|
On November 30 2015 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Name one of them that broke an expansion beyond being repairable by maps and enough time to learn how to counter such strategies (past the early few months after release which is the time frame in which SC1 and BW also got balance patches)?
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 30 2015 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No offense, but you can't claim someone doesn't know anything about Starcraft and claim BW balance was fine for its entire duration. There's a reason Savior had to reinvent ZvT strategy by himself.
|
On November 30 2015 04:56 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +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.
?
League of Legends makes drastic changes that flip the game on it's head basically every season. And that is, viewer wise, the "biggest" e-sport currently. Your arguement doesn't hold much weight.
As a spectator, I am quite enjoying watching all of the Protoss matchups right now. Disrupters add a large factor of potential turn around to fights, which means that it is possible to come back when quite behind on army with a few good shots - This is a massive improvement, especially in matchups like PvP where if you had less units you just go blinked on and die.
Late game mass tempest is kinda eh though.
|
On November 30 2015 04:56 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Okay, there's two parts to this debate. One is just a matter of opinion – is it an asset or a detriment that esports tend to change so frequently? Ultimately there's no accounting for taste. I like it, and I would have thought most Starcraft fans like it; if you don't, that's too bad.
But the other dispute is more factual: do most esports change fairly frequently? For that, the answer is pretty unambiguously yes. Brood War stopped its balance patches fairly early, but map pools changed frequently; anybody who I've ever heard talk about it would insist that Brood War [u]could not[/u[ have remained balanced if the community hadn't continually balanced the game with maps. I challenge you to find an analog in basketball, or baseball, or American football. In soccer (football, w/e) they might change their ball design every once in a while or adjust some minor aspect of the rulebook, but no change so drastic as a map pool change in Brood War ever happens.
I don't know much about CS: GO (although I assume they do balance patches and map changes as well), but MOBAs make changes constantly. In fact they make unnecessary changes to freshen up the game so often that they have a term for it: "quality of life" changes. In other words, the game is perfectly balanced and fun, but they change some stuff just to keep everything new and interesting.
Even fighting games tend to change to a new iteration every few months, from Street Fighter IV to Street Fighter IV Ultra to Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition to Street Fighter x Tekken to Street Fighter V to Street Fighter V Ultimate Dance Remix...
About the only exception I can think of is SSBM, and SSBM is such an anomaly that I don't think you can really consider it representative of a trend. In general competitive digital games change frequently, in fairly significant ways, to keep the playing and viewing experience fresh.
|
The Tempest was a terrible idea. Why does Protoss even need another capital ship? Much less the Tempest specifically. Just... what is it for?
Starcraft II is both good and original. The problem is that the parts of it that are good are not original, and the parts of it that are original are not good.
|
On November 30 2015 05:31 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 04:56 insitelol wrote: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. Okay, there's two parts to this debate. One is just a matter of opinion – is it an asset or a detriment that esports tend to change so frequently? Ultimately there's no accounting for taste. I like it, and I would have thought most Starcraft fans like it; if you don't, that's too bad. But the other dispute is more factual: do most esports change fairly frequently? For that, the answer is pretty unambiguously yes. Brood War stopped its balance patches fairly early, but map pools changed frequently; anybody who I've ever heard talk about it would insist that Brood War [u]could not[/u[ have remained balanced if the community hadn't continually balanced the game with maps. I challenge you to find an analog in basketball, or baseball, or American football. In soccer (football, w/e) they might change their ball design every once in a while or adjust some minor aspect of the rulebook, but no change so drastic as a map pool change in Brood War ever happens. I don't know much about CS: GO (although I assume they do balance patches and map changes as well), but MOBAs make changes constantly. In fact they make unnecessary changes to freshen up the game so often that they have a term for it: "quality of life" changes. In other words, the game is perfectly balanced and fun, but they change some stuff just to keep everything new and interesting. Even fighting games tend to change to a new iteration every few months, from Street Fighter IV to Street Fighter IV Ultra to Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition to Street Fighter x Tekken to Street Fighter V to Street Fighter V Ultimate Dance Remix... About the only exception I can think of is SSBM, and SSBM is such an anomaly that I don't think you can really consider it representative of a trend. In general competitive digital games change frequently, in fairly significant ways, to keep the playing and viewing experience fresh.
So? In what way are traditional sports different from epsorts? And is constant changing a necessity?
and no, valve doesn't even touch cs maps. People play on dust2 since the birth of times.
|
On November 30 2015 04:58 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: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. Name one of them that broke an expansion beyond being repairable by maps and enough time to learn how to counter such strategies (past the early few months after release which is the time frame in which SC1 and BW also got balance patches)?
broodlords, colossus, ultralisks, disruptors, bioballs and liberators!
|
So? In what way are traditional sports different from epsorts? And is constant changing a necessity?
and no, valve doesn't even touch cs maps. People play on dust2 since the birth of times.
Valve does patch CSGO, changing weapon stats, and they DO change the map pool and even alter maps within the pool. Even dust 2 got changed so you cannot shoot through the big doors anymore. What in the world are you talking abouit?
|
On November 30 2015 05:44 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 04:58 Big J wrote:On November 30 2015 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: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. Name one of them that broke an expansion beyond being repairable by maps and enough time to learn how to counter such strategies (past the early few months after release which is the time frame in which SC1 and BW also got balance patches)? broodlords, colossus, ultralisks, disruptors, bioballs and liberators!
Also care to elaborate in which way they keep on breaking the game? Like, giving an example of an actual strategy where those were actually broken beyond being repairable by maps and time?
|
On November 30 2015 05:46 ZombieFrog wrote:Show nested quote +So? In what way are traditional sports different from epsorts? And is constant changing a necessity?
and no, valve doesn't even touch cs maps. People play on dust2 since the birth of times. Valve does patch CSGO, changing weapon stats, and they DO change the map pool and even alter maps within the pool. Even dust 2 got changed so you cannot shoot through the big doors anymore. What in the world are you talking abouit?
Can't shoot through big doors anymore?! For real?! U beat me on that one, dude.
What a hell of a change. Destroyed the meta completely.
The more i post the more i feel i'm just wasting my time here as people don't even TRY to think.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 30 2015 05:02 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: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. No offense, but you can't claim someone doesn't know anything about Starcraft and claim BW balance was fine for its entire duration. There's a reason Savior had to reinvent ZvT strategy by himself.
it's not the game that was imbalanced it's just what happened @pro level in korea, it's not like there was a heavy problem about zerg vs terran in general in the game, proof is in the end all 3 races kept winning things and making good matches with the exception, it is true, that P has always been slightly unfavored vs Z but the matchup is still good and it's all right! I replied a bit hard against friendlyscv because it's not fair to say BW's balance was bad and done through mapmaking, or that the pathing is shit and units are stupid hence micro is born... I'm tired of reading comparisons made with BW to justify flaws of SC2 and then call SC2 "Starcraft" like it's the same thing but people don't even like BW. You know what, I'll give you that, SC2 is not a shit game. But be honest when you look at BW and also when you look at SC2, you know this pathing is unnatural there are a lot of RTS where units have more presence on the map and are able to do things on their own and control space much better in small numbers. Still SC2 has more quality to it than most of these other RTS because sure there are some interesting mechanics and interactions between races. But yes it could be better and it suffered from a marketing mainstream objectives that reduces depth. Do you really disagree with that? I don't like to say things like "you don't know anything about starcraft" to a SC2 player and I appologize to friendlyscv but be honest when you talk about BW. No matter how good you think SC2 is BW is at least as good at SC2 and all the problems that you guys in this community have been talking about for ages with deathballs unkillable armies and all-in aggressions and lack of defender's advantage have very much to do with its pathing/movement system, they are its consequence !
|
United States7483 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:02 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: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. No offense, but you can't claim someone doesn't know anything about Starcraft and claim BW balance was fine for its entire duration. There's a reason Savior had to reinvent ZvT strategy by himself.
And then after we needed Bisu to save Protoss. That's not balance though: the tools existed and were available, you just needed people to figure out different ways to play.
However, maps did play a large part of it, and that can't be ignored.
That said, IIRC, BW wasn't extremely balanced. ZvP favored Zerg, ZvT favored Terran, and TvP favored Protoss. There was a sort of asymmetry of balance in the matchups that lead to balanced tournaments, of a sort. Although, the balance was close enough that good players could still win.
|
On November 30 2015 05:30 dae wrote:
As a spectator, I am quite enjoying watching all of the Protoss matchups right now.
And this turns everything you said into a pile of crap because what people should be caring about is how to fun we get when we play the game not watching it. This is the main issue with LOTV, it was designed with the mindset of a twitch viewer not someone who play the game.
Everyone loved the PvP between ShowTime and Parting EXCEPT PARTING AND SHOWTIME THEMSELVES!
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:54 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it's not the game that was imbalanced it's just what happened @pro level in korea
That's the kind of claim that can be repeated for almost every game. Either "what can be abused at lower levels of play is irrelevant because the players aren't good" or "what's happening at the top level is not representative of the general population". Either way ZvT was heavily in favor of Terran around 2005-2006, with several maps having 85-90% winrates for Terran.
On November 30 2015 05:54 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it's not like there was a heavy problem about zerg vs terran in general in the game, proof is in the end all 3 races kept winning things and making good matches with the exception, it is true, that P has always been slightly unfavored vs Z but the matchup is still good and it's all right!
Except for the part when almost no professional zergs could muster a +50% winrate against terrans during that time period. We have the benefit of hindsight to claim that BW wasn't really problematic, it was simply a matter of players finding the appropriate responses. But such a thing is fundamentally an anomaly and there's no guarantee that someone like Savior will ever appear in LotV. Even Mvp's innovations were BW blueprints applied to a new game.
On November 30 2015 05:54 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
I replied a bit hard against friendlyscv because it's not fair to say BW's balance was bad and done through mapmaking, or that the pathing is shit and units are stupid hence micro is born... I'm tired of reading comparisons made with BW to justify flaws of SC2 and then call SC2 "Starcraft" like it's the same thing but people don't even like BW. You know what, I'll give you that, SC2 is not a shit game. But be honest when you look at BW and also when you look at SC2, you know this pathing is unnatural there are a lot of RTS where units have more presence on the map and are able to do things on their own and control space much better in small numbers. Still SC2 has more quality to it than most of these other RTS because sure there are some interesting mechanics and interactions between races. But yes it could be better and it suffered from a marketing mainstream objectives that reduces depth. Do you really disagree with that? I don't like to say things like "you don't know anything about starcraft" to a SC2 player and I appologize to friendlyscv but be honest when you talk about BW. No matter how good you think SC2 is BW is at least as good at SC2 and all the problems that you guys in this community have been talking about for ages with deathballs unkillable armies and all-in aggressions and lack of defender's advantage have very much to do with its pathing/movement system, they are its consequence !
When did I ever claim that SC2 couldn't be better? All my posts in this thread are voicing concerns over how LotV could be better.
On November 30 2015 05:58 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 05:02 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 30 2015 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: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. No offense, but you can't claim someone doesn't know anything about Starcraft and claim BW balance was fine for its entire duration. There's a reason Savior had to reinvent ZvT strategy by himself. And then after we needed Bisu to save Protoss. That's not balance though: the tools existed and were available, you just needed people to figure out different ways to play. However, maps did play a large part of it, and that can't be ignored. That said, IIRC, BW wasn't extremely balanced. ZvP favored Zerg, ZvT favored Terran, and TvP favored Protoss. There was a sort of asymmetry of balance in the matchups that lead to balanced tournaments, of a sort. Although, the balance was close enough that good players could still win.
That's my concern. We can say that BW was fairly balanced because individual players discovered new ways to play matchups in times of crisis, but that's because we have hindsight to thank for that. I'm wary of applying the same rationale to LotV, as if the same phenomena would inevitably happen just because the games are related. The sheer speed of SC2 and the damage output of units makes tactical innovation unlikely, if not impossible, and limits the range of strategic innovation.
|
On November 30 2015 05:48 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 05:44 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On November 30 2015 04:58 Big J wrote:On November 30 2015 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: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. Name one of them that broke an expansion beyond being repairable by maps and enough time to learn how to counter such strategies (past the early few months after release which is the time frame in which SC1 and BW also got balance patches)? broodlords, colossus, ultralisks, disruptors, bioballs and liberators! Also care to elaborate in which way they keep on breaking the game? Like, giving an example of an actual strategy where those were actually broken beyond being repairable by maps and time?
I guess they are all very "critical mass" units, you build them until you have enough that they will unleash so much damage in the first second of a fight that the weight of the game shifts entirely to these units together in a spot at that point. So it breaks everything that could happen if they weren't so dominant and powerful. They tend to break possibilities of any smaller engagements or tactical spread of forces on the map because of that + mechanics that further add to that like broodlings or concussive shells.
|
On November 30 2015 06:09 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 05:48 Big J wrote:On November 30 2015 05:44 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On November 30 2015 04:58 Big J wrote:On November 30 2015 04:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: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. Name one of them that broke an expansion beyond being repairable by maps and enough time to learn how to counter such strategies (past the early few months after release which is the time frame in which SC1 and BW also got balance patches)? broodlords, colossus, ultralisks, disruptors, bioballs and liberators! Also care to elaborate in which way they keep on breaking the game? Like, giving an example of an actual strategy where those were actually broken beyond being repairable by maps and time? I guess they are all very "critical mass" units, you build them until you have enough that they will unleash so much damage in the first second of a fight that the weight of the game shifts entirely to these units together in a spot at that point. So it breaks everything that could happen if they weren't so dominant and powerful. They tend to break possibilities of any smaller engagements or tactical spread of forces on the map because of that + mechanics that further add to that like broodlings or concussive shells.
None of that has anything to do with imbalance, nor is it an example of an imbalanced strategy.
|
On November 30 2015 06:03 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 05:30 dae wrote:
As a spectator, I am quite enjoying watching all of the Protoss matchups right now.
And this turns everything you said into a pile of crap because what people should be caring about is how to fun we get when we play the game not watching it. This is the main issue with LOTV, it was designed with the mindset of a twitch viewer not someone who play the game. Everyone loved the PvP between ShowTime and Parting EXCEPT PARTING AND SHOWTIME THEMSELVES!
That might be Blizzard's design choice, to create an e-sports spectacle for viewers instead of creating a fair contest for players. Gladiators don't enjoy gladiator combat, but it was still fit for the emperor to watch.
My personal hope is for Blizzard to update WC3 and BW to have matchmaking inside b.net 2.0 etc. because I think those games are better suited for players since they're slower and give you more time to respond to everything.
|
Moving forward, blizzard biggest challenges are 1) Making the game less volatile, seriously every time I am thinking about playing matchmaking pictures of me dying to adepts, mirrors (which have for the most part have been very volatile, even tvt was pretty bad in hots) or some other bullshit flashes by my eyes and more often than not makes me go do something else.
In zvt /tvz this has never been a problem for me, so I know it can be done in a good way.
2) Variety. The thought of another expansion where I just have to mass bio all game as terran has made me go full on zerg. Because the game is still fresh this is not so much of a problem right now but I fear that once the meta settles everything will revolve around 1 style per match up. If this happens, I, and my guess is many others as well, will lose interest fast.
|
8751 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:32 ledarsi wrote:
The Tempest was a terrible idea. Why does Protoss even need another capital ship? Much less the Tempest specifically. Just... what is it for?
Starcraft II is both good and original. The problem is that the parts of it that are good are not original, and the parts of it that are original are not good.
Its main purpose was to give protoss a good way to deal with broodlords in the absence of vortex. It also made for some interesting PvP games when it was used to counter colossi -- this is probably where we saw them the most. And in a very niche role, it was used in some crazy one-time-use strats as a harass/pressure unit if the map was good for it -- if you could safely "rush" to tempest and the tempests had somewhere they could safely sit and do damage to the enemy base or workers.
On November 30 2015 06:03 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 05:30 dae wrote:
As a spectator, I am quite enjoying watching all of the Protoss matchups right now.
Everyone loved the PvP between ShowTime and Parting EXCEPT PARTING AND SHOWTIME THEMSELVES!
I'm pretty sure this is just due to a (relative) lack of practice or at least judgment should be reserved until they get more practice with it. Pros who have good knowledge of the game and good mechanics can forget how stressful the game can be because they are automatically doing a lot of the right things and they can figure out what they ought to be doing. But playing against disruptors when most of your army is on the ground and concentrated is extremely stressful, at least at first. And they're new to it like everyone else. There are little tricks to take the pressure off and once pros get used to doing those and get a feel for the rhythm of a disruptor game, they'll get more confidence and comfort.
|
On November 30 2015 06:08 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 05:54 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it's not the game that was imbalanced it's just what happened @pro level in korea That's the kind of claim that can be repeated for almost every game. Either "what can be abused at lower levels of play is irrelevant because the players aren't good" or "what's happening at the top level is not representative of the general population". Either way ZvT was heavily in favor of Terran around 2005-2006, with several maps having 85-90% winrates for Terran. Except for the part when almost no professional zergs could muster a +50% winrate against terrans during that time period. We have the benefit of hindsight to claim that BW wasn't really problematic, it was simply a matter of players finding the appropriate responses. But such a thing is fundamentally an anomaly and there's no guarantee that someone like Savior will ever appear in LotV. Even Mvp's innovations were BW blueprints applied to a new game.
That's interesting I never knew about such an imbalance in ZvT, are you talking about pro winrates though or what? I do think it's important not to focus only on pro-level. At the highest level there are also individual people who are the only ones being so highly trained and they have these really optimized plays they can do and there are not a lot of them, it's like 20 people are far ahead of everyone else. You see in the end BW's balance is still very good, like P<Z by what seriously, not much, and if T<P it's very slight also I want to say as a P user I can tell you that lol. There has always been a trend also to copy or play very closely to the very best player who won the last tournament and it tends to shift the metagame in the same position as the pro-level even if it's not necessarily the right way to play. For example me I've never accepted doing fast expo vs Z as P cause I don't like it as much. So I just don't do it, I do all kinds of 1 gate gas openings instead in main base (and then expo at different times) and I'm fine I get to B- on Iccup like that I know I could get more. In the end the game is still fair to me and I don't really mind small imbalances what I need is for the game to give me choices and be fair and strategic and involve a wide range of skills, that is what's truly important, I believe, that's what makes it fun even!
On November 30 2015 06:08 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 05:54 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
I replied a bit hard against friendlyscv because it's not fair to say BW's balance was bad and done through mapmaking, or that the pathing is shit and units are stupid hence micro is born... I'm tired of reading comparisons made with BW to justify flaws of SC2 and then call SC2 "Starcraft" like it's the same thing but people don't even like BW. You know what, I'll give you that, SC2 is not a shit game. But be honest when you look at BW and also when you look at SC2, you know this pathing is unnatural there are a lot of RTS where units have more presence on the map and are able to do things on their own and control space much better in small numbers. Still SC2 has more quality to it than most of these other RTS because sure there are some interesting mechanics and interactions between races. But yes it could be better and it suffered from a marketing mainstream objectives that reduces depth. Do you really disagree with that? I don't like to say things like "you don't know anything about starcraft" to a SC2 player and I appologize to friendlyscv but be honest when you talk about BW. No matter how good you think SC2 is BW is at least as good at SC2 and all the problems that you guys in this community have been talking about for ages with deathballs unkillable armies and all-in aggressions and lack of defender's advantage have very much to do with its pathing/movement system, they are its consequence ! When did I ever claim that SC2 couldn't be better? All my posts in this thread are voicing concerns over how LotV could be better.
Sorry when I say "you" it is not directed at you personally in this case it's a general "you" because I'm seeing a lot of posts that give me this impression, not wanting to honestly look or criticize the game, so I'm just writing for anyone who reads this. I am really glad that you are one of those who do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
