EPTThe lurker is, has and should always be a strong unit if ignored. You're not supposed to attack into lurkers, just as you're not supposed to attack into siege tanks or liberators.
very good point
LotV post-DH reactions - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
xtorn
4060 Posts
very good point | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
On November 29 2015 19:15 insitelol wrote: Literally any classic kind of sport. Ok, chess. Chess is out there for thousands of years to an extent noone even remembers who invented it. Does core rules, no, just "any" rules are being changed every fucking time someoone thinks it's not enough viewers? it's not fun? or any other kind of bullshit? The problem is you treat SC2 as "some funny stuff i like to play and watch every now and then", while i treat it like a sport. Yes it's just a hobby to me. But i take it seriously. Your logic is shallow. It's a fucking consumer mindset: "I'm so bored lets change the fuck out of everything every season, i don't play it so let those retards who actually dedicate time to the game feel like scrubs". And no, "figuring what strategies are best" is not fun. The truth is you can't see further than you nose, because game evolves step by step. "new stratejiezz" are just the beggining. First, there are some new strategies, then those strategies evolve into newer strategies and so on. Repeating brings new quality. It actually. takes. some. fucking. time. If you think Hots is completely figured out you delude yourself. Like soccer was figured out in the 50s. Yes. Why is it n1 sport in the world. Because they fucking inventing new strategies. But i guess it's too complicated for you. You are just watching people wasting their lives playing video games on internet. It's so boring isn't it? your sport comparison is so absurd i cant even the rules may not change but the players do. not patching a computer game would be like only allowing the same exact players play soccer forever, in order for coaches to be able to figure out the 100% best possible strategy with that exact squad | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12046 Posts
It's true but you also wouldn't see tanks or liberators rush to your natural and siege inside it. There are ways for zerg to force you to engage them if they ever catch you out of position, and with the fast expanding rate, they are likely to do so. That being said I don't think it's that's bad, PartinG won the game where Solar sieged his natural in that way. | ||
|
StarscreamG1
Portugal1652 Posts
 | ||
jeeeeohn
United States1343 Posts
Dreamhack was a great tournament. Showtime and Parting effectively established the PvP metagame with a single series. It was nail biting and intense. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On November 29 2015 23:31 sd_andeh wrote: The lurker is, has and should always be a strong unit if ignored. You're not supposed to attack into lurkers, just as you're not supposed to attack into siege tanks or liberators. I am curious, with how the Lurker works in LotV its essential a Colossus with a 90° rotate attack, not the cool spikes you had in BW. Why is the Lurker awesome and the Colossus is not ? Just because the Colossus is more mobile and more microable as a result ? I mean I hear all this hate about the Colossus and praise about the lurker and some people that like the lurker also hate the colossus. And I could agree that they are more different if the spikes would still work like in BW ... but not with how they currently work. So that confuses me alot atm. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On November 30 2015 00:30 FeyFey wrote: I am curious, with how the Lurker works in LotV its essential a Colossus with a 90° rotate attack, not the cool spikes you had in BW. Why is the Lurker awesome and the Colossus is not ? Just because the Colossus is more mobile and more microable as a result ? my take on it would be that a) you commit with a lurker as it becomes immobile in order to attack. b) a colossus is constantly mobile, does not collide with other units and have mapaltering robots supporting it which is obviously heavily promoting deathballing. c) due to MSC and again map altering robots a colossus cant as easily overstep its position whereas a lurker works more like a siege tank since it will be instantly punished if you move it just a bit too far. | ||
|
friendlyscv
12 Posts
On November 29 2015 17:16 insitelol wrote: It's funny and painfull at the same time to see some people still hyping this. Lol at DK one hundred times and his futile attempts to make this game "more popular". I must remind you guys that when hots came out there was a considarable increase in viewership (compared to WoL at its end), like ~ 100k for a tournament finals was standard for the first few months. How good and appealing your LotV is, when viewership DROPS compared to HotS last tournaments? (ok, at most it stays the same). Is this how it is meant to be? Yes, i hate this expansion so fucking much. It's a complete failure. In the first place because it ruined a 5 years meta for NOTHING. Literrally NOTHING. Ye, you can laugh at this and say some obvious bs like: "bla-bla-bla just try and learn new things its so exciting, it's a new level for this game where everything will be more balanced and OF COURSE more fun to watch". Fuck yes. Obviously. We should all start figuring out new meta for few couple of years instead of actually playng the game just because DK thinks these.. so to say... "changes" will make SC better. Ok. Now about the DH. I sit and watched this. Honestly. Trying to see what's "everybody hyping" so much. And all i saw was horrible designed new units (glimpses of much better desgined units called reaver), absense of meta, where mediocre europeans are on par with parting. But most annoying part was that i couldn't figure out why. Why should i go on ladder and startover after 5 years of grinding it. HotS was by far the worst thing to happen to SC2. There was one interesting matchup in the entire game (TvZ) and it soon devolved into a huge shitfest because of mech and swarmhosts. No fucking shit the viewer numbers are low, WoL deathball vs deathball was more interesting than HotS matchups where both players are afraid to move out of their fucking base because the other guy has an unkillable army. Changing the meta isn't a bad thing if the meta was shit to begin with. The fact that you haven't mentioned a single valid reason to hate this game in your post, that you actually even tried to make the argument that HotS was good, and the unnecessary lead designer name drop makes it incredibly obvious that you decided to hate it before you even tried to watch or play it. 15 years of BW history is 100k times exciting with 10 units to each side and w/o turning its meta upside down every 3 years. The BW meta changed a lot in those 15 years. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:10 friendlyscv wrote: HotS was by far the worst thing to happen to SC2. There was one interesting matchup in the entire game (TvZ) and it soon devolved into a huge shitfest because of mech and swarmhosts. No fucking fucking shit the viewer numbers are low, WoL deathball vs deathball was more interesting than HotS matchups where both players are afraid to move out of their fucking base because the other guy has an unkillable army. Changing the meta isn't a bad thing if the meta was shit to begin with. The fact that you haven't mentioned a single valid reason to hate this game in your post, that you actually even tried to make the argument that HotS was good, and the unnecessary lead designer name drop makes it incredibly obvious that you decided to hate it before you even tried to watch or play it. The BW meta changed a lot in those 15 years. Well I guess it's true that the standards and expectations for lotv are pretty low given how many people kinda straight dislike hots and probably wol as well. Sometimes it seems to me a lot of players never really liked SC2 that much lol :p And there is definitely a big hype train going that I don't see lasting very long at all. | ||
|
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
On November 30 2015 00:03 summerloud wrote: your sport comparison is so absurd i cant even the rules may not change but the players do. not patching a computer game would be like only allowing the same exact players play soccer forever, in order for coaches to be able to figure out the 100% best possible strategy with that exact squad so changing the rules in starcraft is equivalent to changing a player in football what is changing a player in starcraft equivalent to then? and what are the meta changes in football and chess equivalent to? i think we can both arrive at the conclusion that your statement is even more absurd than the one you claim to be absurd | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 29 2015 20:44 Liquid`Bunny wrote:Do people really prefer colossus wars in PvP to the disruptor? To me it seemed incredibly hard to play, and one shot can change how the game plays out entirely. Personally i felt really hyped watching parting vs showtime, those types of games really reward the player with the better mechanics. Disruptors might be too strong for the defending player though, but i think as we get better we'll start to see people split their army up, and try to flank more in fights. Well Parting said himself interviewed after his win vs Huk (was it 3-1) that the disruptor shots involve luck so as well as being really tedious to control they give potential to the better player to lose to a bad exchange... I really never liked Colo they are a huge reason why I stopped playing 1.5 month after SC2 release (I play P) but seeing this nonsense of disruptor ensures I will never come back and likely won't keep watching. I can hardly even call this micro, this is tedious explosive handling. Binary running back & forward, high luck factor, way too much potential strength so most of P's damage is in it, way too much potential for ending the game for one mistake of looking away at the wrong time. It kinda seals the deal, in PvP for example, there is little strategy because the only thing that matters is that you are quick enough to dodge or hit once they are on the field. Before it was, mostly, how many colo you get. It's not good, even for a mirror match up. Honestly, the only reason why armies are doing this type of run back & forward is because of the disruptor, it's like the deathballs are repelled to one another because of it. But it's not like the interaction is more interesting as a result, it only lasts longer and is more unstable. | ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
On November 30 2015 00:03 summerloud wrote: your sport comparison is so absurd i cant even Can't even what? Think of a single argument to prove me wrong? On November 30 2015 00:03 summerloud wrote: the rules may not change but the players do. not patching a computer game would be like only allowing the same exact players play soccer forever, in order for coaches to be able to figure out the 100% best possible strategy with that exact squad Just don't want to waste my time thinking of a decent sarcastic comment... On November 30 2015 01:10 friendlyscv wrote: The BW meta changed a lot in those 15 years. And still changing. w/o a single major balance overhaul. Check and mate, LoTV. How did it happen, guys?! no shiny micro abilities, no tons of shitty units, no nothing. Your world will never be the same. | ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:45 insitelol wrote: Can't even what? Think of a single argument to prove me wrong? Just don't want to waste my time thinking of a decent sarcastic comment... And still changing. w/o a single major balance overhaul. Check and mate, LoTV. How did it happen, guys?! no shiny micro abilities, no tons of shitty units, no nothing. Your world will never be the same. Maps are important for balance. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:45 insitelol wrote: Can't even what? Think of a single argument to prove me wrong? Just don't want to waste my time thinking of a decent sarcastic comment... And still changing. w/o a single major balance overhaul. Check and mate, LoTV. How did it happen, guys?! no shiny micro abilities, no tons of shitty units, no nothing. Your world will never be the same. "LOTV is shit" Wow, I bet debating Starcraft with you is really open minded and reasonable *eye roll* | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 29 2015 20:44 Liquid`Bunny wrote: LotV is definitely a better game than HotS. It's a lot more fun to play because all the micro abilities makes for much more variance in gameplay. In HotS there were so many times where you could tell that 1 army would win no matter what, but LotV has more potential for cool plays. Do people really prefer colossus wars in PvP to the disruptor? To me it seemed incredibly hard to play, and one shot can change how the game plays out entirely. Personally i felt really hyped watching parting vs showtime, those types of games really reward the player with the better mechanics. Disruptors might be too strong for the defending player though, but i think as we get better we'll start to see people split their army up, and try to flank more in fights. The economy is also so much better. No more camping with 66 workers while building the perfect composition, which is something that really made HotS stale towards the end. I get that there's still room for a lot of improvement, which i won't talk about here. but i really don't understand why people are being so pessimistic. Everyone i know who actually plays the game a lot thinks it's so much better Fully agree about the Disruptor wars. People are jumping on the "this will be stale" train way too soon here, right now players are perfecting their core micro with this, but then imagine this with warp prism/disruptor flanks to control movement, smaller scale blinks to only dodge the shot and let you advance further when you have an advantage and all sorts of composition variations. The Tempests of Showtime vs Parting are a great example, but I see a lot of potential with other things as well - if the balance allows for them at least. Also when players get better they also get very good at multitasking while dodging the disruptor shots. In those macro PvPs there have nearly always been undefended expansions and main bases that could have been raided while the disruptor tennis was going on. I also agree with some of the micro things you mention, in particular those around ravagers and disruptors. However, my personal dislike stems from the strategies in this game. I believe LotV is very restricting strategically. It's not like you can go like: "Hey, tonight I'm going to train my Mech against Protoss." or "I really feel like playing Voidrays against Terran right now." You figure out/copy the best style and then maybe you can vary it slightly, but the strategic depth is pretty much limited to hoping you don't get scouted when you actually try something else. And it also doesn't fix fundamental rush problems in certain matchups. Do I really want to play 5 ZvZs or TvPs to get into a macro game once? It's nice to have 15units in your arsenal, but if most games end after 5mins and the gamewinner was once again that you actually built that roach warren it becomes a very shallow playing experience. Like, I wouldn't mind playing TvZ or ZvP or TvZ or TvT for some hours. But when I log on and all I do is make expansion, then I defense it... OK, time to do it again because my opponent is dead or I'm dead, then I don't feel like playing. Or watching. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On November 30 2015 00:39 NEEDZMOAR wrote: my take on it would be that a) you commit with a lurker as it becomes immobile in order to attack. b) a colossus is constantly mobile, does not collide with other units and have mapaltering robots supporting it which is obviously heavily promoting deathballing. c) due to MSC and again map altering robots a colossus cant as easily overstep its position whereas a lurker works more like a siege tank since it will be instantly punished if you move it just a bit too far. yeah that was the only thing I could come up with as well. And I guess that people see it as a ground unit, while its more a ground/air hybrid, so it can work more like an air siege unit. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On November 30 2015 01:51 Ansibled wrote: Maps are important for balance. yeah maps important bw's meta though wasn't set through maps it's not even the dominant factor, I feel there is exaggeration about this it comes up as an "argument" why SC2's balance isn't on par with BW "yet" even though BW got very little balance patches. But it's not true, BW's maps like Luna then Python then Fighting Spirit as the core/reference maps are only maps that defined you need a natural and a 3rd for each player and a large middle being careful about constructible areas and abusable cliffs.. They are very standard and simple. With proper adjustment you can play today's meta on yesterday's maps. You get a ton of very different maps also that all work and are quite balanced and not played the same. SC2's balance issues are linked to many problems in design, inconsistency. about maps also btw I can't believe that you guys in SC2 put up with having to play on blizzard maps only that seems crazy to me, not only they have never been as good as community at making maps but there is the big problem of map rotation and diversity, one of the things that killed WC3 maybe | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On November 30 2015 00:15 jeeeeohn wrote: With the inclusion of Liberators, Lurkers, and Disruptors, Blizzard is obviously shifting the game's focus from death ball explosions to area of control, which is what SC has always been about as far as I'm concerned. I think they're great units, especially the Disruptor. Dreamhack was a great tournament. Showtime and Parting effectively established the PvP metagame with a single series. It was nail biting and intense. The issue is Blizzard can't shift the focus of the game like that. The deathball problem is due to the very mechanics of the game itself. At best Dreamhack showed us some more tolerable variations of the deathball, but nothing suggested that multiple armies fighting multiple engagements across the maps will become the norm. The DPS of a tightly clumped army still outweighs almost every advantage a split-up army can offer. | ||
|
sparklyresidue
United States5523 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15883 Posts
A twitch viewer might be amazed by a "HUGE Disruptor shot" oneshotting an entire army however for a player this is bullshit. Also +1 to insimetol, I don't know where this thinking comes from that games must be constantly changing. No traditional sport changes its rules every few weeks and even BW survived without a single balance patch. Balance patches are killing sc2. | ||
| ||
