|
On November 30 2015 01:10 friendlyscv wrote:Show nested quote +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 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. Show nested quote +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.
Dude did you even play HotS?
Most of the games were constant trading and harassing until one player bleeded out.
ling bane muta vs bio mine, lol where are deathballs there?
Maru style tvp. Is a three pronged attack a deathball to you?
Marine tank vs marine tank, constantly fighting for a positional advantage and trying to get good trades.
Blink sentry vs roach hydra, constant trading and positional battles.
you could maybe argue that pvp and mech vs anything were kind of deathbally (although I don't agree with mech being deathbally because how far you have to spread out to defend all the shenanigans your opponent throws at you.)
But because of 2 matchups the entire game is deathbally? Lol. I can tell you something. With that mindset you will find LotV deathbally too.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On November 30 2015 02:21 Charoisaur wrote:
I wonder how many of the people who "like" LotV even play the game or just watch it.
A twitch viewer might be amazed by a "HUGE Disruptor shot" oneshotting an entire army however for a player this is bullshit.
I do. Already more than a hundred games though I bought it around a week ago. It's much more fun than HotS.Though I can say any RTS I've played so far was more fun to play than HotS, even the likes of Dawn of War.
|
8748 Posts
For PvP, I think high stakes rock-paper-scissors situations can still occur early in the game, which can be fun to watch. I think the stalker and disruptor composition has some weak points before it really gets going that pros will expose in future games. The terrain of the map plays a huge role in how well certain strategies work so we'll be nearly guaranteed to see variety as long as maps have variety. Specifically how easy it is to block adepts, how exposed to blink stalkers your bases are, how much surface area is available to attack your opponent's 2nd or 3rd bases, and how much coverage your pylon network needs to have.
For PvZ, it seemed like the important things were to have a good early game and tech switches in the late game (specifically mutas). If protoss can come out of the early game well and get some harass/pressure done in the early-mid game, and not get surprised by the zerg's composition in mid-late game, then it feels like a pretty solid matchup for protoss. Get outplayed at any point and you can't possibly be prepared for everything, so you have to start taking risks otherwise you'll gradually fall further and further behind.
I think players on both sides of protoss matchups need to get a feel for how disruptors can affect a game, being more of a zoning unit than an actual fighting unit, since everyone is so careful around them. There were times in multiple games where I think both players were not anticipating where the game went, so those phases felt a bit awkward as the players had very slow responses to the parameters of the game at that moment.
The power of photon overcharge proved to be a lot more mild than what some lower skill players giving feedback recently would have us believe. Parting did a gateway units rush, attacking into and sometimes just fighting (instead of running away) the overcharged pylons, in a pretty much ideal defensive situation for his opponent, and yet Parting still won by powering through. We saw pretty much all of the weaknesses of PO taken advantage of. Players would leave and come back, taking advantage of the short duration. They'd move their units and still be in range of their target, taking advantage of the short range. They'd kill the MSC, taking advantage of the frail delivery system. They'd kill pylons, since the pylons tend to be spread out due to the PO range being so short, so buildings have no redundant pylons and many PO'd pylons are isolated and can be picked off. And sometimes the MSC just couldn't be in the right spot at the right time, or the player was too busy with other things (being too busy gonna be even more common in LotV), so the manual nature of it was a weakness as well. And there was no general protoss dominance, suggesting that the things that the threat of PO warded off and we never even saw happen were not so significant that protoss gets to take huge shortcuts and get ahead. Protosses were still doing risky builds to keep up with their opponents -- there's no free build order advantage just because you built a MSC and pylons that you were gonna build anyway. And if that's not clear enough in PvZ and PvT, it was actually demonstrated in PvP. Protoss players that were playing defensive and greedier, relying on PO, were getting picked apart by aggressive players. If PO gets nerfed, it's not gonna be because of pro play that we've seen so far. Its use is already limited and even when it is used it doesn't automatically solve a problem. If it gets nerfed, it'll be part of a package of changes to redesign gameplay, not because of racial balance. Or it'll be because it's too strong at lower skill levels and then pros will need some compensation.
I think we're gonna see a lot more fighting on multiple fronts. I felt like players aren't comfortable enough yet to give less attention to the things they were giving attention to, so their ability to do so was limited, but the opportunities are definitely there and waiting for a gifted player to use, like Bisu revolutionizing pvz.
|
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.
I agree, it was a good tournament, LotV looks very good and Showtime was a great surprise. I am just afraid that you are right with the new PvP meta and I do not like the disruptor tennis. The luckier one may win an important engagement. I do not mind the disruptor in PvZ and PvT as the other party has always something else to offer, but the long game between Parting and Showtime could go on longer, much longer ...
|
On November 30 2015 02:21 Charoisaur wrote:
I wonder how many of the people who "like" LotV even play the game or just watch it.
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.
Stop comparing it with traditional sports! It's not traditional sports. It's a new game. Give them time.
BW didn't survive without a single balance patch. It was patched a few times. But imbalances weren't so obvious because it was so much more mechanically demanding than SC2. And I think they were lucky with they balance after the BW release.
|
The problem with disruptors is that the micro of the enemy decides if you do any dmg. Highly mobile units therefore can easily dodge the shots.
At the point where you can shoot disruptor balls without any pause the game becomes a "don't attack me" game. Disruptors basically deny engagements at this point (as seen in pvp parting vs showtime)
Is it better than the colossus atm? Yeah probably but colossi were the most boring units ever, so that isn't really saying much.
There certainly is tension and VISIBLE micro involved though, that is the positive aspect for sure
|
On November 30 2015 01:45 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That's because balance overhauls weren't possible, so maps had to change to accommodate the various imbalances between the races. Acting like it was some conscious decision by the BW team to never address imbalance is beyond delusional.
The shit UI and retarded unit pathing also made BW a struggle to play, making controlling big armies very difficult and impractical. SC2 doesn't have these tech limitations, so "shiny micro abilities" are one of the ways to make interesting units that take skill to use while simultaneously discouraging deathball play.
|
I wonder how many of the people who "like" LotV even play the game or just watch it.
A twitch viewer might be amazed by a "HUGE Disruptor shot" oneshotting an entire army however for a player this is bullshit.
Interesting. As an active player myself, though a Zerg, I would have thought that the pingpong would be more tense, and hence interesting, to play compared to simply watching it (which I thought was kinda silly).
Also interesting how many people are wanting nerfs. I remember back during WoL theres a period where people are calling for Blizzard to stop nerfing stuffs and giving each race equal OP stuffs instead, the argument being multiple OP stuffs in BW made it more 'fun'. Just a thought.
|
On November 29 2015 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:
It's the same every expansion, people get hyped that the game is "so much better" than the last version of the game.
Then we wait a few months and players start to abuse their stuff a lot more, 'imba' strategies and army compositions get figured out and in the end it all comes down to whichever army is more cost effective because that's how the economy works in this game.
I think we will have lots and lots of great games regardless though, that's just how korean starcraft works :D
It reminds me of how people said that the Life vs Flash HotS exhibition game with the new widow mine usage was to be considered a very good sign of things to come, but a few months later there were already numerous complaints about that style. And by the end of HotS TvZ was apparently worse, although I didn't watch HotS in 2015 so I don't know. And of course every time there is a battlecruiser or carrier in a game it's voted the best match ever. I think standards for short term excitement do not always correlate well to longevity.
|
On November 30 2015 01:45 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +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...
Do you not see the irony in saying he can't think of a single argument to prove you wrong, and then immediately quoting his argument against you, and not having a response to it?
I mean, I don't even think his argument was good – the players are always changing in digital games too, so it's a bad analogy – but saying he doesn't have an argument, and then immediately quoting his argument, is pretty thick. My own argument would be more along the lines of "Digital sports aren't like conventional sports! The game changes frequently, and that's really cool! This has always been true of digital sports (even BW was always changing map pools), and it's one of their greatest assets. If you're really so serious as you say about promoting e-sports, why do you not appreciate this fantastic feature of the enterprise?"
|
I didn't watch all that much, but I don't like what I've seen from the Disruptor so far. It feels weird and unnecessaru.
|
Disruptors are in a way similar to old SH :
You have to fully commit against them or never attack, else the disruptors will have free trade against you forever.
So when both players have disruptors the game will take a very long time because both players try not to attack, ever.
I need to switch Protoss :p
|
On November 30 2015 03:54 FireCake wrote:
Disruptors are in a way similar to old SH :
You have to fully commit against them or never attack, else the disruptors will have free trade against you forever.
So when both players have disruptors the game will take a very long time because both players try not to attack, ever.
I need to switch Protoss :p
Please don´t sell your soul to the devil!
|
I was thinking with friends, when we watched PartinG vs. ShoWTimE, that what if forcefields would block disruptor shots? So you could have interaction that you "catch" disruptor shot with some very nice forcefields etc.
This could open up nice interaction in PvP, I just generally dislike disruptors way of functioning, when you shoot a disruptor projectile, only good way to deal with it is to dodge it. When if you have storm vs. bio interaction in TvP, there is sometimes situations where terran prefers to dive in storm or not to do "killing blow" for instance, but in PvP if you do that vs. disruptor, it might just be biggest throw ever.
|
On November 30 2015 03:09 friendlyscv wrote:The shit UI and retarded unit pathing also made BW a struggle to play, making controlling big armies very difficult and impractical. SC2 doesn't have these tech limitations, so "shiny micro abilities" are one of the ways to make interesting units that take skill to use while simultaneously discouraging deathball play.
I'm really tired of reading this kind of crap. It's not so hard to put your units in 4 control groups and go 1A2A3A4A. Then you micro. You don't micro because your units are stupid, you micro because you need to pick targets and movement on the battlefied, depending on your tactics and strategy.
SC2 introduces limitations in possibilities of micro BECAUSE of its pathing AI and movement system, it streamlines everything and makes positionning nearly irrelevant. It's not a previous tech limitation (they could have allowed players to select more than 12 units in Starcraft but chose not to), it's an artificial auto-optimization system put in the sequel to make control as easy as possible for noobs at the cost of depth!!
|
On November 30 2015 04:14 Haspe wrote:
I was thinking with friends, when we watched PartinG vs. ShoWTimE, that what if forcefields would block disruptor shots? So you could have interaction that you "catch" disruptor shot with some very nice forcefields etc.
This could open up nice interaction in PvP, I just generally dislike disruptors way of functioning, when you shoot a disruptor projectile, only good way to deal with it is to dodge it. When if you have storm vs. bio interaction in TvP, there is sometimes situations where terran prefers to dive in storm or not to do "killing blow" for instance, but in PvP if you do that vs. disruptor, it might just be biggest throw ever.
This is a really great idea! Disruptor vs Disruptor seems really lame as it is now, but with forcefields this might be more interesting.
|
Agreed. Blocking Disruptor shots with forcefields sounds very cool.
The Disruptor is a very good design change for Protoss- such a huge improvement over Colossus (can we change the Colossus' weapon now? Maybe a big single target damage dealer which Protoss currently lacks?). But there is still room for improvement. The "tennis" dynamic is a good starting point, but more development is necessary. Force field blocking is an excellent idea to add a dimension.
I also think it would be good to significantly reduce the movement speed of the Disruptor, so Protoss players have to be more deliberate with their positioning with the Disruptor, since it won't be able to keep up with a full speed Stalker group, or run away from enemy Stalkers. This also potentially introduces the need to use a Warp Prism to ferry it around, much like a shuttle-reaver in Brood War. This has a lot of potential including the prism's ability to pick up from a distance.
If people start using Warp Prisms in this way this also allows a quick drop, fire, and pick up to avoid taking return fire from Disruptors. Instead of parking the Disruptors within the Stalker blob, it would make sense to maneuver off to the side or behind, making it much more difficult to dodge, and possibly forcing the enemy to blink towards you or in a direction different from directly away from your ball.
|
re: blocking disruptors with forcefields, this was discussed before and I think the reason it doesn't exist is because the pathing category the disruptors have to avoid units also lets them avoid forcefields and is the same one as the adept shades. So if Blizz were inclined to have forcefields block them then adept shades would also be blocked, which they might not want, or they'd have to add a category which requires programming time etc.
(speculating though)
|
On November 30 2015 03:09 friendlyscv wrote:That's because balance overhauls weren't possible, so maps had to change to accommodate the various imbalances between the races. Acting like it was some conscious decision by the BW team to never address imbalance is beyond delusional
didn't even notice but that's also, what? why not possible? The balance between the races is fine in starcraft it has always been. It's not 50-50-50 but it's good, and most importantly the match ups have great depth, are fun and interesting. (exception is zvz but some like it I think?  well if not bad it is just not as good as the others)
Yeah BW team stopped addressing balance because it was fine! The game was really good and polished there were no huge hard counter ultra damage crap in the game that kept breaking it like in SC2! Beyond delusional what are you talking about man, you don't know anything about starcraft.
|
On November 30 2015 03:28 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, I don't even think his argument was good – the players are always changing in digital games too, so it's a bad analogy – but saying he doesn't have an argument, and then immediately quoting his argument, is pretty thick. My own argument would be more along the lines of "Digital sports aren't like conventional sports! The game changes frequently, and that's really cool! This has always been true of digital sports (even BW was always changing map pools), and it's one of their greatest assets. If you're really so serious as you say about promoting e-sports, why do you not appreciate this fantastic feature of the enterprise?"
Man, my orginal response contained an argument about him having that argument and some jokes about it silliness, but i went with plain and simple answer just not to escalate this. Anyways, can you name a single top tier esport discipline that changes drastically every 2 years? BW and CS are stale for AGES. I don't follow moba much but afaik both dota and lol have passed the stage of constant adding new heroes long ago. Yes, there are balance patches, but they dont turn the game on its head. Again. Even if so. There ARE (to say the least) examples in esports where, games with, as you call it, stale meta, are not just surviving but beating new records of viewership every single year. Does their success comes from constant rewamp? No. Because this is bullshit. You just continue to claim that esports =/= traditional sports because you want to think that way. But its just your prejudice. And it's silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
