|
On February 25 2016 08:19 QzYSc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 08:10 JackONeill wrote:
Oh yes please, tell me how you dragged yourself down to my level of communication. By stating "also go fuck yourself for name calling", when there was absolutely no name calling on my post.
About the fact I don't have arguments of my own... I didn't think I'd be able to quote myself until I became a university teacher, but since you seem to have trouble reading :
only agressive games with the same composition with no possibility for variation isn't something you should have in a strategy game
Well that's the main argument against the tankivac : it forces TvT games to be about one composition only, which is kinda sad. Mech vs bio TvT on WOL were so fun to watch.
To sum up (for your reading issues... or comprehension issues I dunno) :
- tankivac forces you into only one composition in TvT => fact, from what we've seen of pro level
- tankivac/marine play is strategically poor => subjective, can be discussed
Your sole argument is :
- strategic/positional play equals camp => IDIOTIC
So please, I'm interested, tell me how many arguments you brought to the table. And please stop embarassing yourself by pretending I insult you by proving how poor and barren your reflexion is.
-tankivac forces you into only one composition in TvT. ok, why is this a problem? who is the judge that decides how many strategies/unit comps should be available? you, me, david kim, the community that wants tankivac removed? or the community that wants tankivac to stay? thats subjective. only 1 composition is fine with me for in tvt. should bc marine be viable so there are more strategies available? thor marauder? -tankivac/marine play is strategically poor. i missed the part where you pointed out why you think this is strategically poor? strategic/positional play equals camp -> idiotic? you are idiotic. nice argument. idiot.
Okay dude thanks for showing me how little you understand of the game. TvT, the matchup with maybe the longest history of three very different playstyles (full bio/mech/marine tanks) creating what was acclaimed as the best mirror matchup should be dumbed down to one overwhelming composition. So yeah, why "should[n't] bc marine be viable so there are more strategies available? thor marauder?" ?
Which means responding to you is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon is gonna loose, but he's still gonna brag like he won because he's a pigeon, and doesn't understand chess. Now please, leave alone the people that have something decent to say about the test map.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
exactly, once again you fail to provide any arguments and can only respond to my posts by calling them either stupid, idiotic, or calling me a pigeon.
User was warned for this post
|
Can you guys please stop this useless personal fight?
The test map is up, go play insted of simply theorycraft.
|
On February 25 2016 08:29 QzYSc2 wrote:
exactly, once again you fail to provide any arguments and can only respond to my posts by calling them either stupid, idiotic, or calling me a pigeon.
Quoting myself again : " TvT, the matchup with maybe the longest history of three very different playstyles (full bio/mech/marine tanks) creating what was acclaimed as the best mirror matchup should be dumbed down to one overwhelming composition."
Which is irony (since you REALLY seem to have reading issues), but shows a point.
Now I'm gonna stop answering you ok? You obviously don't have anything to discuss except how badly you're being treated.
|
im actually the one who wanted to discuss the balance changes, but he completely avoids any counter arguments i give and just goes for personal attacks.
|
On February 25 2016 08:33 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 08:29 QzYSc2 wrote:
exactly, once again you fail to provide any arguments and can only respond to my posts by calling them either stupid, idiotic, or calling me a pigeon. Quoting myself again : " TvT, the matchup with maybe the longest history of three very different playstyles (full bio/mech/marine tanks) creating what was acclaimed as the best mirror matchup should be dumbed down to one overwhelming composition." Which is irony (since you REALLY seem to have reading issues), but shows a point. Now I'm gonna stop answering you ok? You obviously don't have anything to discuss except how badly you're being treated.
emphasis on maybe? just an opinion. not a fact. keep trying making your opinions a fact mate. the only fact you have given is that it goes down to 1 composition, the rest was just your opinion. and i already said, who is the judge that decides how many unit compositions there will be for tvt? its kinda ironic, about that reading comprehension.
|
Oh well...
Anyway Shin_Gouki, you have some fair points in your response, but I've seen a fair amount of Pro games going south for T because of that very issue. Not spamming tanks (not even having a techlab attached to factory) while roach/ravager obliterate your entrance. But honestly, that's poor scouting I guess?
|
On February 25 2016 06:17 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 06:06 Spinoza wrote:On February 25 2016 06:02 Elentos wrote:On February 25 2016 05:58 Spinoza wrote:
Personally, I think we need to wrestle the balance tweaks from Blizzards hands. This can not go on any longer, it is like watching a headless duck wandering about the yard.
Give balance tweaks over to the community where it actually belongs.
Oh god please no. A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group? Apart from government, military, business, art, and justice, absolutely nothing.
Personally I think the "group" should influence areas of common interest. The examples you give are all areas where we should, and do, have collective influence, some more than others with one exception -- art: it should be excluded as it is an expression of free speech.
Recreational games are not like any of the examples you give. Games are not art in this sense, once you design or make a game from nothing, and give it to a community of gamers, the rules of the game must be given over to the gamers and spectators. At the very least partially so.
I don't see that in SCII and I think it is to the detriment of the game, the gamers and the spectators.
|
On February 25 2016 08:49 slit wrote:
Oh well...
Anyway Shin_Gouki, you have some fair points in your response, but I've seen a fair amount of Pro games going south for T because of that very issue. Not spamming tanks (not even having a techlab attached to factory) while roach/ravager obliterate your entrance. But honestly, that's poor scouting I guess?
I haven't seen too many games with Terrans dying to roach/ravager timings. The zerg generally has to be very committed to that style without much room for other things to worry about in particular. (Other than them posturing like they want to do a rR timing, but have a proxy spire somewhere). The way blizzard has been designing the game, it hasn't been fun for either party. Both races being salty against each other really.
|
On February 25 2016 06:06 Spinoza wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 06:02 Elentos wrote:On February 25 2016 05:58 Spinoza wrote:
Personally, I think we need to wrestle the balance tweaks from Blizzards hands. This can not go on any longer, it is like watching a headless duck wandering about the yard.
Give balance tweaks over to the community where it actually belongs.
Oh god please no. A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group?
I can think of plenty. Firstly, Blizzard has specialized people who understand and actually know what they are doing. We may not think so, but balancing is much more than just knee-jerk reaction to everything. Secondly, the majority of the people in the community are bad players who lose to random things most pros would not lose to. If we go with the voice of the majority, then the game will definitely not be balanced because everything will be fixed at the bottom. Could you imagine them nerfing reapers/bunkers or cannons to the ground because some random bronzies can't hold a cannon or bunker rush? Or nerfing marines into oblivion because the infamous 1 base 5 rax is impossible to hold in gold?
If you want an example of how terrible the community would be at balancing, just head over to any LR thread. Would you entrust your game to these people? Every time a race win we get a page or two about how something is OP or broken and needs to be nerfed.
|
@Shin_Gouki: That's how one perceives this thread, salty banter between playstyles and races sadly. And I'm certain that SC2 is turning more and more into Rock Paper Scissors with gimmicky units and openings/buildings. I wish the S in RTS was more prevalent these days!
|
On February 25 2016 09:14 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 06:06 Spinoza wrote:On February 25 2016 06:02 Elentos wrote:On February 25 2016 05:58 Spinoza wrote:
Personally, I think we need to wrestle the balance tweaks from Blizzards hands. This can not go on any longer, it is like watching a headless duck wandering about the yard.
Give balance tweaks over to the community where it actually belongs.
Oh god please no. A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group? I can think of plenty. Firstly, Blizzard has specialized people who understand and actually know what they are doing. We may not think so, but balancing is much more than just knee-jerk reaction to everything. Secondly, the majority of the people in the community are bad players who lose to random things most pros would not lose to. If we go with the voice of the majority, then the game will definitely not be balanced because everything will be fixed at the bottom. Could you imagine them nerfing reapers/bunkers or cannons to the ground because some random bronzies can't hold a cannon or bunker rush? Or nerfing marines into oblivion because the infamous 1 base 5 rax is impossible to hold in gold? If you want an example of how terrible the community would be at balancing, just head over to any LR thread. Would you entrust your game to these people? Every time a race win we get a page or two about how something is OP or broken and needs to be nerfed.
Thanks, these are all good objections. But this is not what I am proposing. My idea is that Blizzard lets the community, gamers and spectators, have an open discussion about changes to the game. There should always be an adult in charge, but the decisions, as they are made, should be open and agreed by the public. Changes to the mechanics and balance should come from the public, be discussed in public, and be recommended by the public. Not come from the depths of Blizzard.
|
On February 25 2016 04:55 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 04:19 CheddarToss wrote:
And why should Tanks be core vs Protoss? You Terrans want every single of your units to be useful and core vs. both Protoss and Zerg. I also want to be able to play just Skytoss vs. every race, but I can't, because it's not viable. Do you see me and other Protoss players whining about it constantly? A Protoss army can be Stalkers + things, or Adepts + things, or Archons + things, or Tempests + things. (Or Colossus + things throughout all of WOL and HOTS) A Zerg army can be Lings + things, Banes + things, Roaches + things, Ravagers + things, Lurkers + things, Mutas + things, Ultras + things. A Terran army can be Marines + things. In TvT alone, it can be Tanks + things. In HOTS TvP alone, it could be Marauders + things, which functionally makes almost zero difference because the gameplay of Marines and Marauders is nearly identical. Do you see how one of these things is not like the others?
Yeah, marines are THAT good with proper micro. Can pretty much do everything in place of other units at a cost effective manner. Granted, if marines didn't exist, other units can be used in place and make T more fair.
|
Terran is screwed.
If it really is a "Tank" it should have more than 160 hp.
|
Is it only me who is fearing the Tank being OP when it starts OHKO Lings? I mean... that could be a REAL problem IMO and force a standard gameplay online without many options.
About the Tankivac, it needs to go or at least only pick Tank in Siege but remove it while loading, to let you save them in a emergency. I think there is plenty of good arguments explaining why it is ridiculous actually.
|
On February 25 2016 10:56 Sogetsu wrote:
Is it only me who is fearing the Tank being OP when it starts OHKO Lings? I mean... that could be a REAL problem IMO and force a standard gameplay online without many options.
About the Tankivac, it needs to go or at least only pick Tank in Siege but remove it while loading, to let you save them in a emergency. I think there is plenty of good arguments explaining why it is ridiculous actually.
Only a small part of the splash radius 1 hits lings, not to mention that once tanks got +2 attack they already 1 hitted lings, no matter what armor the lings got.
|
Only a small part of the splash radius 1 hits lings, not to mention that once tanks got +2 attack they already 1 hitted lings, no matter what armor the lings got.
+1 actually.
|
On February 25 2016 11:29 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +
Only a small part of the splash radius 1 hits lings, not to mention that once tanks got +2 attack they already 1 hitted lings, no matter what armor the lings got.
+1 actually.
You are right tanks, gets to show how small the impact is vs lings despite everything.
|
Apart from government, military, business, art, and justice, absolutely nothing.
All of your posts are /thread. Listen to this guy.
|
On February 25 2016 10:55 NKexquisite wrote:
Terran is screwed.
If it really is a "Tank" it should have more than 160 hp.
Yeah, if it receives 160 hp, it should have a much nerfed damage in compensation. You can't have a monster health AND a monster damage T2 unit, that wouldn't exactly be fair now, would it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
