Community Feedback Update - March 8 - Page 13

On March 10 2016 20:08 Grumbels wrote:

tbh it would be nice if siege tank had immunity from that. similarly, if you could not adbuct sieged tanks.

not for gameplay reasons, but just cuz of the laws of physics. so it would make a lot of sense for players and it would not be a very difficult exception to remember, and it makes the game more realistic

On March 10 2016 20:50 brickrd wrote:

the laws of physics should never have any bearing on competitive game design lol. there are thousands of things you can list about the SC2 engine that don't make any physical sense, not the least of which is that nothing is to scale

if you want scientific accuracy play a hardcore simulation game

Even TY, the guy which is probably the most succesfull terran ATM plays the TvP full turtle.

Man just watch KR TvP. It's terran turtle until the "I've got liberator range and a few liberators !" bell rings.

On March 10 2016 21:16 Grumbels wrote:

I don't want to argue this, but this is a really dumb point of view. of course you should aim for realism, just while accepting that it's not achievable or super important. the laws of physics is not something abstract and theoretical, it's just basic stuff like things falling down that everyone knows about

On March 10 2016 21:16 Grumbels wrote:

I don't want to argue this, but this is a really dumb point of view. of course you should aim for realism, just while accepting that it's not achievable or super important. the laws of physics is not something abstract and theoretical, it's just basic stuff like things falling down that everyone knows about

On March 10 2016 21:35 brickrd wrote:

you don't want to argue it, but you're arguing it? so basically you wanted to get a last word in and not have to back it up?

the laws of physics for a game engine are indeed abstract and theoretical. you should reconsider what you wrote in the context of a computer game that exists virtually, because i can hardly imagine anything MORE abstract or theoretical. in fact, even the real-world laws of physics are also "theoretical" - you seem out completely of your league in what you're trying to debate here.

obviously real world physics are mimicked to a degree in artificial environments because that's the only point of reference we have as human beings, and it's helpful for the physics to be familiar in at least the most basic senses - yes, things fall down, cool, that adds up. but you're trying to make it sound as if i'm arguing "make things go in random directions! total chaos! everything happens randomly!" when what i'm actually saying is that if the only impetus to make a change in game design is "it would be more realistic" then it's not worthwhile to do in a game like starcraft. as soon as we start using that reasoning then marines are going to stop doing damage to any mechanical unit in the game.

On March 10 2016 21:35 brickrd wrote:

you don't want to argue it, but you're arguing it? so basically you wanted to get a last word in and not have to back it up?

the laws of physics for a game engine are indeed abstract and theoretical. you should reconsider what you wrote in the context of a computer game that exists virtually, because i can hardly imagine anything MORE abstract or theoretical. in fact, even the real-world laws of physics are also "theoretical" - you seem out completely of your league in what you're trying to debate here.

obviously real world physics are mimicked to a degree in artificial environments because that's the only point of reference we have as human beings, and it's helpful for the physics to be familiar in at least the most basic senses - yes, things fall down, cool, that adds up. but you're trying to make it sound as if i'm arguing "make things go in random directions! total chaos! everything happens randomly!" when what i'm actually saying is that if the only impetus to make a change in game design is "it would be more realistic" then it's not worthwhile to do in a game like starcraft. as soon as we start using that reasoning then marines are going to stop doing damage to any mechanical unit in the game.

On March 10 2016 19:50 seemsgood wrote:

"agressive includes full "fully commit". And anything but the items refered as "allins" aren't "fully commit"."
-If you call all in include aggressive then assymetrical balance does nothing here.
"makes no sense whatsoever"
-Thank for your helpful and insight feedback!
"how is the siege tank, a unit that's bolted to the ground, supposed to be picked up by a dropship??"
Does it relate to assymetrical balance ?
" Stim timing isn't an "early game agressive option". And I'd be very interested to see any pro player drop hellbats or get out on the map with his cyclone to achieve whatever in TvP"

I won't quote you again if you keep being ignorance like that.

On March 10 2016 21:24 Hider wrote:


Even?? You realize Ty has the most passive TvP out of any of the korean terrans right? And even in some of his games he does go for early aggression.



No, Liberator range is very rarely researched. Ty does it, but I would estimate its in less than 10% of all Korean TvP games. Seems like you only watched Ty play.

On March 10 2016 17:01 Cyro wrote:


The strength of drops is not @ the phase of the game where phoenix squads and templar are out. It's when Z is dropping with about 18-30 drones & protoss is scrambling to get production up from the natural.

If anything, zerg drops are weaker than WOL+HOTS in the mid and lategame - they used to be able to give all of their overlords drop capability with a single upgrade. The new power comes from drop being on t1 now with no significant research time; speedling drops can now hit before warpgate research.

And he's the guy with the most success in TvP. Aslso watched Taeja go turtle => mass ghost viking, which isn't how I remember Taeja from WOL.

I did watch a fair amount of KR pro games lately. I don't think "stream watching penis contest" is really called for here. I mentionned things like "i can be biased", etc, so your "such confidence" is also uncalled for.

On March 10 2016 22:27 JackONeill wrote:


Your exemples are :
- a 1/1/1 allin on ulrena, which I mentionned
- the gamble timing Polt does since WOL, with few bio units with stim, where he deals damage or loose his entire force. I watched his stream the other day, the toss was prepared he lost everything and the game
- a hellion drop?

I don't see how that even compares to the panel of agressive option protoss has early game (and early game ending potential they've got).
Anyway I don't really understand some stuff you say, like "If you call all in include aggressive then assymetrical balance does nothing here" (not teasing you about your english, just don't really see your point), but I'd like to say again that I'm talking about diversity, not about balance.
At pro level, expand => harass seems like the standard protoss build. Terran seem to go expo => trying to take a third while unlocking bio upgrades. Your exemple seem to be wacky offtiming gambly drops. Well maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I see most of the time on pro streams. Maybe I keep "being ignorance" (ok now I'm teasing you about your english XD)



And he's the guy with the most success in TvP. Aslso watched Taeja go turtle => mass ghost viking, which isn't how I remember Taeja from WOL.

From what I watched of polt stream also, where he basically does nothing until going out on the map, and his game is determined by how well he deals with the adept drop.
As a whole, it's no surprise that terran doesn't have much agressive options compared to toss, I mean it's been a topic since the introduction of the overcharge. With drop and ravagers zergs seem to have very good agressive options, but I really don't see any reliable terran agressive builds.
Maybe I'm just biased, but most of the time I see protoss go 1g expo => SG/dt drop/adept drop/disru drop, while the terran goes reaper => 3 rax => SP => try to take his third while defending the harass.

And about the tank pickup, well of course physics aren't to be taken into account, but meh, design wise, the tankivac gives mobility to a unit that's supposed to sacrifice mobility for firepower. Phenixes lifting tanks are fair, it's like a soft "skirmish" counter

On March 11 2016 00:49 Big J wrote:
Terran doesn't have a lot of good early aggressive options, but there are a few ones I have seen work quite well. Widow mine drops or rather plain marine move outs. And on specific maps like Ulrena there are clearly more options.

I personally feel the matchup is quite fun if you survive the early game stage against Protoss, but at that stage Protoss can do whatever they want without strategical considerations.
That's really the part that annoys me the most about the matchup, it's not that Protoss got tons of early options, but that the choices Protoss can make are not based on information gathered or assumed gameplay.
Units like oracles or warp prisms are balanced in a way that you can play them no matter what in the early game, but you also can open without them no matter what. You can pylon rush ramps and just breaks even. You can DT drop and with warp prism range pick up it only comes down to your own execution.
Basically all the Protoss builds come down to Protoss execution and regardless how you prepare, as Terran you can never get an advantage unless the Protoss makes a mistake (while constantly being under the threat of losing the game or falling behind if you make a mistake or he just got a lucky BO-interaction).

Terran doesn't have a lot of good early aggressive options, but there are a few ones I have seen work quite well. Widow mine drops or rather plain marine move outs.

I personally feel the matchup is quite fun if you survive the early game stage against Protoss, but at that stage Protoss can do whatever they want without strategical considerations.

But i dont want to say that it is imbalanced it is just mentally stressfull to know you have to defend strat x perfectly to get a even game.

On March 11 2016 01:49 Hider wrote:


Widow mine drops are just easily denied by 4-5 stalkers in one base and mothership core in another base + decent map awareness. The drop play should do absolutely nothing and its not worth it if you sacrifice your own economy or do an unsafe build.

But that is how commited aggression before setting up properly should work out, if the opponent is aware of the situation and prepares properly as you explain (you don't have 4-5 stalkers randomly being positioned against drops).