On November 20 2014 21:20 TedCruz2016 wrote: Anti-colossus? Are you kidding me? Last time I checked, cyclone's range is 5, which is only a half of upgraded colossus'.
Cyclones have more range when they lock-on it seems, and there is a range upgrade for the Cyclone. And upgraded Colossi currently have range 9, not 10, and in LotV at the moment they have 8.
It's not finalized anyway. If it's really an anti-colossus unit, it may lose its ability to shoot and kite air unit thus P can go skytoss or do immortal/disruptor drop to harass. And by the way, is armory a requirement to produce cyclone? If the answer's yes, P will have plenty of time to react.
On November 20 2014 21:57 Jerom wrote: I'd love to see them reconsider the macro in the game. I know Starcraft is a macro game, but the game is simply frustrating to play when you aren't at least decent at the game. There are so many players who don't have the time to play this game every week, and I just don't see how this game is fun to play if you aren't going to fully commit to it.
It's still an amazing game to watch though, but if they really want to reach for the stars and start competing with the Moba games again, then this issue really needs to be fixed imo.
?? Assuming ladder does its job, your opponents should have roughly similar of macro, so what do you mean?
That unless you are really high on the ladder the more fun parts of the game hardly matter and the only thing you should do is macro better. You're in gold and you want to micro a drop? Well, you should just watch the minimap instead and build more SCVs! You want to fly around with mutas? Cool idea, but have you injected and creepspread already?
I think a huge deal of the popularity of allin builds on lower parts of the ladder is that they let you concentrate mostly on the fun - engagement/micro - parts of the game after you reached your allin-setup. Macro builds on the other hand consist of repetetive solo-play elements for the greatest part of the game, because that solo-play is much more important than the multiplayer part where you win by interacting.
On November 20 2014 21:20 TedCruz2016 wrote: Anti-colossus? Are you kidding me? Last time I checked, cyclone's range is 5, which is only a half of upgraded colossus'.
Cyclones have more range when they lock-on it seems, and there is a range upgrade for the Cyclone. And upgraded Colossi currently have range 9, not 10, and in LotV at the moment they have 8.
It's not finalized anyway. If it's really an anti-colossus unit, it may lose its ability to shoot and kite air unit thus P can go skytoss or do immortal/disruptor drop to harass. And by the way, is armory a requirement to produce cyclone? If the answer's yes, P will have plenty of time to react.
I just hope they remove/rework Cyclone (and SH and Collosus). Also I don't get how can anyone like Herc. It's almost exactly same unit like Chargelot with splash and without need to upgrde charge (wtf?). Isn't almost everyone sick of chargelots? Why would you add unit so similar to them???
On November 20 2014 07:28 Bohemond wrote: They keep talking about 'obvious micro.' Can anyone give me an example of micro that 'can't be seen?' I've been watching/playing this game for about three years now and I've never heard anyone in the community complain about this... issue... that Mr. Kim seems so desperate to avoid.
Same, I just don't understand what it refers to. And if they want to fix visual issues, why don't they start...
... by the very obvious? How many supply there at the first glance? Who's winning?
The most basic example is zealot probe micro vs lings in BW if you don't know how it works and you see 1 zealot and probes take out 10 zerglings your reaction will be "holy !@#$%^&* how did he do that I didn't know that was possible that is amazing".
I don't agree this fits the definition of not being visible if 1 zealot could take out 10 zerglings. I would say it's pretty apparent to viewers that the protoss player did something pretty amazing there
That's why I used the example of Thor-targgeting Mutalisks, as that was something which David Kim apparently wasn't a fan of. Thor targetting is something which you cannot identify as a viewer (easily) and it's also pretty difficult to assess the impact of a Thor targetting Mutalisks over 2-3 seconds during an engagement. But every time a certain type of micro has a noticeable impact on the outcome, it's per definition visible.
I think in reality SC2 is a bit closer to League in style and philosophy. Compositions are balanced in relation to each other.
I believe that we should be learned from Dota vs LOL isn't strongly related to balance, but rather how interactions are designed. Champion vs champions in League - unlike DOTA - are designed to have a lot of counterplay potential during engagements. The majority of abilities are carefully tweaked so a great player can dodge enemy abilities. Dota on the other hand is much more about positioning and being at the right time at the right place.
Starcraft in my opinion has an interaction that is much closer to DOTA, where preposition matters more than the micro during the engagement. The exception here is bio in TvZ, and it's not a coincidence that is the most beloved form of micro in the game. From my experience, what almost every Starcraft-fan want is to have more counterplay in the unit vs unit interactions.
While League indeed accomplishes counterplay-potential through abilities, the way to adapt that concept into Starcraft is through a proper rework of the core stats of the units. So obviously Blizzard shouldn't learn from League by adding in more abilities, but rather they should learn from League in terms of how you can create solid and fun interactions that are easy-to-earn/difficult-to-master through careful tweaking.
There's no concept of balancing for "equal power curves" (every hero needing to have equal strength and utility in all parts of a game,
And that fits well into Starcraft as well. There is a very big assymetry in the army strenght of zerg, toss and terran in the midgame. When one race is (a) much weaker, (b) has weak harass-options and (c) is immobile, it forces the race to play a passive turtlestyle, which noone enjoys watching. As an attempt to make "non all-in"-agression viable in PvZ, Blizzard attempted to solve this through a better escape mechanic in the Mothership Recall. But that's obviously just a very bad way of creating interesting interactions. It would be much better if the assymetry between zerg and toss in the mid was significantly reduced, so toss could put pressure on the zerg without being allin.
Dota can better get away with this due to the last-hitting/denying-mechanic, as it creates an incentive to still be out on the map. But for an RTS like Starcraft, you cannot have any noticeable assymetry in army strenght in the mid/early-game.
On November 20 2014 07:28 Bohemond wrote: They keep talking about 'obvious micro.' Can anyone give me an example of micro that 'can't be seen?' I've been watching/playing this game for about three years now and I've never heard anyone in the community complain about this... issue... that Mr. Kim seems so desperate to avoid.
Same, I just don't understand what it refers to. And if they want to fix visual issues, why don't they start...
... by the very obvious? How many supply there at the first glance? Who's winning?
Blue is winning
There are 13immortals under the 7Colossi of Yellow and only 4Immortals in front of the 6Colossi of blue
On November 20 2014 07:28 Bohemond wrote: They keep talking about 'obvious micro.' Can anyone give me an example of micro that 'can't be seen?' I've been watching/playing this game for about three years now and I've never heard anyone in the community complain about this... issue... that Mr. Kim seems so desperate to avoid.
Same, I just don't understand what it refers to. And if they want to fix visual issues, why don't they start...
... by the very obvious? How many supply there at the first glance? Who's winning?
Blue is winning
There are 13immortals under the 7Colossi of Yellow and only 4Immortals in front of the 6Colossi of blue
Well I just did some digging and I think I found the game (Classic vs Rain), and blue won, right?
On November 20 2014 07:28 Bohemond wrote: They keep talking about 'obvious micro.' Can anyone give me an example of micro that 'can't be seen?' I've been watching/playing this game for about three years now and I've never heard anyone in the community complain about this... issue... that Mr. Kim seems so desperate to avoid.
Same, I just don't understand what it refers to. And if they want to fix visual issues, why don't they start...
... by the very obvious? How many supply there at the first glance? Who's winning?
Blue is winning
There are 13immortals under the 7Colossi of Yellow and only 4Immortals in front of the 6Colossi of blue
Well I just did some digging and I think I found the game (Classic vs Rain), and blue won, right?
hehe, that's another way to understand who is winning
Blizzard cant give "concrete" statements because its pre alpha its would be PR suicide to make definite decisions this early when a lot of stuff will inevitably change, the most valuable information blizzard give isn't the changes them self, its the concepts and ideas behind the changes that are most intriguing.
The fact blizzard are even open to drastic changes to the game should be more than enough to make keep people optimistic about sc2 as a lot of there ideas are great in concept but need the rough edges shaved off (but that's what alpha/beta is for)
On November 20 2014 07:28 Bohemond wrote: They keep talking about 'obvious micro.' Can anyone give me an example of micro that 'can't be seen?' I've been watching/playing this game for about three years now and I've never heard anyone in the community complain about this... issue... that Mr. Kim seems so desperate to avoid.
Same, I just don't understand what it refers to. And if they want to fix visual issues, why don't they start...
... by the very obvious? How many supply there at the first glance? Who's winning?
Blue is winning
There are 13immortals under the 7Colossi of Yellow and only 4Immortals in front of the 6Colossi of blue
Well I just did some digging and I think I found the game (Classic vs Rain), and blue won, right?
hehe, that's another way to understand who is winning
Looking at the picture I thought blue was winning. He has a better arc, and he's about to warp behind the colossi of yellow which will allow for both lost shots of colossi and for an ability to target colossi faster than his opponents. His units are also more spread which means less aoe damage. What's not apparent in the picture is that yellow is also warping zealots close by, so blue will also lose shots, but I couldn't predict that.
After you came with that information which seemed surprising, I looked the game in the archives and found it. Yellow had 10 immortals vs 6, not 13 vs 4, and did indeed lose.
Now, if you showed me a snapshot of a TvT battle and asked me who was winning, I would be completely incapable of telling you that.
On November 20 2014 07:28 Bohemond wrote: They keep talking about 'obvious micro.' Can anyone give me an example of micro that 'can't be seen?' I've been watching/playing this game for about three years now and I've never heard anyone in the community complain about this... issue... that Mr. Kim seems so desperate to avoid.
Same, I just don't understand what it refers to. And if they want to fix visual issues, why don't they start...
... by the very obvious? How many supply there at the first glance? Who's winning?
Blue is winning
There are 13immortals under the 7Colossi of Yellow and only 4Immortals in front of the 6Colossi of blue
Well I just did some digging and I think I found the game (Classic vs Rain), and blue won, right?
hehe, that's another way to understand who is winning
Looking at the picture I thought blue was winning. He has a better arc, and he's about to warp behind the colossi of yellow which will allow for both lost shots of colossi and for an ability to target colossi faster than his opponents. His units are also more spread which means less aoe damage. What's not apparent in the picture is that yellow is also warping zealots close by, so blue will also lose shots, but I couldn't predict that.
After you came with that information which seemed surprising, I looked the game in the archives and found it. Yellow had 10 immortals vs 6, not 13 vs 4, and did indeed lose.
Now, if you showed me a snapshot of a TvT battle and asked me who was winning, I would be completely incapable of telling you that.
Sorry, I was actually just trolling about the possibility that there could be massive amounts of immortals under yellows Colossi. I actually didn't even think that yellow had an actually immortal advantage.
I agree, from the picture it looks like blue has an advantage through that prism and through splashing the Immortals and Colossi. But i think that's besides the point that The_Dwf was making. Which is that through all the big laser-effects and Colossi standing on top of other units it is really hard to determine what is going on.
On November 20 2014 07:28 Bohemond wrote: They keep talking about 'obvious micro.' Can anyone give me an example of micro that 'can't be seen?' I've been watching/playing this game for about three years now and I've never heard anyone in the community complain about this... issue... that Mr. Kim seems so desperate to avoid.
Same, I just don't understand what it refers to. And if they want to fix visual issues, why don't they start...
... by the very obvious? How many supply there at the first glance? Who's winning?
Blue is winning
There are 13immortals under the 7Colossi of Yellow and only 4Immortals in front of the 6Colossi of blue
Well I just did some digging and I think I found the game (Classic vs Rain), and blue won, right?
hehe, that's another way to understand who is winning
Looking at the picture I thought blue was winning. He has a better arc, and he's about to warp behind the colossi of yellow which will allow for both lost shots of colossi and for an ability to target colossi faster than his opponents. His units are also more spread which means less aoe damage. What's not apparent in the picture is that yellow is also warping zealots close by, so blue will also lose shots, but I couldn't predict that.
After you came with that information which seemed surprising, I looked the game in the archives and found it. Yellow had 10 immortals vs 6, not 13 vs 4, and did indeed lose.
Now, if you showed me a snapshot of a TvT battle and asked me who was winning, I would be completely incapable of telling you that.
Sorry, I was actually just trolling about the possibility that there could be massive amounts of immortals under yellows Colossi. I actually didn't even think that yellow had an actually immortal advantage.
I agree, from the picture it looks like blue has an advantage through that prism and through splashing the Immortals and Colossi. But i think that's besides the point that The_Dwf was making. Which is that through all the big laser-effects and Colossi standing on top of other units it is really hard to determine what is going on.
Sure but my counterpoint is that caring about what's going on is the most important part of understanding it. As someone who doesn't care about TvT I generally won't be able to tell you who's winning fights, and I don't think it'll change if you make TvT fights 'easier to understand' or something like that.
The most basic example is zealot probe micro vs lings in BW if you don't know how it works and you see 1 zealot and probes take out 10 zerglings your reaction will be "holy !@#$%^&* how did he do that I didn't know that was possible that is amazing".
I don't agree this fits the definition of not being visible if 1 zealot could take out 10 zerglings. I would say it's pretty apparent to viewers that the protoss player did something pretty amazing there
That's why I used the example of Thor-targgeting Mutalisks, as that was something which David Kim apparently wasn't a fan of. Thor targetting is something which you cannot identify as a viewer (easily) and it's also pretty difficult to assess the impact of a Thor targetting Mutalisks over 2-3 seconds during an engagement. But every time a certain type of micro has a noticeable impact on the outcome, it's per definition visible.
I think we aren't talking about the same thing. You are comparing probes dying as visible to a targeting command. What I am saying viewers don't need to understand how micro works or why it was effective. In my example you aren't talking about something as simple as focus fire. You are talking about deep and complicated micro moves such as mineral stacking, hold commands, using zergling attack priority (zealots came first in BW). These are not visible to a casual viewer but it will be intriguing to see a zealot and some probes win the battle. The winner is visible to the casual even though he doesn't understand the micro involved. My point is that understanding the micro is not a good factor to measure viewer enjoyment if they can understand the outcome. Your point is more based only on seeing or not seeing the outcome.
On November 20 2014 07:28 Bohemond wrote: They keep talking about 'obvious micro.' Can anyone give me an example of micro that 'can't be seen?' I've been watching/playing this game for about three years now and I've never heard anyone in the community complain about this... issue... that Mr. Kim seems so desperate to avoid.
Same, I just don't understand what it refers to. And if they want to fix visual issues, why don't they start...
... by the very obvious? How many supply there at the first glance? Who's winning?
Blue is winning
There are 13immortals under the 7Colossi of Yellow and only 4Immortals in front of the 6Colossi of blue
Well I just did some digging and I think I found the game (Classic vs Rain), and blue won, right?
hehe, that's another way to understand who is winning
Looking at the picture I thought blue was winning. He has a better arc, and he's about to warp behind the colossi of yellow which will allow for both lost shots of colossi and for an ability to target colossi faster than his opponents. His units are also more spread which means less aoe damage. What's not apparent in the picture is that yellow is also warping zealots close by, so blue will also lose shots, but I couldn't predict that.
After you came with that information which seemed surprising, I looked the game in the archives and found it. Yellow had 10 immortals vs 6, not 13 vs 4, and did indeed lose.
Now, if you showed me a snapshot of a TvT battle and asked me who was winning, I would be completely incapable of telling you that.
Sorry, I was actually just trolling about the possibility that there could be massive amounts of immortals under yellows Colossi. I actually didn't even think that yellow had an actually immortal advantage.
I agree, from the picture it looks like blue has an advantage through that prism and through splashing the Immortals and Colossi. But i think that's besides the point that The_Dwf was making. Which is that through all the big laser-effects and Colossi standing on top of other units it is really hard to determine what is going on.
Sure but my counterpoint is that caring about what's going on is the most important part of understanding it. As someone who doesn't care about TvT I generally won't be able to tell you who's winning fights, and I don't think it'll change if you make TvT fights 'easier to understand' or something like that.
The thing is that regardless of whether you care or not, when I give you a picture of TvT you can usually just count all the units on the picture. On the shown PvP picture I can't even determine the count of medium units like Archons/Immortals. There are way too many effects to get a clear picture - regardless of whether you understand PvP - to just see the action. That's the point, long before we talk about understanding it, it isn't really possible to just watch details of the battle.
The most basic example is zealot probe micro vs lings in BW if you don't know how it works and you see 1 zealot and probes take out 10 zerglings your reaction will be "holy !@#$%^&* how did he do that I didn't know that was possible that is amazing".
I don't agree this fits the definition of not being visible if 1 zealot could take out 10 zerglings. I would say it's pretty apparent to viewers that the protoss player did something pretty amazing there
That's why I used the example of Thor-targgeting Mutalisks, as that was something which David Kim apparently wasn't a fan of. Thor targetting is something which you cannot identify as a viewer (easily) and it's also pretty difficult to assess the impact of a Thor targetting Mutalisks over 2-3 seconds during an engagement. But every time a certain type of micro has a noticeable impact on the outcome, it's per definition visible.
I think we aren't talking about the same thing. You are comparing probes dying as visible to a targeting command. What I am saying viewers don't need to understand how micro works or why it was effective. In my example you aren't talking about something as simple as focus fire. You are talking about deep and complicated micro moves such as mineral stacking, hold commands, using zergling attack priority (zealots came first in BW). These are not visible to a casual viewer but it will be intriguing to see a zealot and some probes win the battle. The winner is visible to the casual even though he doesn't understand the micro involved. My point is that understanding the micro is not a good factor to measure viewer enjoyment if they can understand the outcome. Your point is more based only on seeing or not seeing the outcome.
You wrote that you did not understand the reasoning with regards to micro, so I assumed you was referring to David Kim's visible micro (?) As I tried to argue, visible micro doesn't imply that every viewer knows exactly what happened. Instead, it implies that it should be easy for viewers to identify skill + they can asses the effect the micro had on the outcome of the engagement.
So we don't disagree here (I think), but I am just a bit confused who you were referering to with that comment (if it wasn't David Kim?).
On November 20 2014 07:28 Bohemond wrote: They keep talking about 'obvious micro.' Can anyone give me an example of micro that 'can't be seen?' I've been watching/playing this game for about three years now and I've never heard anyone in the community complain about this... issue... that Mr. Kim seems so desperate to avoid.
Same, I just don't understand what it refers to. And if they want to fix visual issues, why don't they start...
... by the very obvious? How many supply there at the first glance? Who's winning?
Blue is winning
There are 13immortals under the 7Colossi of Yellow and only 4Immortals in front of the 6Colossi of blue
Well I just did some digging and I think I found the game (Classic vs Rain), and blue won, right?
hehe, that's another way to understand who is winning
Looking at the picture I thought blue was winning. He has a better arc, and he's about to warp behind the colossi of yellow which will allow for both lost shots of colossi and for an ability to target colossi faster than his opponents. His units are also more spread which means less aoe damage. What's not apparent in the picture is that yellow is also warping zealots close by, so blue will also lose shots, but I couldn't predict that.
After you came with that information which seemed surprising, I looked the game in the archives and found it. Yellow had 10 immortals vs 6, not 13 vs 4, and did indeed lose.
Now, if you showed me a snapshot of a TvT battle and asked me who was winning, I would be completely incapable of telling you that.
Sorry, I was actually just trolling about the possibility that there could be massive amounts of immortals under yellows Colossi. I actually didn't even think that yellow had an actually immortal advantage.
I agree, from the picture it looks like blue has an advantage through that prism and through splashing the Immortals and Colossi. But i think that's besides the point that The_Dwf was making. Which is that through all the big laser-effects and Colossi standing on top of other units it is really hard to determine what is going on.
Sure but my counterpoint is that caring about what's going on is the most important part of understanding it. As someone who doesn't care about TvT I generally won't be able to tell you who's winning fights, and I don't think it'll change if you make TvT fights 'easier to understand' or something like that.
The thing is that regardless of whether you care or not, when I give you a picture of TvT you can usually just count all the units on the picture. On the shown PvP picture I can't even determine the count of medium units like Archons/Immortals. There are way too many effects to get a clear picture - regardless of whether you understand PvP - to just see the action. That's the point, long before we talk about understanding it, it isn't really possible to just watch details of the battle.
For a strict spectator it comes down to being able to tell intuitively who has more units or who is better positioned, and that's something I can do in PvP and not in TvT. Correct me if I'm wrong, but people don't pause the game to count the exact numbers unless they're analyzing it.
To put it another way, if you make PvP visually easier, I don't know that the number of people "understanding what's going on" will increase dramatically.
On November 20 2014 07:31 TheDwf wrote: [quote] Same, I just don't understand what it refers to. And if they want to fix visual issues, why don't they start...
... by the very obvious? How many supply there at the first glance? Who's winning?
Blue is winning
There are 13immortals under the 7Colossi of Yellow and only 4Immortals in front of the 6Colossi of blue
Well I just did some digging and I think I found the game (Classic vs Rain), and blue won, right?
hehe, that's another way to understand who is winning
Looking at the picture I thought blue was winning. He has a better arc, and he's about to warp behind the colossi of yellow which will allow for both lost shots of colossi and for an ability to target colossi faster than his opponents. His units are also more spread which means less aoe damage. What's not apparent in the picture is that yellow is also warping zealots close by, so blue will also lose shots, but I couldn't predict that.
After you came with that information which seemed surprising, I looked the game in the archives and found it. Yellow had 10 immortals vs 6, not 13 vs 4, and did indeed lose.
Now, if you showed me a snapshot of a TvT battle and asked me who was winning, I would be completely incapable of telling you that.
Sorry, I was actually just trolling about the possibility that there could be massive amounts of immortals under yellows Colossi. I actually didn't even think that yellow had an actually immortal advantage.
I agree, from the picture it looks like blue has an advantage through that prism and through splashing the Immortals and Colossi. But i think that's besides the point that The_Dwf was making. Which is that through all the big laser-effects and Colossi standing on top of other units it is really hard to determine what is going on.
Sure but my counterpoint is that caring about what's going on is the most important part of understanding it. As someone who doesn't care about TvT I generally won't be able to tell you who's winning fights, and I don't think it'll change if you make TvT fights 'easier to understand' or something like that.
The thing is that regardless of whether you care or not, when I give you a picture of TvT you can usually just count all the units on the picture. On the shown PvP picture I can't even determine the count of medium units like Archons/Immortals. There are way too many effects to get a clear picture - regardless of whether you understand PvP - to just see the action. That's the point, long before we talk about understanding it, it isn't really possible to just watch details of the battle.
For a strict spectator it comes down to being able to tell intuitively who has more units or who is better positioned, and that's something I can do in PvP and not in TvT. Correct me if I'm wrong, but people don't pause the game to count the exact numbers unless they're analyzing it.
To put it another way, if you make PvP visually easier, I don't know that the number of people understanding what's going on will increase dramatically.
Well, you don't need exact numbers. That's really just putting it into the extreme that "even if you can pause the game you don't know who has what". In action it is all about getting vague numbers and those are still very hard to find out when looking at this combat in action.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Wunder/ClassicVSRain.jpg)
