|
I haven't really noticed Zergs QQing about PvZ being imba (Scarlett is the only one I can think of off the top of my head), and Major said something pretty similar about the blink-loving map pool being the biggest problem. Nothing really surprising in what MC said
|
On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy.
Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested.
And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago.
|
On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested.
We watchin' th esame game?
SC2 has it's flaws, but you are gravely exaggerating.
|
On February 17 2014 05:22 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago.
I realize a moba is technically an RTS I'm just saying I don't see it that way, if that;s what you were getting at.
|
On February 17 2014 05:25 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. We watchin' th esame game? SC2 has it's flaws, but you are gravely exaggerating.
I'm talking specifically about the deathball flaw, which is a very big one imo. Of course not all games turn out this way, and I still enjoy playing sc2 a lot of the time, I'm just focusing on the flaw that I think brings up the balance whine.
|
On February 17 2014 05:22 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago.
People who dont watch SC2 and just use the words "deathball" and "design" a lot, trying to make some point. Its the same old, same old.
|
On February 17 2014 05:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 05:22 Zealously wrote:On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago. People who dont watch SC2 and just use the words "deathball" and "design" a lot, trying to make some point. Its the same old, same old.
Actuallly I both play and watch sc2. Brushing off my comments like their meaningless is actually pretty insulting, just like assuming I'm someone who knows nothing about the state of the game is. I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but it sure seems like you did.
|
On February 17 2014 05:47 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 05:37 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2014 05:22 Zealously wrote:On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago. People who dont watch SC2 and just use the words "deathball" and "design" a lot, trying to make some point. Its the same old, same old. Actuallly I both play and watch sc2. Brushing off my comments like their meaningless is actually pretty insulting, just like assuming I'm someone who knows nothing about the state of the game is. I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but it sure seems like you did.
I'm sure you will get over it. And most comments on the internet are pretty meaningless. Those about deathballs are no different.
|
On February 17 2014 05:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 05:22 Zealously wrote:On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago. People who dont watch SC2 and just use the words "deathball" and "design" a lot, trying to make some point. Its the same old, same old.
K, I play SC2, I've played 6000 matches (evidently), and I use "design" a lot. I rarely use death ball, but I do feel Protoss does have the best "end-game composition" with VR, but that's not even my biggest concern with Protoss design.
My biggest complaint is that there are terribly designed units, like Oracle, Mothership Core, Widowmines, Swarm Hosts, Hellbats, and Zealots. They are the types of units, when you look at how strong they are at something, or how fast, or how tanky, or how abusive they are, you think... "Did some random Gold-league player come up with these?"
Oracles move way too fast (lol Blizzard buffed its speed too) for a flying harass unit which can be obtained quite early. It two-shots workers and can kill 5 marines and get away. The vision spell is fine and I always like things which make player vision higher.
Mothership Core is the easiest to obtain flying unit, which can attack from air to ground. It also has two of the least skill-requiring spells ever, Nexus cannon and Time Warp. Both have huge radius, and relatively low energy cost, so that you rarely have to actually think "Should I use X now or wait and use Y later??" The cannon is about the easiest early-game defense spell ever as there is no way anything can kill a Nexus early game now.
I could go on about how all of those other mentioned units are terribly designed, but I don't think it's necessary.
More on-topic and linking what I said...
While I agree that maps would help Terran immensely, and Blizzard + tournaments map pool choice is absolute fucking trash, I think that many units should be redone (almost completely?) so that they are a far more "depthy" unit. You can have some pretty good strategy if you give units the potential, but most of the time, SC2 is less of a strategy game and more like a bunch of terrible minigames put together. Due to how Terran must be able to survive so many Protoss build-orders (Oracles, Blink Stalkers, DTs, macro cheese, etc.), they must go a middle-ground build. If a Terran is going a marine and marauder build when there is fast oracles unscouted, then the Terran pretty much loses the game. If the Terran is going pure marine builds, then he will just lose the game if blink stalkers go unscouted. Now, there are things Terran can do about the situation, but Protoss is the one making the calls.
PvT Midgame is okay, though, and I think a lot of good PvT games come from Mid-late game (Look at IEM's Classic vs Polt, a pretty solid series!)
|
On February 17 2014 06:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 05:47 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:37 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2014 05:22 Zealously wrote:On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago. People who dont watch SC2 and just use the words "deathball" and "design" a lot, trying to make some point. Its the same old, same old. Actuallly I both play and watch sc2. Brushing off my comments like their meaningless is actually pretty insulting, just like assuming I'm someone who knows nothing about the state of the game is. I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but it sure seems like you did. I'm sure you will get over it. And most comments on the internet are pretty meaningless. Those about deathballs are no different.
I fail to see how my comments were meaningless to this topic, but you're free to explain it to me, instead of insulting me like an angry child. I assume you're a protoss player who's frustrated, but it really doesn't give you a free pass to be an asshole.
|
On February 17 2014 06:18 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 06:02 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2014 05:47 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:37 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2014 05:22 Zealously wrote:On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago. People who dont watch SC2 and just use the words "deathball" and "design" a lot, trying to make some point. Its the same old, same old. Actuallly I both play and watch sc2. Brushing off my comments like their meaningless is actually pretty insulting, just like assuming I'm someone who knows nothing about the state of the game is. I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but it sure seems like you did. I'm sure you will get over it. And most comments on the internet are pretty meaningless. Those about deathballs are no different. I fail to see how my comments were meaningless to this topic, but you're free to explain it to me, instead of insulting me like an angry child. I assume you're a protoss player who's frustrated, but it really doesn't give you a free pass to be an asshole.
Your comment is pointless in my opinion because its just as passive aggressive shot at SC2. You liken it to a "hero game" like league of legends as make it as if that somehow makes it a lesser game with a comment like "if thats what you see in your head when you think of an RTS game" and so on. Its just a trolly comment meant anger people who like the game and say "its like those mobas where you control one unit"
|
On February 17 2014 02:06 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 02:00 reikai wrote:
For the love of starcraft and balance, please do not just whine balance every time a loss or tournament result occurs. MC is right, and some things are not balance related, but map related.
After WoL, Terran had every barracks, factory, and some starport units nerfed because "Terran OP" on the forums. Please think before you post.
Blizzard WILL listen to you, because they want the most people playing their games. Please don't just ruin the game for others by whining balance every time. The only reason why GomTvT and Zerg Bl/Infestor era are over is because of balance whine. And clearly result have shown that the balance is heavily favored toward Protoss.
Incorrect, David Kim has made it clear that he looks at the data. He and the team have said many times they rather wait and see for the meta to develop before changing things. The data for the TvT OP era was overwhelming, so eventually they made changes.
IF the same thing happens for Toss (the data is no-where near the TvT OP era, and no where near as long) , Im sure the balance team will do something. However, the data is showing the game is very balanced at the top level. Im glad the balance team take this sensible approach.
And as someone mentioned earlier, when Terran got used to being OP, ofc there will be a some tears as their race is brought into check and they are expected to grow as players and not expect the game itself to make it ez for them like in the past.
|
I agree that some of the maps drastically favor toss vs terran, but I heavily disagree that nexus cannon shouldn't be nerfed just because of PvP. Honestly, that's bullshit. It's a mechanic that breaks TvP and makes it impossible to punish toss, as MC notes. Has any other race had that excuse? We didn't nerf hellbats because it broke terran mirror. We didn't nerf fungal because it broke ZvZ. Those were nerfed because they hurt other matchups, mirror wasn't even in the conversation.
If the mechanic breaks other matchups, the last thing to consider is how it effects mirror. Mirror is balanced inherently. Deal with it.
|
On February 17 2014 06:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 06:18 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 06:02 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2014 05:47 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:37 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2014 05:22 Zealously wrote:On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago. People who dont watch SC2 and just use the words "deathball" and "design" a lot, trying to make some point. Its the same old, same old. Actuallly I both play and watch sc2. Brushing off my comments like their meaningless is actually pretty insulting, just like assuming I'm someone who knows nothing about the state of the game is. I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but it sure seems like you did. I'm sure you will get over it. And most comments on the internet are pretty meaningless. Those about deathballs are no different. I fail to see how my comments were meaningless to this topic, but you're free to explain it to me, instead of insulting me like an angry child. I assume you're a protoss player who's frustrated, but it really doesn't give you a free pass to be an asshole. Your comment is pointless in my opinion because its just as passive aggressive shot at SC2. You liken it to a "hero game" like league of legends as make it as if that somehow makes it a lesser game with a comment like "if thats what you see in your head when you think of an RTS game" and so on. Its just a trolly comment meant anger people who like the game and say "its like those mobas where you control one unit"
Ah ok, I can see how it could come off that way. If you read my other comments up there you'd see I was only talking about deathball situations, be it an all in or a 50 min game with deathballs posturing then a fight that lasts 5 seconds ends the game. I like a lot of things about sc2 and actively play it, I was just pointing out that I think the deathball thing is a big issue and I think people are whining about balance because of these situations when it's not really a balance issue at all. I also didn't mean to call mobas bad or a lesser game than sc2, though I do like sc2 far more.
edit: you also make a lot of assumptions and state them as fact, you should probably stop that, or at least say "I assume" or something.
|
Fairly silly argument.
You can't isolate any races units from the maps. They both factor into the strength of any race or style, and will both affect win-rates. Whether (for example) blink is too powerful or whether maps facilitate blink too strongly, or whether medivac boost is too powerful or maps facilitate drop play too strongly, or whatever particular item you'd like to cry balance about, win rates are affected.
With that having been said, balance whining is just out of control. If people spent 1/2 as much energy analyzing strategy as they do attempting to analyse balance and game design, they would probably find some ways to alleviate their difficulties.
|
On February 17 2014 06:07 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 05:37 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2014 05:22 Zealously wrote:On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago. People who dont watch SC2 and just use the words "deathball" and "design" a lot, trying to make some point. Its the same old, same old. K, I play SC2, I've played 6000 matches (evidently), and I use "design" a lot. I rarely use death ball, but I do feel Protoss does have the best "end-game composition" with VR, but that's not even my biggest concern with Protoss design. My biggest complaint is that there are terribly designed units, like Oracle, Mothership Core, Widowmines, Swarm Hosts, Hellbats, and Zealots. They are the types of units, when you look at how strong they are at something, or how fast, or how tanky, or how abusive they are, you think... "Did some random Gold-league player come up with these?" Oracles move way too fast (lol Blizzard buffed its speed too) for a flying harass unit which can be obtained quite early. It two-shots workers and can kill 5 marines and get away. The vision spell is fine and I always like things which make player vision higher. Mothership Core is the easiest to obtain flying unit, which can attack from air to ground. It also has two of the least skill-requiring spells ever, Nexus cannon and Time Warp. Both have huge radius, and relatively low energy cost, so that you rarely have to actually think "Should I use X now or wait and use Y later??" The cannon is about the easiest early-game defense spell ever as there is no way anything can kill a Nexus early game now. I could go on about how all of those other mentioned units are terribly designed, but I don't think it's necessary. More on-topic and linking what I said... While I agree that maps would help Terran immensely, and Blizzard + tournaments map pool choice is absolute fucking trash, I think that many units should be redone (almost completely?) so that they are a far more "depthy" unit. You can have some pretty good strategy if you give units the potential, but most of the time, SC2 is less of a strategy game and more like a bunch of terrible minigames put together. Due to how Terran must be able to survive so many Protoss build-orders (Oracles, Blink Stalkers, DTs, macro cheese, etc.), they must go a middle-ground build. If a Terran is going a marine and marauder build when there is fast oracles unscouted, then the Terran pretty much loses the game. If the Terran is going pure marine builds, then he will just lose the game if blink stalkers go unscouted. Now, there are things Terran can do about the situation, but Protoss is the one making the calls. PvT Midgame is okay, though, and I think a lot of good PvT games come from Mid-late game (Look at IEM's Classic vs Polt, a pretty solid series!)
You lost me when you said Zealots were badly designed.
|
On February 17 2014 08:06 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 06:07 Blargh wrote:On February 17 2014 05:37 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2014 05:22 Zealously wrote:On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago. People who dont watch SC2 and just use the words "deathball" and "design" a lot, trying to make some point. Its the same old, same old. K, I play SC2, I've played 6000 matches (evidently), and I use "design" a lot. I rarely use death ball, but I do feel Protoss does have the best "end-game composition" with VR, but that's not even my biggest concern with Protoss design. My biggest complaint is that there are terribly designed units, like Oracle, Mothership Core, Widowmines, Swarm Hosts, Hellbats, and Zealots. They are the types of units, when you look at how strong they are at something, or how fast, or how tanky, or how abusive they are, you think... "Did some random Gold-league player come up with these?" Oracles move way too fast (lol Blizzard buffed its speed too) for a flying harass unit which can be obtained quite early. It two-shots workers and can kill 5 marines and get away. The vision spell is fine and I always like things which make player vision higher. Mothership Core is the easiest to obtain flying unit, which can attack from air to ground. It also has two of the least skill-requiring spells ever, Nexus cannon and Time Warp. Both have huge radius, and relatively low energy cost, so that you rarely have to actually think "Should I use X now or wait and use Y later??" The cannon is about the easiest early-game defense spell ever as there is no way anything can kill a Nexus early game now. I could go on about how all of those other mentioned units are terribly designed, but I don't think it's necessary. More on-topic and linking what I said... While I agree that maps would help Terran immensely, and Blizzard + tournaments map pool choice is absolute fucking trash, I think that many units should be redone (almost completely?) so that they are a far more "depthy" unit. You can have some pretty good strategy if you give units the potential, but most of the time, SC2 is less of a strategy game and more like a bunch of terrible minigames put together. Due to how Terran must be able to survive so many Protoss build-orders (Oracles, Blink Stalkers, DTs, macro cheese, etc.), they must go a middle-ground build. If a Terran is going a marine and marauder build when there is fast oracles unscouted, then the Terran pretty much loses the game. If the Terran is going pure marine builds, then he will just lose the game if blink stalkers go unscouted. Now, there are things Terran can do about the situation, but Protoss is the one making the calls. PvT Midgame is okay, though, and I think a lot of good PvT games come from Mid-late game (Look at IEM's Classic vs Polt, a pretty solid series!) You lost me when you said Zealots were badly designed.
You're right, making the race's most common unit have a skill ceiling of zero is fantastic design.
In truth, it wouldn't be that big a deal, if the Immortal, Colossus, DT, Archon, and Void Ray didn't all follow suit. BW had Reavers and dumbcast HTs to make the difference.
|
On February 17 2014 06:27 Parcelleus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 02:06 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 02:00 reikai wrote:
For the love of starcraft and balance, please do not just whine balance every time a loss or tournament result occurs. MC is right, and some things are not balance related, but map related.
After WoL, Terran had every barracks, factory, and some starport units nerfed because "Terran OP" on the forums. Please think before you post.
Blizzard WILL listen to you, because they want the most people playing their games. Please don't just ruin the game for others by whining balance every time. The only reason why GomTvT and Zerg Bl/Infestor era are over is because of balance whine. And clearly result have shown that the balance is heavily favored toward Protoss. Incorrect, David Kim has made it clear that he looks at the data. He and the team have said many times they rather wait and see for the meta to develop before changing things. The data for the TvT OP era was overwhelming, so eventually they made changes. IF the same thing happens for Toss (the data is no-where near the TvT OP era, and no where near as long) , Im sure the balance team will do something. However, the data is showing the game is very balanced at the top level. Im glad the balance team take this sensible approach. And as someone mentioned earlier, when Terran got used to being OP, ofc there will be a some tears as their race is brought into check and they are expected to grow as players and not expect the game itself to make it ez for them like in the past.
Yeah its not like Protoss have been winning 7/11 premier tournaments (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments) for 1/2 year.
Its not like Protoss players makes up for 50% in the GSL mean anything right (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2014_Global_StarCraft_II_League_Season_1/Code_S)?
Get your critical thinking cap on.
|
On February 17 2014 08:06 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 06:07 Blargh wrote:On February 17 2014 05:37 Plansix wrote:On February 17 2014 05:22 Zealously wrote:On February 17 2014 05:20 knOxStarcraft wrote:On February 17 2014 05:00 Xiphos wrote:On February 17 2014 04:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:
PvZ = frustrating from both sides because of swarmhost low econ and toss deathball low econ wins. When people get frustrated they balance whine because they're too angry to see that it's happening on both sides.
People get angry when people win when they're down a base and turtle with some stupid deathball. People didn't like BL/infestor, which could win off low economy turtleing. People don't like when toss walks a deathball out of their 2 or 3 base and win against a 4 base player. People don't like when a zerg on 2 base wins with swarm host viper against a 4 base toss. people don't like when terran gets a mech skyterran deathball that nothing can kill.
I see a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with balance; it has everything to do with Blizzard fucking up late game sc2 with deathballs and refusing to fix it.
There is nothing wrong w/ deathball strategies per se. It is rather grand seeing two gigantic armies meeting each other and clashes. The problem is that the battles in SC2 are very anticlimactic. There might be short battles there and there but usually they are simply posturing and when the deciding battles happening, you only get to experience the climax for a brief amount of period. It might display who is the better player of the two but for the majority of the audience, they feel that their time is better well spent seeing multiple teamfights that could potentially turns the tides in a MOBA genre games than what SC2 have to deliver. If Blizzard were to gravitate upon deathball strategies, they better design the game so that the battles can prolong longer than a maximum of 15 seconds. This could either mean that they need to make the map bigger and/or increasing the supply population count. Unfortunately, Blizzard would definitely ignore anything that goes against their current, subpar design philosophy. Deathballs make the game almost feel like a hero based game, where the deathballs are the heroes lol. players macro the whole game just to lose in 5 seconds to a deathball. If that's what you see in your head when you think of an RTS then so be it, but I see a game with battles happening all over the map with many bases being contested. And when I read comments like this, I see a stereotype that stopped being true long ago. People who dont watch SC2 and just use the words "deathball" and "design" a lot, trying to make some point. Its the same old, same old. K, I play SC2, I've played 6000 matches (evidently), and I use "design" a lot. I rarely use death ball, but I do feel Protoss does have the best "end-game composition" with VR, but that's not even my biggest concern with Protoss design. My biggest complaint is that there are terribly designed units, like Oracle, Mothership Core, Widowmines, Swarm Hosts, Hellbats, and Zealots. They are the types of units, when you look at how strong they are at something, or how fast, or how tanky, or how abusive they are, you think... "Did some random Gold-league player come up with these?" Oracles move way too fast (lol Blizzard buffed its speed too) for a flying harass unit which can be obtained quite early. It two-shots workers and can kill 5 marines and get away. The vision spell is fine and I always like things which make player vision higher. Mothership Core is the easiest to obtain flying unit, which can attack from air to ground. It also has two of the least skill-requiring spells ever, Nexus cannon and Time Warp. Both have huge radius, and relatively low energy cost, so that you rarely have to actually think "Should I use X now or wait and use Y later??" The cannon is about the easiest early-game defense spell ever as there is no way anything can kill a Nexus early game now. I could go on about how all of those other mentioned units are terribly designed, but I don't think it's necessary. More on-topic and linking what I said... While I agree that maps would help Terran immensely, and Blizzard + tournaments map pool choice is absolute fucking trash, I think that many units should be redone (almost completely?) so that they are a far more "depthy" unit. You can have some pretty good strategy if you give units the potential, but most of the time, SC2 is less of a strategy game and more like a bunch of terrible minigames put together. Due to how Terran must be able to survive so many Protoss build-orders (Oracles, Blink Stalkers, DTs, macro cheese, etc.), they must go a middle-ground build. If a Terran is going a marine and marauder build when there is fast oracles unscouted, then the Terran pretty much loses the game. If the Terran is going pure marine builds, then he will just lose the game if blink stalkers go unscouted. Now, there are things Terran can do about the situation, but Protoss is the one making the calls. PvT Midgame is okay, though, and I think a lot of good PvT games come from Mid-late game (Look at IEM's Classic vs Polt, a pretty solid series!) You lost me when you said Zealots were badly designed.
Charge in its current form is an inherently anti-micro ability. It really should be changed so that a player with good micro has a significantly different engagement via charge than a player who just A-clicks. A way this could be done would be to lower the speed of charge to be about the same as stim, so that it is effective at chasing away bio, but doesn't guarantee hits against a retreating army. It also should be taken off of auto-cast, so that players can make choices about when to activate it.
Other than charge, however, there's really nothing wrong with Zealots, and I don't agree with his assertion that Widow Mines or Hellbats are poorly designed at all. I'd love to see his reasoning for those other ones. Furthermore, I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of the Swarm Host itself, but merely the Enduring Locusts upgrade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
