|
On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote:
PO was just a joke : turning your supply into some machine gun for only 25 energy while you have just bought a 100/100 unit that can aslo shoot ground, fly and scoot, recall and slow units.
25 energy was just too low, it was like P have unlimited photon canon, you can't even bait it and attacke somewhere else, the MSC still have enough energy to cast others PO.
I see a lot of protoss complaining about PvZ being Zerg favor. Just watch some top kor games : P is favor, they have better economy while having a more cost effective army.
But Kot P now harass while macroing and hurt so much zerg economy that got less larva, while P has super warprism +adept and phoenix.
But pretty sure the P who complain still play their old : I all-in or camp until late game.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end.
So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies.
Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing.
In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition.
In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail.
|
On January 27 2016 06:06 Tenks wrote:
I've never quite understood the "no strategy in sc2" argument. While it is true the vast majority of players could win their games simply by playing better the fact is you're playing someone equally bad at SC2. If you out think your opponent while not completely crippling your macro you'll win that game. It isn't like your opponent has some god tier decision making or macro you're both equally bad when you get matched up. Possibly the issue is many players just learn 1 bo per matchup and don't deviate away from it so the games feel very repetitive.
There are different layers of critizism that are all labeled under "not enough strategy". Note that this is in general not my opinion, though it's a highly interesting topic.
The deepest layer is a general thoughtprocess from gamedevelopers like the lead designer of Supreme Commander that in RTS games tactics, i.e. the short term goals to win specific battles are much more important than the general strategy/gameplan or whatever you call it.
Or another argument on that layer is that it basically always comes down to a war of attrition on the battlefield and there are no other ways to win than by battlefield tactics, while in a real war there are multiple ways to win, e.g. diplomacy or technology.
All of that are rather external critics and not exclusive to SC2 but cover many different RTS games.
The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin)
The games tend to become rinse and repeat.
|
My thoughts on this are that I'm glad Blizzard is finally doing something to improve the quality of the match ups. It appears as if TvP is the primary priority with this patch and the aim is to adjust the early game advantage Protoss has over Terran that has made the match up very problematic despite supposed balance. I am worried for PvZ as win rates indicate that it is Protoss favored so Protoss perhaps will require some buffs to benefit it in PvZ, but it will be difficult to ascertain what would be the best way to do it without creating problems in TvP again.
|
On January 27 2016 07:42 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote:
PO was just a joke : turning your supply into some machine gun for only 25 energy while you have just bought a 100/100 unit that can aslo shoot ground, fly and scoot, recall and slow units.
25 energy was just too low, it was like P have unlimited photon canon, you can't even bait it and attacke somewhere else, the MSC still have enough energy to cast others PO.
I see a lot of protoss complaining about PvZ being Zerg favor. Just watch some top kor games : P is favor, they have better economy while having a more cost effective army.
But Kot P now harass while macroing and hurt so much zerg economy that got less larva, while P has super warprism +adept and phoenix.
But pretty sure the P who complain still play their old : I all-in or camp until late game.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end. So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies. Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing. In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition. In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail.
Too true. I'm getting sick of people whining about matchups and they have done absolutely nothing to change their builds or adapt. These changes may be reasonable, but it still pisses me off how in retrospect it is blizzard catering to the whiny terran players. Is TvP the only not balanced matchup? Does zerg not exist anymore?
|
On January 27 2016 07:43 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 06:06 Tenks wrote:
I've never quite understood the "no strategy in sc2" argument. While it is true the vast majority of players could win their games simply by playing better the fact is you're playing someone equally bad at SC2. If you out think your opponent while not completely crippling your macro you'll win that game. It isn't like your opponent has some god tier decision making or macro you're both equally bad when you get matched up. Possibly the issue is many players just learn 1 bo per matchup and don't deviate away from it so the games feel very repetitive. There are different layers of critizism that are all labeled under "not enough strategy". Note that this is in general not my opinion, though it's a highly interesting topic. The deepest layer is a general thoughtprocess from gamedevelopers like the lead designer of Supreme Commander that in RTS games tactics, i.e. the short term goals to win specific battles are much more important than the general strategy/gameplan or whatever you call it. Or another argument on that layer is that it basically always comes down to a war of attrition on the battlefield and there are no other ways to win than by battlefield tactics, while in a real war there are multiple ways to win, e.g. diplomacy or technology. All of that are rather external critics and not exclusive to SC2 but cover many different RTS games. The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin) The games tend to become rinse and repeat.
Games like Age of Empires with many different kinds of resources, huge maps, and different "Ages" offered much more "macro" decision making like what you're talking about. Do you specialize in harvesting one resource and trade? Do you tech up as quickly as possible or do you build a huge army? Do you literally turtle to victory ? (wonder). All that in addition to the specific battle strategies, units built, scouting, etc.
SC BW and SC2 are more fun though. Simplicity = more action. And people's attention spans have decreased drastically over the years. The most popular games in the world all involve you controlling one unit and constantly doing things with it. Even of the two big Mobas, the more popular one has shorter cooldowns and more spammable abilities.
|
On January 27 2016 07:43 Big J wrote:
The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin)
The games tend to become rinse and repeat.
I know you stated that it's mostly not your opinion/criticism, but I have to add something to this.
Starcraft, and all RTS games, and all games for that matter, can be thought of as an enormous set of variables, which includes basic unit stats, game mechanisms, map properties, etc. The player's task is to create a strategy based on their knowledge of these variables and their interactions. And although it's hard to exactly define what makes a strategy "good" and when it is "better" than another one, it should come as no surprise, that there will be strategies far better than others. Even if you don't use absolute terms like "the best," there will be a small subset of strategies with significantly higher win probabilities than the rest.
It just depends on the number of variables tossed into the equation, the amount of games played, luck and creativity, how fast those strategies are discovered. Sure SC2 has quite some units and buildings, and they all interact with each other, so there could be an unimaginable amount of possible strategies. However, most of them are identified as not viable even by the casual player immediately. And so the meta is born, with all its boredom and all its greatness.
I know you probably understand this exactly, but since you brought up the general complaints about the game, I thought I would weigh in a bit as well.
|
On January 27 2016 07:32 dinn74 wrote:
Honestly i have no problem with the changes, they might not even be enough. The true problem with adepts is the mobility(and the option to cancel shade). This dmg nerf wont actually stop their harass too heavily. the problem as i see it is that the PO nerf will cause protoss to become very UP, and stop the adept harass because of fear of home base getting attacked. This is actually a good thing since i personally hate PO, but this will cause protoss's many many inadequacies to start showing, namely their very pathetic late game and lack of base defense from anything other then PO.
They already have record low win rates against zerg atm outside of the few tournaments being played in korea. while balancing around the top end play makes alot of sense when you have 41 % win rates in lower leagues(90% of your paying customers) that drives more people out of your game then 4-5% issues at the top end. i truly hope that if protoss fears come to pass that they dont just revert the PO nerf to rebalance protoss and instead give a good hard look at why protoss can only use adept cheese to win games atm.
It won't stop harass heavily, but you will need 30% less marines for it! Maybe you'll have enough money to build a CC, or to send a medivac across the map. Or maybe they will be sad because an adept-only composition won't be as strong and safe after a failed all-in. I think this patch will help a lot.
|
On January 27 2016 08:07 Sholip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 07:43 Big J wrote:
The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin)
The games tend to become rinse and repeat. I know you stated that it's mostly not your opinion/criticism, but I have to add something to this. Starcraft, and all RTS games, and all games for that matter, can be thought of as an enormous set of variables, which includes basic unit stats, game mechanisms, map properties, etc. The player's task is to create a strategy based on their knowledge of these variables and their interactions. And although it's hard to exactly define what makes a strategy "good" and when it is "better" than another one, it should come as no surprise, that there will be strategies far better than others. Even if you don't use absolute terms like "the best," there will be a small subset of strategies with significantly higher win probabilities than the rest. It just depends on the number of variables tossed into the equation, the amount of games played, luck and creativity, how fast those strategies are discovered. Sure SC2 has quite some units and buildings, and they all interact with each other, so there could be an unimaginable amount of possible strategies. However, most of them are identified as not viable even by the casual player immediately. And so the meta is born, with all its boredom and all its greatness. I know you probably understand this exactly, but since you brought up the general complaints about the game, I thought I would weigh in a bit as well.
I agree. And figuring out the viable strategies, perfecting them and then innovating the metagame is a huge part of the fun of SC2. However, I do think there would be massive room for improvement and the developers have taken decisions that on a fundamental level make it hard for certain strategies to exist.
|
On January 27 2016 07:56 DanceSC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 07:42 DinoMight wrote:On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote:
PO was just a joke : turning your supply into some machine gun for only 25 energy while you have just bought a 100/100 unit that can aslo shoot ground, fly and scoot, recall and slow units.
25 energy was just too low, it was like P have unlimited photon canon, you can't even bait it and attacke somewhere else, the MSC still have enough energy to cast others PO.
I see a lot of protoss complaining about PvZ being Zerg favor. Just watch some top kor games : P is favor, they have better economy while having a more cost effective army.
But Kot P now harass while macroing and hurt so much zerg economy that got less larva, while P has super warprism +adept and phoenix.
But pretty sure the P who complain still play their old : I all-in or camp until late game.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end. So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies. Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing. In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition. In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail. Too true. I'm getting sick of people whining about matchups and they have done absolutely nothing to change their builds or adapt. These changes may be reasonable, but it still pisses me off how in retrospect it is blizzard catering to the whiny terran players. Is TvP the only not balanced matchup? Does zerg not exist anymore?
I wonder if Blizzard decided to name the patches "design patches" people will actually understand the diference.
Personally, I think not.
|
On January 27 2016 08:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 08:07 Sholip wrote:On January 27 2016 07:43 Big J wrote:
The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin)
The games tend to become rinse and repeat. I know you stated that it's mostly not your opinion/criticism, but I have to add something to this. Starcraft, and all RTS games, and all games for that matter, can be thought of as an enormous set of variables, which includes basic unit stats, game mechanisms, map properties, etc. The player's task is to create a strategy based on their knowledge of these variables and their interactions. And although it's hard to exactly define what makes a strategy "good" and when it is "better" than another one, it should come as no surprise, that there will be strategies far better than others. Even if you don't use absolute terms like "the best," there will be a small subset of strategies with significantly higher win probabilities than the rest. It just depends on the number of variables tossed into the equation, the amount of games played, luck and creativity, how fast those strategies are discovered. Sure SC2 has quite some units and buildings, and they all interact with each other, so there could be an unimaginable amount of possible strategies. However, most of them are identified as not viable even by the casual player immediately. And so the meta is born, with all its boredom and all its greatness. I know you probably understand this exactly, but since you brought up the general complaints about the game, I thought I would weigh in a bit as well. I agree. And figuring out the viable strategies, perfecting them and then innovating the metagame is a huge part of the fun of SC2. However, I do think there would be massive room for improvement and the developers have taken decisions that on a fundamental level make it hard for certain strategies to exist.
I'm not saying Blizzard made the best decisions every time, but keep in mind that it is extremely hard to keep the game fresh with new expansions (new units), while at the same time keeping the balance and increasing (or not decreasing) strategic diversity. Of course new expansions aren't a necessity from design point of view, but they are from an econommic perspective.
|
On January 27 2016 07:57 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 07:43 Big J wrote:On January 27 2016 06:06 Tenks wrote:
I've never quite understood the "no strategy in sc2" argument. While it is true the vast majority of players could win their games simply by playing better the fact is you're playing someone equally bad at SC2. If you out think your opponent while not completely crippling your macro you'll win that game. It isn't like your opponent has some god tier decision making or macro you're both equally bad when you get matched up. Possibly the issue is many players just learn 1 bo per matchup and don't deviate away from it so the games feel very repetitive. There are different layers of critizism that are all labeled under "not enough strategy". Note that this is in general not my opinion, though it's a highly interesting topic. The deepest layer is a general thoughtprocess from gamedevelopers like the lead designer of Supreme Commander that in RTS games tactics, i.e. the short term goals to win specific battles are much more important than the general strategy/gameplan or whatever you call it. Or another argument on that layer is that it basically always comes down to a war of attrition on the battlefield and there are no other ways to win than by battlefield tactics, while in a real war there are multiple ways to win, e.g. diplomacy or technology. All of that are rather external critics and not exclusive to SC2 but cover many different RTS games. The more internal layer is probably mostly a collection of critics on compositions, standard strategies and such. Most SC2 unit mixes - even if you think they'd make sense rolewise, like mechanical play - actually proof to be insufficient. You are pidgeonholed into certain compositions or timings and if you try to play differently you put your fate into the hands of your opponent who can pick up an easy win by reacting properly. (e.g. he can either hardcounter your composition and you cannot adjust to his hardcounters, or your setup eventually starts sucking for some reason or another and you are basically forced to allin) The games tend to become rinse and repeat. Games like Age of Empires with many different kinds of resources, huge maps, and different "Ages" offered much more "macro" decision making like what you're talking about. Do you specialize in harvesting one resource and trade? Do you tech up as quickly as possible or do you build a huge army? Do you literally turtle to victory ? (wonder). All that in addition to the specific battle strategies, units built, scouting, etc. SC BW and SC2 are more fun though. Simplicity = more action. And people's attention spans have decreased drastically over the years. The most popular games in the world all involve you controlling one unit and constantly doing things with it. Even of the two big Mobas, the more popular one has shorter cooldowns and more spammable abilities.
in Age of Empires 2 though, as far as I know, there is a dominant strategy/build order and not that much choice in ways to win the game? Tech choices don't seem to have as much importance and variety, one of the reasons being because you can defend rather easily with workers+town center / towers and generally it's not so accurately balanced/designed, big difference in win chances per civilization too. Still like it though, for me it is a game of speed first and foremost. Supreme Commander I have only played (online) before the expansion, there was good potential for strategy but the balance for midgame=>lategame and lategame in general was completely broken. I was told it got better with the expansion but surprised to hear that the lead developper said that, are we talking about Chris Taylor ? Mobas tend to have their large scale game very mapped out even by design, I guess necessary to allow balance with such a huge number of completely different heroes to pick from. I think in mobas there is more knowledge to gather but less skill. To play it well is first about knowing about what you should do / knowing all items and all spells and stats, and then individual 1-unit (that is 2-3x more complex than any unit of a RTS [except WC3 heroes], but still just one unit) micro and team tactics/cooperation skills on top of that.
In BW there is a fine amount of strategy I feel, it always matters and I wouldn't say the game is all focused on tactics/winning specific battles for short term goals, it is both.
|
Necessary changes, but oh god will this require adjustment. If Protoss manages to win a major before Z and possibly T are nerfed to meet the level of Protoss, I will be shocked.
|
This was a design patch. DKim decided that 4Adept + Prism ladder + 4Adepts warped in was just too easy/fast/skillless of a way to end TvPs. TvP is a good matchup outside of that build. Yes P won't have a giant econ lead anymore from the 4/Prism/4 ladder play but that was precisely what has been breaking the T Korean Pro scene.
This is just like at the release of HOTS where Blizz broke the 4 Helbat drop that was guaranteeing T an economic lead all game in TvP.
|
On January 26 2016 12:07 RavingRaver wrote:The first LotV Balance patch is on its way this week. Feel free to discuss it in this thread. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20419813937Show nested quote +Hello everyone. We just wanted to let you know that we intend to release all the changes currently on the test map minus the Spore Crawler change in this week's balance patch.
These are the specific changes:
Photon Overcharge:
Energy cost increased from 25 to 50
Duration increased from 15 to 20 sec
Weapon period decreased from 1.25 to 1
Adept
Damage decreased from 10 (+13 light) to 10 (+12 light)
Viper
Parasitic bomb damage decreased from 90 to 60
All of this seems pretty logical, the PB nerf is good because it will only nerf the initial impact of the first few Vipers, once you have 4 - 5 of them PB will still be lethal, although I wonder how much we want to nerf things that discourage mass air play, Phoenix balls are already strong and Liberators seem to fill a bunch of roles both atg and ata simultaneously, I guess only time will tell.
I like the PO change, Protoss should still have to invest in static defense or combat units to secure expansions and should be vulnerable to attacks if playing greedy which currently, they don't feel very vulnerable.
Adept change looks like it only effects TvP, I play Zerg so it's meaningless to me lol
|
So what exactly is the problem which korean pro said zerg struggle agains protoss ? can people point out ? I didn't see Dkim said about problem beside "zerg struggle agains protoss".
|
On January 27 2016 09:57 seemsgood wrote:
So what exactly is the problem which korean pro said zerg struggle agains protoss ? can people point out ? I didn't see Dkim said about problem beside "zerg struggle agains protoss".
i have heard they have struggle vs Phoenix openers into mass zealot immortal archon attacks
|
With toss already being weak (vs zerg) before this patch for the bottom 90% of players or so... I wonder if blizzard should look at buffing toss units/buildings that pros dont use...
Like make cannons stronger (175/175 would be a start, and they would still get smashed by terran), and make colls better (maybe better range).... That in theory should help make the statistics closer without hurting the 'top koreans'.
|
didnt blizzard once had moveable cannons called phase cannons?
+ Show Spoiler +
i think it would be nice to reintroduce them, the interaction would be similiar to tankivacs vs Ravagers, trying to phase while the ravager bile is coming in
|
Buff the Colossus please!
|
Liberators non-nerfed, TvZ even more lopsided with PB nerf. Time to even stop watching SC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
