbers of splash sources start to overlap in higher density, and allow increasingly tougher targets to be wiped out in large numbers.
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.
I know you meant "more fun" but I love the idea of making death balls Funnier
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.
On October 28 2013 17:08 iMAniaC wrote: Very interesting reads! One point in particular that got me thinking was this:
So, what causes a deathball to be the best approach? Simply put, a deathball results when a force can stack DPS sufficient to prevent itself from sustaining casualties. Long range is the largest contributing factor to deathballs. Long range units in sufficient numbers can stack together and kill enemies forces of arbitrary size before they close to range to deal any damage. Splash damage also frequently leads to deathballs because increasing numbers of splash sources start to overlap in higher density, and allow increasingly tougher targets to be wiped out in large numbers.
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.
I know you meant "more fun" but I love the idea of making death balls Funnier
On October 28 2013 17:08 iMAniaC wrote: Very interesting reads! One point in particular that got me thinking was this:
So, what causes a deathball to be the best approach? Simply put, a deathball results when a force can stack DPS sufficient to prevent itself from sustaining casualties. Long range is the largest contributing factor to deathballs. Long range units in sufficient numbers can stack together and kill enemies forces of arbitrary size before they close to range to deal any damage. Splash damage also frequently leads to deathballs because increasing numbers of splash sources start to overlap in higher density, and allow increasingly tougher targets to be wiped out in large numbers.
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.
I know you meant "more fun" but I love the idea of making death balls Funnier
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.
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
Edit- miss quoted. Quote was meant for the guy that said there was no deathball in be except for sky toss/terran.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
we need more units like the HT in the game that are able to control space and are able to defend in lower numbers vs big amounts of units. 2 cannons + 2 HT per base = safe vs even relatively big armies while 2 cannons + 1 colossus is not. HT are an awesome example of an antideathball unit that dont explicitly need to be in an deathball themselve like colossus that need to be protected and therefore only work in deathballs. BW had a lot more of those units like defiler, strong tanks etc. that are able to kill much larger amounts of units and therefore force antideathball play.
and as many said 3 base eco and stuff like no defenders advantage thx to warpgate also play a big role. basically everyone hopes LotV fixes those 3 things...lets see what happens.
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.
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.
It does nothing to prove him wrong. A single drawn-out game doesn't erase the multitude of others that ended with an unsieged a-move (which DID happen quite frequently).
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.
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.
It does nothing to prove him wrong. A single drawn-out game doesn't erase the multitude of others that ended with an unsieged a-move (which DID happen quite frequently).
Quit romanticizing BW.
I just started watching BW and all i can say is that in the last 2-3 months i saw such exciting games in broodwar, that are easily as good / or even better than the best games i saw in sc2 (despite the fact that i was no fan of a specific player unlike in sc2, i think thats an important aspect too). But i guess thats not the point here.
As i said multiple times already, my biggest problem with sc2 deathballs is the interaction between them. The toss has 2 colossi and i only roach hydra, well gg. Deathballs in sc2 are extremely unforgiving and boring to watch cause they clump to one giant blob that will do extreme amount of damage. Dont you agree on that? Do you think engagements between tossballs and another army are exciting to watch? I think these battles are extremely anticlimatic and well kinda stupid. That doesnt mean that the match itself was bad, but the fighting between 2 armys is pretty stale and boring in nearly every PvX matchup.(not exclusively only in toss matchups, but i think toss is the biggest flaw when you talk about deathballs) I am really curious if you would argue against that.
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.
It's impossible to say what would have to be tweaked to weight up for the loss of the collossus at this stage. Hence why this should've been done at a much earlier stage. However, the argument that the game would have to be rebalanced has always been the counter-argument towards the suggestion of removing or severely nerfing the collossus. It's never a good time to do such a change but that unit does not have a place in a good RTS game.
But to respond to your question. What could be done to address the missing collusus/sentry?
I would, as many have done before me, suggest buffing the other gateway units. Perhaps even tweak the immortal in some way. Removing the collosus would surely bring an age of severe imbalance but in the long run (and we STILL have a long run! one more game is coming out for starters) we would see a better game.
Granted, protoss does not rely on the sentry as heavily as they used to so it does not pose that much of a problem towards the gameplay.
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.
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.
It does nothing to prove him wrong. A single drawn-out game doesn't erase the multitude of others that ended with an unsieged a-move (which DID happen quite frequently).
Quit romanticizing BW.
I just started watching BW and all i can say is that in the last 2-3 months i saw such exciting games in broodwar, that are easily as good / or even better than the best games i saw in sc2 (despite the fact that i was no fan of a specific player unlike in sc2, i think thats an important aspect too). But i guess thats not the point here.
As i said multiple times already, my biggest problem with sc2 deathballs is the interaction between them. The toss has 2 colossi and i only roach hydra, well gg. Deathballs in sc2 are extremely unforgiving and boring to watch cause they clump to one giant blob that will do extreme amount of damage. Dont you agree on that? Do you think engagements between tossballs and another army are exciting to watch? I think these battles are extremely anticlimatic and well kinda stupid. That doesnt mean that the match itself was bad, but the fighting between 2 armys is pretty stale and boring in nearly every PvX matchup.(not exclusively only in toss matchups, but i think toss is the biggest flaw when you talk about deathballs) I am really curious if you would argue against that.
I disagree with that entirely, actually.
And what you (and several other people) fail to recognize is that the top players still playing BW are doing so on the mantle of skill and knowledge of 12 years of top-level play. Starcraft has 3 years. Less than 1 year of HOTS. If people are still playing SC2 in 12 years, I imagine the games will be stupidly good.
Also, the top level players make even the big maxed-army engagements look interesting to me, or at the very least impressive.
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.
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.
It does nothing to prove him wrong. A single drawn-out game doesn't erase the multitude of others that ended with an unsieged a-move (which DID happen quite frequently).
Quit romanticizing BW.
I just started watching BW and all i can say is that in the last 2-3 months i saw such exciting games in broodwar, that are easily as good / or even better than the best games i saw in sc2 (despite the fact that i was no fan of a specific player unlike in sc2, i think thats an important aspect too). But i guess thats not the point here.
As i said multiple times already, my biggest problem with sc2 deathballs is the interaction between them. The toss has 2 colossi and i only roach hydra, well gg. Deathballs in sc2 are extremely unforgiving and boring to watch cause they clump to one giant blob that will do extreme amount of damage. Dont you agree on that? Do you think engagements between tossballs and another army are exciting to watch? I think these battles are extremely anticlimatic and well kinda stupid. That doesnt mean that the match itself was bad, but the fighting between 2 armys is pretty stale and boring in nearly every PvX matchup.(not exclusively only in toss matchups, but i think toss is the biggest flaw when you talk about deathballs) I am really curious if you would argue against that.
I disagree with that entirely, actually.
And what you (and several other people) fail to recognize is that the top players still playing BW are doing so on the mantle of skill and knowledge of 12 years of top-level play. Starcraft has 3 years. Less than 1 year of HOTS. If people are still playing SC2 in 12 years, I imagine the games will be stupidly good.
Also, the top level players make even the big maxed-army engagements look interesting to me, or at the very least impressive.
Wow that is pretty impressive to me^^ As i said i love sc2 too, but i can acknowledge possible flaws.
No we dont fail to recognize anything. BW had the slow evolution cause it was new, nobody had an idea how to play such a rts with that specific style. The same isnt true for sc2, the proplayers know everything from broodwar ( i talk about general ideas ofc, the game itself is different, but in the core many ideas apply to both!) You just cant compare these 2 settings, it is pretty ignorant to do so i think. What did take several years in broodwar was known from the start, we live in the age of the internet (vods, replays, forums, etc), the development is just way WAY faster.
So you wanna tell me that this fight here looks appealing to you? (maybe not the best example, but it is sufficient i think)
They need to increase the micro capabilities of the units. The main way to discourage deathball usage is increase the number of skirmishes, which is why we have a lot more harassing units in HotS.
However, in SC2, the viability and utility of harassment units (with the exception of mutalisks) drastically decreases once the opponent has set up the necessary defenses. BW, on the other hand, allows the players to do massive damage with those units, even though the defender may have the appropriate defenses.
Check out this video from lalush, which talks about the micro mechanics of BW and highlights some great micro moments.
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.
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.
It does nothing to prove him wrong. A single drawn-out game doesn't erase the multitude of others that ended with an unsieged a-move (which DID happen quite frequently).
Quit romanticizing BW.
I could show you hundreds upon hundreds of games like this. Where as on the opposite end you have to nitpick the good games of SC2 such as Dear vs Maru game 1 so your post is actually quite ironic.
I am not romanticizing BW, I didnt say OMGZ WE NEED VULTURES BACK IN SC2 NOW. I put that SC2 is lacking the intensity of tons of huge army battles and used a BW game as an example of such intensity.
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.
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.
It does nothing to prove him wrong. A single drawn-out game doesn't erase the multitude of others that ended with an unsieged a-move (which DID happen quite frequently).
Quit romanticizing BW.
I could show you hundreds upon hundreds of games like this. Where as on the opposite end you have to nitpick the good games of SC2 such as Dear vs Maru game 1 so your post is actually quite ironic.
I am not romanticizing BW, I didnt say OMGZ WE NEED VULTURES BACK IN SC2 NOW. I put that SC2 is lacking the intensity of tons of huge army battles and used a BW game as an example of such intensity.
Really we merely needs to introduce the concept of BW back. One of the more exciting part of BW is that you can win with multiple angles instead of boiling down everything down to 1 huge battle.
A brief list: 1. Outmacroing your opponent, the macro component of SC2 is heavily downplayed due to MBS.
2. Harassment have more impact. Imagine a 200/200 army with 150 supply being army with the rest being workers. In BW, you had to replenish those workers slowly after harassment because it hinders your economy so much so you can reproduce the units in time to battle. In SC2 though, oh I'll just use those macro mechanics to get those workers back in 15 seconds mining. No big deal. So less players are opting for that stylistic choice.
3. Space controlling. Reason why battles ends so quickly in a SC2 game is two-fold. First one being the defender's advantage that accede players to retreat back after a bad engagement w/o much causalities. 2nd one being the unit design in SC2 doesn't allow you to improve on your defensive stance but rather increasing the amount of dmg you do. So players have to choose which position favors their unit combination to engage. Force more decision making.
Really, its those simple concept. Ofc fast 10 seconds battles still takes skills to pull off but it is less spectator friendly which is detrimental for a self-proclaimed sport title.
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.
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.
It does nothing to prove him wrong. A single drawn-out game doesn't erase the multitude of others that ended with an unsieged a-move (which DID happen quite frequently).
ok maybe a bit crazy, but how about this idea: make units cost more supply each when you have a certain amount of them (could only apply do massive etc....) you would get encouraged to get a few broodlords and a few ultras, but you cant have more than 5 without the additional ones costing more supply.
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.
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.
It does nothing to prove him wrong. A single drawn-out game doesn't erase the multitude of others that ended with an unsieged a-move (which DID happen quite frequently).
Quit romanticizing BW.
That's simply false. That's horrible false.
What game- let alone games?
Keep in mind I'm not saying the unsieged a-move is boring. In fact quite the opposite, because Nada would pick apart the other player using harass and he would win with the a-move. So you can't pick out a game that was boring where all he did was max and a-move then win, because that didn't happen. I was merely pointing out that a game that ends in an a-move isn't boring if it got to that point through sick play.
On the other hand, we can watch a shitty Stork on Katrina game:
Now if you analyze the game you see a lot of micro elements. But guess what we can be reductionist and say, stork built a big army and won, blah blah blah. A layman won't notice the zealot bombs, the storms, the mine drags, and the constant dragoon repositioning. Likewise, if you were to interview pro SC2 players about what they ACTUALLY did during a fight they would tell you so many little things that we never notice. I think this is the fault of how our pro scene functions. It isn't about sick plays, micro and decision making, no its about white guy vs korean and stupid crap like that. Games could be so much more fun if they were explained correctly. I made my friend who plays LoL watch WCS with me, while I explained all the little things and their minds were blown. Why would I have to do this when there were casters that should be doing this exact job?
I get nostalgic sometimes too. I mean, I love me some broodwar, I stayed up till 4am to watch Jaedong vs. Bisu; I watched live as Flash created double armory build in TvP to beat Stork in GOM Invitational, then proceed to cheese him 3-0 in OSL; I watched proleague every night. For all of that there were no casters, so we had to watch for the little things people were doing and because we got good at that through sheer force of will, when we saw it, we loved it. Moreover, when Tasteless starting casting for GOM, his breadth of knowledge was apparent and every game I would learn so much because he could not only predict everything, he'd explain it perfectly as well. This combination of game knowledge and on-screen charisma has since not been matched in the SC2 casting scene. Artosis is good but compared to when they were kids looking at and talking about progamer replays all day and all night, there's no comparison to that level of knowledge attained through obsession.
Anyways, sorry for the rant. This "fix SC2" shit has been getting on my nerves lately.
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.
It's impossible to say what would have to be tweaked to weight up for the loss of the collossus at this stage. Hence why this should've been done at a much earlier stage. However, the argument that the game would have to be rebalanced has always been the counter-argument towards the suggestion of removing or severely nerfing the collossus. It's never a good time to do such a change but that unit does not have a place in a good RTS game.
But to respond to your question. What could be done to address the missing collusus/sentry?
I would, as many have done before me, suggest buffing the other gateway units. Perhaps even tweak the immortal in some way. Removing the collosus would surely bring an age of severe imbalance but in the long run (and we STILL have a long run! one more game is coming out for starters) we would see a better game.
Granted, protoss does not rely on the sentry as heavily as they used to so it does not pose that much of a problem towards the gameplay.
You can't really buff gateway units due to warp-ins though as counter-attacks will be super strong.I don't think the colossus would be too hard to replace but it's the sentry that is the tricky one to replace.
The problem isn't that micro isn't happening in big battles in SC2- The only problem is that because units are so clumped up it's difficult to see it sometimes. One the other hand if you didn't find Dear vs Maru at WCS entertaining then you might as well give up on watching starcraft as far as I'm concerned because it's unlikely that you have any appreciation for the game. That series had more amazing multitask harrass, defense and counterattacks than many BW PvTs I've seen.
I think dropships are a bit more exciting than Brood War's air based harass, since you can bypass some terrain, but you're still using ground units that are affected by terrain once you land them. (not to say that I prefer SC2 to BW) Maru vs Dear was almost purely dropships with infantry, with high templar to add some spice. I guess they are proven rts concepts and with good execution by the players it becomes very exciting. I don't think there is that much strategy to it however, although you do need very good decision making for when to use drops, where to prioritize attention, what unit groups to move.
So the games were fun, but conceptually easy enough that honestly there is no excuse why not every game could look like that. This should be the baseline level, with even more amazing plays constantly going on as well. Blizzard has the power to change the maps, (remove the colossus), and tweak the economy so that it more often resembles that game's low economy situations.
On October 31 2013 13:41 graNite wrote: ok maybe a bit crazy, but how about this idea: make units cost more supply each when you have a certain amount of them (could only apply do massive etc....) you would get encouraged to get a few broodlords and a few ultras, but you cant have more than 5 without the additional ones costing more supply.
I dont remember when was the last time I ve watched BC, BroodLords or Carriers, the T3 are now under used, its a bad idea.
My bet:
- Siege units should be more slow and more powerfull, they have to rely on positioning and units microing arround then. Right now you move forward with your deathball, siege/burrow, attack and go back way too fast. - Better map design/mechanics to force players to achieve more objectives, so they have to split their army to have full map control. For example: gold minerals, rich gas, towers that give army buffs. The idea is to change the mecanics: macro/1expand -> fight deathball vs deathball -> 3base/resupply -> attack natural/main -> win into full map action like: macro/1expand -> claim map zone 1 -> engage -> resupply -> claim map zone 2(optional) -> 3base/resupply -> engage/defend map zones -> attack natural/main -> win.
On October 28 2013 16:40 tdt wrote: more aoe dps would fix this. like tanks do 70, colossi 35, banes 70.
.... yeah sure more splash on all the units that are the most dangerous to go up against in the game.........
Not really. The units are designed to clump together in sc2. Simply tweaking the damage/ability/speed cannot solve the problem at all. Need some fundamental changes.
On October 28 2013 16:40 tdt wrote: more aoe dps would fix this. like tanks do 70, colossi 35, banes 70.
.... yeah sure more splash on all the units that are the most dangerous to go up against in the game.........
Not really. The units are designed to clump together in sc2. Simply tweaking the damage/ability/speed cannot solve the problem at all. Need some fundamental changes.
Exactly. Controlling units is far too easy in SC2 AND the automatically clumped up state of armies is something which players should have to WORK FOR instead of getting it automatically. That was the beauty of BW, because you could get a rather dense concentration of units, BUT only the skilled players would achieve it while the not-so-skilled were battling it out with groups of lower density which allowed for their slower reaction speed. Thus every skill group had just the right "kill speed" and it was fun across the board, while SC2 has every player play with the same - super high maximized - kill speed which favors attackers far too much and makes the game less fun at lower levels of skill.
It doesnt matter that BW "also had deathballs" (which it only had for air units and there were RISKS involved to doing that), because of this adjustment of unit density. Sadly people are only looking at one level of skill - usually pro gamers - instead of the whole bandwidth.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HFFwNQ4.jpg)
), 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.![[image loading]](http://www.chateauvictoria.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Cdn-flag.jpg)
