|
On July 19 2014 07:29 Tuczniak wrote:
It was roach bane allin almost every game or parade push into terran win. Very fun. Almost like Wol PvZ, immortal allin or die in macro to BL/infestor. Even though the stats may be around 50%, it just sucks hard.
Bla, bla, bla. Repeating the same lies over and over does not make them any more true.
|
On July 19 2014 07:29 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 06:13 iamcaustic wrote:The widow mine got nerfed because Zergs were complaining about the match up being hard, despite the balance stats showing an even game. David Kim's recent interview with OGN shows his regret that they didn't wait longer before considering a widow mine nerf, and is why they're looking to re-buff the unit now. Read the interview. It was roach bane allin almost every game or parade push into terran win. Very fun. Almost like Wol PvZ, immortal allin or die in macro to BL/infestor. Even though the stats may be around 50%, it just sucks hard.
the match up took skill. I think when Hots first came out it was more of a map issue,not widow mine being super strong.
Most of the maps were smaller and allowed Terran to easily parade push non stop to the zergs 4th preventing the zerg from ever getting it up and starving the zerg with cost efficient trades all game.
We have a better variety of good zerg maps these days, and we are a year into HOTS everyone learned to play, old window mine should be perfectly fine now.
|
On July 19 2014 07:38 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 07:29 Tuczniak wrote:
It was roach bane allin almost every game or parade push into terran win. Very fun. Almost like Wol PvZ, immortal allin or die in macro to BL/infestor. Even though the stats may be around 50%, it just sucks hard. Bla, bla, bla. Repeating the same lies over and over does not make them any more true.
It wasn't a win every time for terran, but it really was 4M every single fucking game more or less. It got old fast. At least we see something else now.
Going back to endless 3 base parade pushes with mines that blow up the entire zerg army is not the way to do this imo. There are other ways to help terran, looking at units that rarely get used would be better.
|
On July 19 2014 07:17 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 06:13 iamcaustic wrote:
Upgraded SC2 marines get +10 health compared to upgraded BW marines (alternatively, unupgraded SC2 marines get +1 range compared to unupgraded BW marines), and everyone loses their mind.
If banshees built faster, they'd even be a problem in TvT (where they'd rip apart the limited marine numbers -- guess the marine isn't the problem there!). The banshee is simply a unit that can be extremely cost effective with good control. That's what justifies the build time.
SC2 siege tanks are considerably buffed compared to BW (they don't even need an upgrade for siege mode anymore!). In return, they cost an extra 25 gas and 1 supply. The idea that this unit is "crippled" is preposterous. What "cripples" it is powerful counter-units from the other races: super-buffed HotS mutalisks (they were fine in WoL and -- surprise -- we saw plenty of siege tanks in TvZ, even without their HotS buffs) and the immortal (this unit has always been a problem in SC2, preventing mech in TvP).
The warhound wasn't taken out because of marine/warhound cheeses. This is hilarious revisionist history.
The widow mine got nerfed because Zergs were complaining about the match up being hard, despite the balance stats showing an even game. David Kim's recent interview with OGN shows his regret that they didn't wait longer before considering a widow mine nerf, and is why they're looking to re-buff the unit now. Read the interview. First of all, it's +15, and second of all, marines can't be massed early in BW like they can in SC2. There's no reactors and the build time is the same. Next, even though the marine is much weaker, standard BW Zerg strategy against marines is to hide behind a wall of sunkens at the natural until mutalisks are out, which force the Terran to keep units at home. Zerg needs defilers to go on the offensive against marines, and they work because dark swarm makes marines do absolutely NOTHING and Terran's only counter to dark swarm is to kill the defilers before they can cast it. Marines also benefit more than any other unit from the removal of the 12-unit cap, making it possible to stim and kite with huge balls of them.
Additionally: while the marine was buffed, zerglings got nerfed to account for smarter surround AI.
BW marines had 64% of the dps of zerglings, while SC2 ones have 97% of the dps of SC2 zerglings.
Stim used to be more powerful, but even then we're looking at a BW 128% dps ratio between stimmed marine and zergling, compared to 145% from SC2
|
On July 19 2014 07:57 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 07:38 TheDwf wrote:On July 19 2014 07:29 Tuczniak wrote:
It was roach bane allin almost every game or parade push into terran win. Very fun. Almost like Wol PvZ, immortal allin or die in macro to BL/infestor. Even though the stats may be around 50%, it just sucks hard. Bla, bla, bla. Repeating the same lies over and over does not make them any more true. It wasn't a win every time for terran, but it really was 4M every single fucking game more or less. It got old fast. At least we see something else now.
What else do we see now, besides occasional mech (which usually fails)?
Even if the unit compositions are mostly the same every game, doesn't mean the games can't be entertaining.
I also don't understand why people even bother comparing sc2 unit stats to sc1... absolutely makes no sense. It's not even the same engine. It's all about the relative power of each unit when put in context and compared to other units of the same game. Looking at stat number differences between sc1 and 2 is pointless.
|
On July 19 2014 07:57 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 07:38 TheDwf wrote:On July 19 2014 07:29 Tuczniak wrote:
It was roach bane allin almost every game or parade push into terran win. Very fun. Almost like Wol PvZ, immortal allin or die in macro to BL/infestor. Even though the stats may be around 50%, it just sucks hard. Bla, bla, bla. Repeating the same lies over and over does not make them any more true. It wasn't a win every time for terran, but it really was 4M every single fucking game more or less. It got old fast. At least we see something else now. Going back to endless 3 base parade pushes with mines that blow up the entire zerg army is not the way to do this imo. There are other ways to help terran, looking at units that rarely get used would be better.
We see terrans losing over and over. Very much better yes.
WMs buff won't prevent hellbat timing or mech. Nothing will change composition wise. We'll just see less biohellbat and more 4m. But all in all nothing changed but using HBs instead of WMs depending the preference of the player.
|
Upgraded SC2 marines get +10 health compared to upgraded BW marines (alternatively, unupgraded SC2 marines get +1 range compared to unupgraded BW marines), and everyone loses their mind.
BW marines have a range upgrade just like the sc2 counterpart.
5range for both total.
BW marines stimpick is 50% better than sc2 stimpack.
BW with stim: 0.4~
Sc2 with stim: 0.6~
The other difference is the mediv vs medivac.
marines can't be massed early in BW like they can in SC2. There's no reactors and the build time is the same
Everyrace gets units faster.
The economy in sc2 is fasterpaced than in broodwar.
^anyway, it's impossible the touch at the marine without breaking the game for years.
Really doubt this. If blizzard truly wanted to change something i think they could succeed in a short time.
"careers on the line" will always fuck it changes up to much.
Not that i think the marine is the evil unit here, nah. I believe changes to other units can be made without breaking the game and at the same time if other units for terran gets buffed so they get "available" and it gets to strong with marines? Just look at the other races then.
But ofcourse, wont happen in hots->"carrers on the line" is to big for them
-
About the widowminebuff making it 4M:
If it become 4M every game, look at infestor/hydralisk.
I dont see why this is not possible:
Make the root block widowmines for shooting(or something else)
Hydras could get faster movement speed or make hydras a new passive ability that required an upgrade:
When moving offcreep the unit has the creepmovementspeed for 15seconds.
Hydrabuff to get him to be able to do more micro is a good change.
Infestor that makes him require accuration and tactic engagements with the roaches or lings is a good change.
Both changes would be fun atleast.
Pretty sure the infestor is "easy" to get to work vs widowmines while the hydras would need more thought.
Would be fun atleast if hydras could work to snipe those widowmines, so when zerg gets good at it terran want to add tanks when he see zerg goes hydras or many infestors etc.
TVP: perfect spot to change the zealot or storm to compete with the widowmine and the buffed hydras.
|
On July 19 2014 07:17 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 06:13 iamcaustic wrote:
Upgraded SC2 marines get +10 health compared to upgraded BW marines (alternatively, unupgraded SC2 marines get +1 range compared to unupgraded BW marines), and everyone loses their mind.
If banshees built faster, they'd even be a problem in TvT (where they'd rip apart the limited marine numbers -- guess the marine isn't the problem there!). The banshee is simply a unit that can be extremely cost effective with good control. That's what justifies the build time.
SC2 siege tanks are considerably buffed compared to BW (they don't even need an upgrade for siege mode anymore!). In return, they cost an extra 25 gas and 1 supply. The idea that this unit is "crippled" is preposterous. What "cripples" it is powerful counter-units from the other races: super-buffed HotS mutalisks (they were fine in WoL and -- surprise -- we saw plenty of siege tanks in TvZ, even without their HotS buffs) and the immortal (this unit has always been a problem in SC2, preventing mech in TvP).
The warhound wasn't taken out because of marine/warhound cheeses. This is hilarious revisionist history.
The widow mine got nerfed because Zergs were complaining about the match up being hard, despite the balance stats showing an even game. David Kim's recent interview with OGN shows his regret that they didn't wait longer before considering a widow mine nerf, and is why they're looking to re-buff the unit now. Read the interview. First of all, it's +15, and second of all, marines can't be massed early in BW like they can in SC2. There's no reactors and the build time is the same. Next, even though the marine is much weaker, standard BW Zerg strategy against marines is to hide behind a wall of sunkens at the natural until mutalisks are out, which force the Terran to keep units at home. Zerg needs defilers to go on the offensive against marines, and they work because dark swarm makes marines do absolutely NOTHING and Terran's only counter to dark swarm is to kill the defilers before they can cast it. Marines also benefit more than any other unit from the removal of the 12-unit cap, making it possible to stim and kite with huge balls of them.
Oh right, their base +5, I was only thinking of combat shields. Good call.
I'm not sure why you're comparing strategies between BW and SC2; Zergs have units like banelings now, which are very accessible and don't force the Zerg to hide behind a sunken wall until lair. It's not like marines got these minor buffs without any sort of response from the other races in terms of design.
Reactors still take 50 seconds to build and stop unit production entirely during that time. This is why you see Terrans 2rax cheese instead of 1rax reactor. There's also only so much you can afford on one base (especially for an all-in!). The entire point about marines making early tech all-ins OP is ludicrous.
On July 19 2014 08:15 Meff wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 07:17 Xequecal wrote:On July 19 2014 06:13 iamcaustic wrote:
Upgraded SC2 marines get +10 health compared to upgraded BW marines (alternatively, unupgraded SC2 marines get +1 range compared to unupgraded BW marines), and everyone loses their mind.
If banshees built faster, they'd even be a problem in TvT (where they'd rip apart the limited marine numbers -- guess the marine isn't the problem there!). The banshee is simply a unit that can be extremely cost effective with good control. That's what justifies the build time.
SC2 siege tanks are considerably buffed compared to BW (they don't even need an upgrade for siege mode anymore!). In return, they cost an extra 25 gas and 1 supply. The idea that this unit is "crippled" is preposterous. What "cripples" it is powerful counter-units from the other races: super-buffed HotS mutalisks (they were fine in WoL and -- surprise -- we saw plenty of siege tanks in TvZ, even without their HotS buffs) and the immortal (this unit has always been a problem in SC2, preventing mech in TvP).
The warhound wasn't taken out because of marine/warhound cheeses. This is hilarious revisionist history.
The widow mine got nerfed because Zergs were complaining about the match up being hard, despite the balance stats showing an even game. David Kim's recent interview with OGN shows his regret that they didn't wait longer before considering a widow mine nerf, and is why they're looking to re-buff the unit now. Read the interview. First of all, it's +15, and second of all, marines can't be massed early in BW like they can in SC2. There's no reactors and the build time is the same. Next, even though the marine is much weaker, standard BW Zerg strategy against marines is to hide behind a wall of sunkens at the natural until mutalisks are out, which force the Terran to keep units at home. Zerg needs defilers to go on the offensive against marines, and they work because dark swarm makes marines do absolutely NOTHING and Terran's only counter to dark swarm is to kill the defilers before they can cast it. Marines also benefit more than any other unit from the removal of the 12-unit cap, making it possible to stim and kite with huge balls of them. Additionally: while the marine was buffed, zerglings got nerfed to account for smarter surround AI. BW marines had 64% of the dps of zerglings, while SC2 ones have 97% of the dps of SC2 zerglings. Stim used to be more powerful, but even then we're looking at a BW 128% dps ratio between stimmed marine and zergling, compared to 145% from SC2
Again, Zerglings got this cool ability to morph into banelings. There's also this thing called a Queen that lets you make way more Zerglings than you ever could in BW during the early game. Design changes warrant stat adjustments. Zergling production with 3 larvae per hatch doesn't have to compete with marines on its own anymore.
Overall, I feel like people need to take a step back from the tunnel vision of isolated unit vs. unit stats and realize there are more factors at play that makes Zerg early game much stronger than it was in BW (which isn't a bad thing at all) and is more than capable of handling the new marines. This is like some WoL beta argument nonsense that has long since been disproven, but here we are for some reason.
|
On July 19 2014 13:02 iamcaustic wrote:
Oh right, their base +5, I was only thinking of combat shields. Good call.
I'm not sure why you're comparing strategies between BW and SC2; Zergs have units like banelings now, which are very accessible and don't force the Zerg to hide behind a sunken wall until lair. It's not like marines got these minor buffs without any sort of response from the other races in terms of design.
Reactors still take 50 seconds to build and stop unit production entirely during that time. This is why you see Terrans 2rax cheese instead of 1rax reactor. There's also only so much you can afford on one base (especially for an all-in!). The entire point about marines making early tech all-ins OP is ludicrous.
Yes, you can only afford so much on one base. That's kind of the point. Siege tanks and banshees are gas heavy units, which makes them perfect to pair with marines in a 1-base cheese, since the marines only cost minerals.
The point is that a significant buff to banshees, tanks, ravens, or probably even thors in an attempt to strengthen the Terran late game will make the 1-base plays absurdly strong because these gas-heavy units can be produced effectively on a 1-base economy alongside the mineral-only marines. Zerg is in serious trouble if Terran can get out enough banshees to overpower queens before they have the resources and tech to make both hydralisks or mutalisks and banelings to counter both.
Widow mines, on the other hand, are also mineral heavy, so they pair poorly with marines for the same purpose, and thus buffing them is a much safer option. The problem is this doesn't really help the Terran lategame, but there's no good way to do that without risking the spawning of another overpowered 1/1/1 style strategy, the strength of which was very much borne out of pairing marines with gas-heavy tech units that compensated for their weaknesses to perform a 1-base allin.
|
On July 19 2014 15:11 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 13:02 iamcaustic wrote:
Oh right, their base +5, I was only thinking of combat shields. Good call.
I'm not sure why you're comparing strategies between BW and SC2; Zergs have units like banelings now, which are very accessible and don't force the Zerg to hide behind a sunken wall until lair. It's not like marines got these minor buffs without any sort of response from the other races in terms of design.
Reactors still take 50 seconds to build and stop unit production entirely during that time. This is why you see Terrans 2rax cheese instead of 1rax reactor. There's also only so much you can afford on one base (especially for an all-in!). The entire point about marines making early tech all-ins OP is ludicrous. Yes, you can only afford so much on one base. That's kind of the point. Siege tanks and banshees are gas heavy units, which makes them perfect to pair with marines in a 1-base cheese, since the marines only cost minerals. The point is that a significant buff to banshees, tanks, ravens, or probably even thors in an attempt to strengthen the Terran late game will make the 1-base plays absurdly strong because these gas-heavy units can be produced effectively on a 1-base economy alongside the mineral-only marines. Zerg is in serious trouble if Terran can get out enough banshees to overpower queens before they have the resources and tech to make both hydralisks or mutalisks and banelings to counter both. Widow mines, on the other hand, are also mineral heavy, so they pair poorly with marines for the same purpose, and thus buffing them is a much safer option. The problem is this doesn't really help the Terran lategame, but there's no good way to do that without risking the spawning of another overpowered 1/1/1 style strategy, the strength of which was very much borne out of pairing marines with gas-heavy tech units that compensated for their weaknesses to perform a 1-base allin.
Banshee do good ground damage but i dont think the reason this unit doesnt get a buff is because marines are so strong and they made a deadly combo, no.
I believe the reason is because they are:
1) air unit.
2) not ground unit
Ground units vs ground units makes for a better gameplay overall since thats where you can make most moves against each other.
You say the reason for banshee not getting a buff is because the marine are so strong. You have anything to back this up?
|
|
|
On July 19 2014 15:11 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 13:02 iamcaustic wrote:
Oh right, their base +5, I was only thinking of combat shields. Good call.
I'm not sure why you're comparing strategies between BW and SC2; Zergs have units like banelings now, which are very accessible and don't force the Zerg to hide behind a sunken wall until lair. It's not like marines got these minor buffs without any sort of response from the other races in terms of design.
Reactors still take 50 seconds to build and stop unit production entirely during that time. This is why you see Terrans 2rax cheese instead of 1rax reactor. There's also only so much you can afford on one base (especially for an all-in!). The entire point about marines making early tech all-ins OP is ludicrous. Yes, you can only afford so much on one base. That's kind of the point. Siege tanks and banshees are gas heavy units, which makes them perfect to pair with marines in a 1-base cheese, since the marines only cost minerals. The point is that a significant buff to banshees, tanks, ravens, or probably even thors in an attempt to strengthen the Terran late game will make the 1-base plays absurdly strong because these gas-heavy units can be produced effectively on a 1-base economy alongside the mineral-only marines. Zerg is in serious trouble if Terran can get out enough banshees to overpower queens before they have the resources and tech to make both hydralisks or mutalisks and banelings to counter both. Widow mines, on the other hand, are also mineral heavy, so they pair poorly with marines for the same purpose, and thus buffing them is a much safer option. The problem is this doesn't really help the Terran lategame, but there's no good way to do that without risking the spawning of another overpowered 1/1/1 style strategy, the strength of which was very much borne out of pairing marines with gas-heavy tech units that compensated for their weaknesses to perform a 1-base allin.
You've never really done a lot of 1-base all-ins as Terran, have you? The worry for Zerg is especially ridiculous, because they'll always have the capability of being on 2 bases against any 1-base all-in from Terran. That's just the way it is. The number of marines you can get will never be able to overpower the number of zerglings and, potentially, banelings. From there, you're only left with anywhere from 1-3 of whichever tech unit you decided to make.
The only potentially frightening unit for a Zerg would be the banshee due to cloak, but now that spore crawlers only require a spawning pool, that's not even close to an issue anymore. There's a reason you never, ever see 1-base all-ins in TvZ anymore unless it's a 2rax (i.e. the only thing that can hit early enough to potentially do enough damage to justify, and is still 100% holdable).
When people are requesting late-game buffs for Terran, they're more looking at the thor, siege tank, raven and battlecruiser. IMO thors and siege tanks don't need buffs (TvT is a good metric for this) and ravens, if anything, might need a nerf due to the mass raven late game. So, we'd be looking at battlecruiser buffs, and if you think you'll be seeing 1-base battlecruiser rushes in TvZ because of it, I don't even know what to tell you.
EDIT: Also, your comparison to WMs vs. more gas-heavy units is absolutely crazy. WMs cost far fewer minerals and gas, making their inclusion in early all-ins much MUCH better. Due to the low gas count (and no need for starport) your early economy is focusing much harder on mineral income. Furthermore, you can get 2 WMs for the same mineral cost of a siege tank. Going for gas-heavy early game hampers your mineral income, which is detrimental to producing a lot of mineral units.
I do a double-siege tank drop in TvT (2 tanks, 2 medivacs, 8 marines) before expand. I'm always mineral broke. If those were WMs, not only would I be able to cut out an entire refinery and focus on more mineral mining, but I would have 4 WMs instead of 2 tanks for the same mineral requirement, on top of more marines due to the better mineral income.
|
On July 19 2014 15:11 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 13:02 iamcaustic wrote:
Oh right, their base +5, I was only thinking of combat shields. Good call.
I'm not sure why you're comparing strategies between BW and SC2; Zergs have units like banelings now, which are very accessible and don't force the Zerg to hide behind a sunken wall until lair. It's not like marines got these minor buffs without any sort of response from the other races in terms of design.
Reactors still take 50 seconds to build and stop unit production entirely during that time. This is why you see Terrans 2rax cheese instead of 1rax reactor. There's also only so much you can afford on one base (especially for an all-in!). The entire point about marines making early tech all-ins OP is ludicrous. Yes, you can only afford so much on one base. That's kind of the point. Siege tanks and banshees are gas heavy units, which makes them perfect to pair with marines in a 1-base cheese, since the marines only cost minerals. The point is that a significant buff to banshees, tanks, ravens, or probably even thors in an attempt to strengthen the Terran late game will make the 1-base plays absurdly strong because these gas-heavy units can be produced effectively on a 1-base economy alongside the mineral-only marines. Zerg is in serious trouble if Terran can get out enough banshees to overpower queens before they have the resources and tech to make both hydralisks or mutalisks and banelings to counter both. Widow mines, on the other hand, are also mineral heavy, so they pair poorly with marines for the same purpose, and thus buffing them is a much safer option. The problem is this doesn't really help the Terran lategame, but there's no good way to do that without risking the spawning of another overpowered 1/1/1 style strategy, the strength of which was very much borne out of pairing marines with gas-heavy tech units that compensated for their weaknesses to perform a 1-base allin.
Maybe 135 hp and 1 armor on the viking would help terran late game. It's a gimpy goliath otherwise, but give it a bit of a helping hand in hp and armor department, and it's AA role against colossus protected by storms and stalkers is better, and it's ground support role improves as well, making it a more well rounded unit to produce a large quantity of for planned transformations to finish ground armies after whatever massive/air is taken out that needs to be.
The thor's AA cannon vs armored units is still so very terrible..
I think the biggest clue that the game is supposed to revolve around a mix of different "tier" units comes from the fact that there are specialized upgrades for every low tier unit which improve their power significantly. Just something to think about.
|
Maybe 135 hp and 1 armor on the viking would help terran late game.
Rather just give it a better moving shot tbh.
|
On July 20 2014 18:04 Hider wrote:Rather just give it a better moving shot tbh.
Well, vikings are designed to handle wraith and goliath duties from brood war, but separately. The transform process is a bit of a kink in that design, taking so long and getting shot while doing it. With a bump in armor and a tiny more hp, it takes one or two more hits to kill them, which makes their much higher cost over a goliath semi-reasonable. It also makes sense given that it's an armored unit.
|
Italy12247 Posts
The "4m stale" argument is goddamn stupid.
Terran went marine/tank every game in WoL for years, and none complained because, guess what, the bio+aoe vs muta/ling mechanic is FUCKING AWESOME. In fact, it's the most entertaining matchup to watch by far, always has been.
Besides, it's not like the recent mine/hellbat changes changed anything. Terran still go hellion 3cc into bio+choice of one factory aoe unit, and zergs still go muta. The only difference is that now the zerg wins a lot more past a certain stage, while back then the terran was slightly coming out on top (seriously, the win rate was like 47-53).
|
On July 21 2014 03:31 Teoita wrote:
The "4m stale" argument is goddamn stupid.
Terran went marine/tank every game in WoL for years, and none complained because, guess what, the bio+aoe vs muta/ling mechanic is FUCKING AWESOME. In fact, it's the most entertaining matchup to watch by far, always has been.
Besides, it's not like the recent mine/hellbat changes changed anything. Terran still go hellion 3cc into bio+choice of one factory aoe unit, and zergs still go muta. The only difference is that now the zerg wins a lot more past a certain stage, while back then the terran was slightly coming out on top (seriously, the win rate was like 47-53).
People did complain about seeing mass Marines in every Terran game. They still do. Just read any comment along the lines of "Terran can go *current-flavor-of-marine+something* every game"
|
On July 21 2014 03:31 Teoita wrote:
The "4m stale" argument is goddamn stupid.
Terran went marine/tank every game in WoL for years, and none complained because, guess what, the bio+aoe vs muta/ling mechanic is FUCKING AWESOME. In fact, it's the most entertaining matchup to watch by far, always has been.
Besides, it's not like the recent mine/hellbat changes changed anything. Terran still go hellion 3cc into bio+choice of one factory aoe unit, and zergs still go muta. The only difference is that now the zerg wins a lot more past a certain stage, while back then the terran was slightly coming out on top (seriously, the win rate was like 47-53).
that argument actually was david kim's own reasoning in nerfing the widow mine in the first place. it literally was.
i wont make an effort to look up the exact quote right now, but rest assured that was his explanation. in the same patch the siege tank receive its attack speed buff. paraphrasing david kim, "widow mine tank compositions would be cooler than just watching pure bio".
i personally agree, the 4M style was boring as hell after a while.
|
the "because WoL was stale, its fine" argument is god damn stupid.
Just because something happened during one time period doesn't automatically make it good or bad in another time period. If progress or growth and diversification is something players want in their game, then we should see how that can be accomplished.
The only real facts that can be argued for "stale" gameplay is that the best strategies will eventually rise to the surface, and then the game may all be the same, because any other strategy is sub-par. It's just like chess; the best strategies are the ones everyone will use, it doesn't matter if you want to be a special snowflake in chess, if you pick sub-optimal strats and usage of your pieces, you lose. Same with SC2 or any RTS. The dud stuff gets mothballed, or is used by low level players forever and ever.
That's the only true argument for accepting "stale" gameplay. There will necessarily be some ideal unit/strat usage based on the mechanics of the game itself that will rise to the top. People want to be able to do multiple different strats and have them function as well as the best. Imagine if tanks actually became a legitimate strategy because they could function as an "anti" build for some particular army comp that protoss has.
|
It's funny because people say they find 4M boring after a while, and while nothing change, almost everyone still agree that TvZ is the best match up so far. It's always been. Solar vs Taeja was an awesome series and guess what, Taeja went 4M every time. Same vs JD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
