EPTIt's like dota 2 and early game invades looking for first blood. If thy put a "fence" down the middle of the map during that time, the game would be "more stable". It would also be more boring.
Next Balance Patch the 28th February. - Page 39
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
It's like dota 2 and early game invades looking for first blood. If thy put a "fence" down the middle of the map during that time, the game would be "more stable". It would also be more boring. | ||
|
ffadicted
United States3545 Posts
On March 08 2014 06:17 DinoMight wrote:  I find it funny that the state of balance right now is pretty much Terrans bitching, ZERGS MAKING INSIGHTFUL REMARKS, and Protoss going "you mad bro? you look mad." Now THAT is the craziest opinion I've read in these balance threads in a loooong time : P | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27029 Posts
| ||
|
vthree
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On March 08 2014 06:03 DinoMight wrote: There's always going to be cheese. Always. In every RTS unless you have NR X minutes people will find cheese. The first thing I ever did in Age of Empires when I found out you could build with multiple workers at the same time was take all my starting workers, run to the enemy base and build a tower right next to it super fast. I won a lot of games doing that. The extent that you'd have to go to to buff defensive play to a point where cheese was no longer viable would ruin the game. All sports have "coinflippy strategies" not just esports. What is a Blitz? It's basically let's hope we can tackle this guy before he manages to throw it to a receiver we've left open. What's a hail mary? It's let's hope they don't defend this one guy and I can throw it really far. If you know these things are coming and you react properly you will beat them most of the time, except when you make a mistake. It's like Starcraft. I think cheese makes the game fun. I honestly enjoyed the Has cannon rush vs. Jaedong. As much as I wanted to see JD win, the build was incredibly creative. Yes, but there needs to be risk/reward for cheese. I think JD defends the Has build 9/10 times if he were to face it again. Problem with blink is that even if scouted, you still have to play perfect to defend it or you lose out right. That is why 11-11 got the bunker nerfed. Scouted 11-11, were defendable by Zerg if they pull the correct number of workers and micro'ed and targetted perfectly. But the margin of error was too small (for the skill level of pros at that time) so 11-11s still won a majority of the games. That is why bunkers were nerfed. That is the issue with blink, yes, it can be held. But even the top Terran pros don't have a 50% win rate vs scouted blink. And that win rate is just too much for an early game build where is fairly easy to execute. I think changing the maps a bit would also help. Kind of wierd to hear Protoss complain about Daedulus when the majority of the map pool favors blinks so much. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On March 08 2014 06:25 vthree wrote: I think changing the maps a bit would also help. Kind of wierd to hear Protoss complain about Daedulus when the majority of the map pool favors blinks so much. This is what every Protoss wants lol. Stop touching our units and just fix the maps. Heavy rain ridge does NOT need to be that wide. Yeonsu could have some trees blocking the low ground where Reaper can't jump in anyway. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On March 08 2014 06:23 ffadicted wrote: Now THAT is the craziest opinion I've read in these balance threads in a loooong time : P Well, to be clear, they are also bitching in addition to the insightful remarks But they have moved on from the "dog with a history of abusive owners" phase and sometimes contribute positively  | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 08 2014 06:23 ffadicted wrote: Now THAT is the craziest opinion I've read in these balance threads in a loooong time : P It does sum it all up pretty well, though. Terran whine, zergs provide insight and Protoss saying "can't stop, won't stop." | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On March 08 2014 06:03 DinoMight wrote: There's always going to be cheese. Always. In every RTS unless you have NR X minutes people will find cheese. The first thing I ever did in Age of Empires when I found out you could build with multiple workers at the same time was take all my starting workers, run to the enemy base and build a tower right next to it super fast. I won a lot of games doing that. The extent that you'd have to go to to buff defensive play to a point where cheese was no longer viable would ruin the game. All sports have "coinflippy strategies" not just esports. What is a Blitz? It's basically let's hope we can tackle this guy before he manages to throw it to a receiver we've left open. What's a hail mary? It's let's hope they don't defend this one guy and I can throw it really far. If you know these things are coming and you react properly you will beat them most of the time, except when you make a mistake. It's like Starcraft. I think cheese makes the game fun. I honestly enjoyed the Has cannon rush vs. Jaedong. As much as I wanted to see JD win, the build was incredibly creative. Your strawman defence is so annoying. All-ins and cheeses are a legitimate part of the game. Pretty much no one except a negligible minority is saying we should remove this from the game or turn SC2 into some NR10. But. You need to factor in the concepts of 1. risk/reward ratio and 2. margin of error. When an all-in or cheese is... 1. easy to execute (and unlike what Plansix claims, the difficulty of something can be evaluated somewhat objectively, with the amount of tasks you need to perform, especially simultaneously, the number of times you have to move your camera over different stuff to manage it, the precision needed in your clicks, etc., etc.); 2. difficult/impossible to scout; 3. difficult to hold even when scouted, i. e. the margin of error is thin, very thin or non-existent; 4. and if, on top of that, the defensive side has to commit to the defense to such an extent the thing is no longer all-in or the attacking side has a smooth transition; ... then something is wrong. Remember the 1-1-1? It obeyed to the three first principles, and sometimes even to the fourth with the second wave killing the Protoss because the first one had dealt so much damage. Protoss players had no troubles identifying these issues when they were on the receiving end of the broken stuff, yet oddly enough they refuse to see it when they're the ones with the broken tools in their hands? What would you have said to a Terran singing the "You want the death of cheese" chorus when facing Protoss arguments against 1-1-1? Would you have agreed with him? Would you have endured patiently anonymous mid-GM Terrans occasionally winning MC or PartinG with unscoutable, unstoppable pushes? No, you would have answered, "I simply want your stuff to be less deadly, more scoutable, and overall fairer". It's the same thing here. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 08 2014 06:03 DinoMight wrote: There's always going to be cheese. Always. In every RTS unless you have NR X minutes people will find cheese. Maybe, but in many situations the cheese is actually something that could have been defended easily or the information on it happening could have been gathered reliably, even if it takes some effort. Same is not true with certain protoss builds. You simply cannot reliably scout a proxy dark shrine, a proxy oracle (or multiple ones), a proxy robo, proxy blink research in most scenarios, no matter how much you deviate your necessary standard build. And some of those are simply not easy to deter, so you cannot even just put down 2 extra bunkers and everything is fine if you guessed right and it was a blink rush. And Protoss has a lot of that stuff in many matchups and it is simply not fun to play against. You simply feel robbed if you miss the robo as a zerg and suddenly you get punished for not cutting every corner in the book, because that is what it takes to even stand a chance against an immortal/sentry allin. I guess that stuff (cheeses and rushes) is kind of OK to watch, but playing against it on a higher level is just stupid, since half of the time there was nothing you could have done better with the information you had (and god knows we sacrifice a lot of Overlords and Reapers and workers and sentry energy to get that information). But on that level you usually know what you could have done in that scenario, and you simply get the feeling that you are not playing a PC game anymore, but a game of coins and you just waste your time. At least for me, even when I win against something like a DT rush with Zerg it's frustrating, since all I did was the boring task to get a standard setup that is required off me - and then the game is already decided. I didn't get to play that build I wanted to play. I didn't get to do the unit control I wanted to do. I didn't get to unfold my gameplan. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
To me, this unit is the most boring in the pvz matchup. I am not playing zerg myself but the way i see it, is they hinder gameplay more than they give. I to want a change to this unit mainly because its very boring.. Even if zergs have "figured" out how to play versus protoss when they go voidrays i feel it would be much funnier if this unit got changed. I think one of the reasons zerg have to go swarmhosts is because of this unit. But i dont know if the unit is the symptom or one of the core issues And iam not even talking about all the cheeses/allins this unit can do Edit: just to be clear. Of all mus, voidray in pvz is the most boring Its not the most boring unit in the protoss arsenal imo Top3 or top5, maybe top2 idk. Guess who is #1? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 08 2014 07:36 Foxxan wrote: @Voidrays To me, this unit is the most boring in the pvz matchup. I am not playing zerg myself but the way i see it, is they hinder gameplay more than they give. I to want a change to this unit mainly because its very boring.. Even if zergs have "figured" out how to play versus protoss when they go voidrays i feel it would be much funnier if this unit got changed. I think one of the reasons zerg have to go swarmhosts is because of this unit. But i dont know if the unit is the symptom or one of the core issues And iam not even talking about all the cheeses/allins this unit can do I think VRs per se are fine, you could as well blame Templar or Colossi since those are the units that prevent VR countering (with Hydralisks/Infestors) in the late-/endgame. I could write pages about reasons why the dynamics are what they are, yet, I believe the core problem will always remain the timing possibilities of more costefficient Zerg Units paired with the too high supply costs of same or the too low supply costs of certain Protoss units. E.g. stalker vs roach: a stalker costs 75res more and gets softcountered by roaches - but at the max this also means you have a 75res stronger army and suddenly you are already softcountering roaches just by fielding an army that is worth more. Immortals: 4supply for 350resources. An ultralisk costs 500resources for 6supply. So maxing on Immortals means you have again a more costly (and therefore rightfully stronger) army Tempest, VRs, Templar, Archon... many units that have quite lower supply:resource relations than any of the zerg ground options. Therefore Protoss can field a more costly army. And therefore it is naturally stronger. (the tradeoff being a lack of combat-costefficiency, so your 175res stalker is actually only worth ~150res that you'd spend on roaches in combat) It means zerg has to engage Protoss with something that he does not have the counters to (like a mass mutalisk switch after a trade, or a ultralisk timing before a good VR/Immortal count) - or rely on strategies that should not be in the game, like massively mobile Static D walls with SHs or to speak in WoL terms with 8marines for 2supply infestors etc... | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On March 08 2014 09:36 Big J wrote: I think VRs per se are fine, you could as well blame Templar or Colossi since those are the units that prevent VR countering (with Hydralisks/Infestors) in the late-/endgame. I could write pages about reasons why the dynamics are what they are, yet, I believe the core problem will always remain the timing possibilities of more costefficient Zerg Units paired with the too high supply costs of same or the too low supply costs of certain Protoss units. E.g. stalker vs roach: a stalker costs 75res more and gets softcountered by roaches - but at the max this also means you have a 75res stronger army and suddenly you are already softcountering roaches just by fielding an army that is worth more. Immortals: 4supply for 350resources. An ultralisk costs 500resources for 6supply. So maxing on Immortals means you have again a more costly (and therefore rightfully stronger) army Tempest, VRs, Templar, Archon... many units that have quite lower supply:resource relations than any of the zerg ground options. Therefore Protoss can field a more costly army. And therefore it is naturally stronger. (the tradeoff being a lack of combat-costefficiency, so your 175res stalker is actually only worth ~150res that you'd spend on roaches in combat) It means zerg has to engage Protoss with something that he does not have the counters to (like a mass mutalisk switch after a trade, or a ultralisk timing before a good VR/Immortal count) - or rely on strategies that should not be in the game, like massively mobile Static D walls with SHs or to speak in WoL terms with 8marines for 2supply infestors etc... So more or less it goes back to the larva mechanic? On March 08 2014 06:18 Plansix wrote: My god, do you know how boring the game would be if we couldn't cheese? I would just check out for the first 10 minutes of every match. It's like dota 2 and early game invades looking for first blood. If thy put a "fence" down the middle of the map during that time, the game would be "more stable". It would also be more boring. Are you serious? I guess u are. But you havent heard of agressive builds, strategies? What i like about RTS games are the agressive builds that is not all-in or cheese. Consistensy with good moves, that needs decision from the opponent and provides improvisation. (Battles never the same etc) Myself just despise allins or cheeses. Its so boring watching a dt win a game for example cuz the opponent have no detection. Or when zerg goes his triple bust or w.e its called (roach,bane,ling) all-in. Toss go blink-allin And alot of other stuff. Its boring cuz its no counterplay, there are no hard decisions or cool tactics in it. Its more or less about "defend and u win" Just picture this game with 1base agressive play that is not all-in or cheese and is consistent, it does not put him behind. Or 2base the same It would be so much fun if this was viable | ||
|
Rowrin
United States280 Posts
| ||
|
TheOne26
Australia142 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27029 Posts
An allin/pressure in which you scout a weakness and reactively punish it is a good part of any RTS. The amount of games where I'd watch replays and it's clearly just an opponent just saying to himself 'this game I do X allin' on ladder doesn't really adhere to what I'd consider the cerebral game. Picking such builds, and blindly executing them is kind of against what I consider fun, but other opinions on that are available. The issue is when the execution requires less skill to pull off than the defence and can succeed even when you know it's coming. DT rushes are a gamble, and while frustrating if you misread I for one can look at it as my opponent taking a big risk that would have thrown him way behind if I'd read better or played safer. Builds like the 1/1/1, the WonWonWon and arguably the Roach Max timing were so annoying because you could sniff them out a millleee away, take precautions and you're still potentially going to just die. This isn't meant as an anti-Protoss moan, just a general look at certain allins that I see as problematic. If anything I'd like the possibility to reactively allin to almost be higher somehow. | ||
|
Probemicro
3708 Posts
tho from the looks of things lotv will eventually bring about its own set of problems | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 08 2014 10:52 Foxxan wrote: So more or less it goes back to the larva mechanic? I don't think you can pin it down to one thing alone, there are way to many contradictions with this. Like, you could say that the larva mechanic makes it so that Zerg can hit strong timings with units like roaches and the drawback is that building those when you don't need them is your punishment. But that kind of contradicts TvZ, where those timings are not nearly as strong. So you could go the other way around and say Protoss units are too weak. But that contradicts again that they are very, very strong in many situations, starting with early game stalker pokes, to warpgate allins, to just the power of massive stalkerballs with just a handful of support against a roach/hydra army. Same with VRs or Tempests or SHs being "too strong". They are not when you play them against a bio-Terran, then they are actually rather too weak. Even Protoss players have good tricks against VR/Tempest and Zergs hardly ever get into those situations where it becomes SH wars. It's many little dynamics that contribute to the situation we have and I think the crux of them is usually that a Zerg gets punished very hard for making units without doing damage in ZvP and a Protoss gets punished very hard for losing units, even when he does some damage. It makes for a situation in which the Zerg does not want to build units unless forced to and the Protoss does not want to use his units, unless it is very safe to. **Most obviously, the situation has become much better in HotS. Recall, the absence of a strong fungal and many tweaks (Prism buff, Oracles, flying units in general) let Protoss players play more actively and stronger hydralisks, mutalisks and Vipertransitions let Zerg extend their usage of midgame units. But it is still quite recognizeable and expressed in SH turtle endgames, which are the only choice against nearly all variations of ultimate Protoss armies. I'd say there is still a lot of potential to improve the matchup by changing relations - without even touching "core mechanics" at all. | ||
|
kroko
Finland2136 Posts
On March 08 2014 14:56 TheOne26 wrote: i enjoy reading posts from TheDwf, sometimes hes the only one with logic around here. Same! Been lurking balance topics for ages and he is easily the best poster (I might have bit terranbias;)) Thanks man, keep posting! | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9442 Posts
On March 08 2014 21:22 Big J wrote: I don't think you can pin it down to one thing alone, there are way to many contradictions with this. Like, you could say that the larva mechanic makes it so that Zerg can hit strong timings with units like roaches and the drawback is that building those when you don't need them is your punishment. But that kind of contradicts TvZ, where those timings are not nearly as strong. So you could go the other way around and say Protoss units are too weak. But that contradicts again that they are very, very strong in many situations, starting with early game stalker pokes, to warpgate allins, to just the power of massive stalkerballs with just a handful of support against a roach/hydra army. Same with VRs or Tempests or SHs being "too strong". They are not when you play them against a bio-Terran, then they are actually rather too weak. Even Protoss players have good tricks against VR/Tempest and Zergs hardly ever get into those situations where it becomes SH wars. It's many little dynamics that contribute to the situation we have and I think the crux of them is usually that a Zerg gets punished very hard for making units without doing damage in ZvP and a Protoss gets punished very hard for losing units, even when he does some damage. It makes for a situation in which the Zerg does not want to build units unless forced to and the Protoss does not want to use his units, unless it is very safe to. **Most obviously, the situation has become much better in HotS. Recall, the absence of a strong fungal and many tweaks (Prism buff, Oracles, flying units in general) let Protoss players play more actively and stronger hydralisks, mutalisks and Vipertransitions let Zerg extend their usage of midgame units. But it is still quite recognizeable and expressed in SH turtle endgames, which are the only choice against nearly all variations of ultimate Protoss armies. I'd say there is still a lot of potential to improve the matchup by changing relations - without even touching "core mechanics" at all. I think the issue with the larvamechanic in Sc2 is that it allows the zerg player to dominate the midgame. He can simply always have more stuff than his opponent. Especially in late WOL that was quite apparent where both the protoss and the terran had to turtle --> a timing attack, which created quite boring games. In HOTS, Blizzard solved the issue for terran by giving them a mobile AOE (the Widow Mine) and a strong escape goat in the Speed-medivac. This gave terran a way of putting constant pressure on the zerg player, even if he had the inferior army size. However, the solution for the protoss player was IMO quite terrible (Recall on Mothership Core). It wouldn't surprise me if Blizzard in the next expansion would try to replicate the succes formula of TvZ into the protoss arsenal. They will probably (hopefully) look at both Sentry and the Collosus and try to make it easier for protoss to move out --> do a bit of damage and then retreat while not losing the whole army. I think they should also nerf larva a bit (maybe 3 larva instead of 4 per round) and at the same time replace the Mule w/ something else (a less strong macromechanic). That will roughly maintain TvZ balance, and will make it easier for protoss to secure map control (without allining) against both zerg and terran, thus less turtling (hopefully). A sideadvantage of removing the mule is that it actually makes it possible to rebuff Siege Tanks back to 2 supply (as mech atm benefits too much from mass OC spamming + no workers + Siege Tanks/Ravens). | ||
|
sage_francis
France1823 Posts
On March 08 2014 06:52 TheDwf wrote: Your strawman defence is so annoying. All-ins and cheeses are a legitimate part of the game. Pretty much no one except a negligible minority is saying we should remove this from the game or turn SC2 into some NR10. But. You need to factor in the concepts of 1. risk/reward ratio and 2. margin of error. When an all-in or cheese is... 1. easy to execute (and unlike what Plansix claims, the difficulty of something can be evaluated somewhat objectively, with the amount of tasks you need to perform, especially simultaneously, the number of times you have to move your camera over different stuff to manage it, the precision needed in your clicks, etc., etc.); 2. difficult/impossible to scout; 3. difficult to hold even when scouted, i. e. the margin of error is thin, very thin or non-existent; 4. and if, on top of that, the defensive side has to commit to the defense to such an extent the thing is no longer all-in or the attacking side has a smooth transition; ... then something is wrong. Remember the 1-1-1? It obeyed to the three first principles, and sometimes even to the fourth with the second wave killing the Protoss because the first one had dealt so much damage. Protoss players had no troubles identifying these issues when they were on the receiving end of the broken stuff, yet oddly enough they refuse to see it when they're the ones with the broken tools in their hands? What would you have said to a Terran singing the "You want the death of cheese" chorus when facing Protoss arguments against 1-1-1? Would you have agreed with him? Would you have endured patiently anonymous mid-GM Terrans occasionally winning MC or PartinG with unscoutable, unstoppable pushes? No, you would have answered, "I simply want your stuff to be less deadly, more scoutable, and overall fairer". It's the same thing here. This.... One post of this guy is worth 1000 plansix ones... | ||
| ||
