|
On July 23 2016 22:11 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 21:33 JackONeill wrote:On July 23 2016 16:56 Creager wrote:On July 23 2016 06:51 JackONeill wrote:On July 23 2016 03:42 Charoisaur wrote:On July 23 2016 01:04 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 23 2016 00:53 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 22 2016 22:42 geokilla wrote:
Again Blizzard doesn't know how to fix their game. The problem is the pickup range for Warp Prism, not their health! Well, the high health makes it very forgiving to do WP shit. With lower HP, lower level Ps should loose them more often. Removing the +light damage of Liberators would take away the only interesting aspect of the unit for me: an alternative to the Thor as anti Muta. The main problem i think is the huge anti ground dmg, and that it's in direct conflict with the siege tank as a role; true that the tank is crap right now. So buff the Tank and nerf the anti ground of the Lib. There should never have been an anti ground attack for the liberator to begin with. I would go as far as to say that every single new unit they added in lotv was a design failure. Couldn't disagree more. I think the new positional units (liberators, lurkers and disruptors) are the best things that happened to the game in a long time because they added a ton of depth to the game. Also adepts are very cool imo and have made toss very multitasking-depending. Ravagers suck though. Positionnal units are very important I feel in every matchup. Wether both opponent have some, or one of the opponent has some and you have to screw him with a mobile comp. TvT mech vs bio gave us the most glorious pieces of starcraft i've ever seen. Beautiful mechanic play and brilliant strategy from both sides. However, blizzard took away the main drawbacks of positionnal units in LOTV, and that's why they're not really positionnal units. I liked the liberator concept : an insanely strong AG on a very tiny zone. However, it flies. It kinda defeats the "positionning" aspect of the unit because it doesn't really accounts for terrain, and it's so so so easy to place into abusive positions, effectively killing the beauty of the play. Who ever said "wow, these liberator positionnements are so skillfull?" Another illustration of this problem lies with the tankivac. Tanks used to be very carefully set up in a position to exploit their range and slash at best. Now it's just "boost in and throw them wherever, it's more important to be poorly positionned fast than to be well positionned slowly". Where the tankivac gained in how microable it is, it lost in how strategic it was. With their main weakness being their cooldown, disruptors are also not really about positioning, they're about micro. Even though we've seen some pretty awesome moves from PvP in Korea, with blink baits followed by well placed disruptors, in the EU pro scene we see them more used as a micro skillshot. The main exception would be the lurkers, which are mobile and cloacked, but are still very position-dependant because of their "short" range and their linear AoE Finally, the colossi, while naysayers said it's a terrible unit that promotes deathballs (which is true sometimes, and no one like that), promoted interesting positionnal play in TvP. Vikings/bio vs stalker/colossi was a constant dance between armies where the bio had to be concaving on stalkers while vikings shot colossi. And increasing how the colossus needs to be positionned well to dish out as much damage as possible for the longest time during the fight should have been the goal of its buff, not a stupid "MOAR ATTAK SPEED LOL". I think that having a clear weakness for a positionnal unit isn't enough for it to be fun. Colossi being targetable by AA isn't enough if in most cases you can Amove it like an idiot. Tankivacs aren't about position, they're about micro and speed. Disruptors aren't about the positionning of the unit, they're a 14 range skillshot. Liberators aren't that much about positioning since the fact they fly make them more usefull to abuse shift-clic-siege-onto-mineral-lines than to occupy strategic chokes or pathways. In LOTV, most of the "positionnal units" are simply micro intensive units that don't really require strategy, but speed of execution. Yup, couldn't agree more. All to make the game more "exciting" for viewers, no one gave two shits about the players. RTS imo is about building stuff and securing/expanding your territory, lots of people complained about games being too long and boring to watch (ok, 2h turtle mech vs SH was hard to endure, but it didn't happen THAT often), when in fact those games had strategical beauty from a player perspective. LotV economy changes killed that methodical approach, it's all about mobility and while that may be exciting for the average viewer, I'd really like some diversity here as a player. I'm a very fervant supporter of bringing back strategy in LOTV, and mainly through positional units, but SH were just cancer. Just like late HOTS mech play was cancer too. Why ? Because it was never worth it to attack. Which is something that happen whenever one race has a garanteed win late game. Innovation mech style, which was the best mech style was about never attacking and splitting the map in two, because the mech army was always more cost effective than the zerg army. Turtly comps are okay if they : 1) are able to perform strong timing pushes 2) are eventually weaker than a late game air comp 3) aren't able to transition to an air comp too easily For instance : right now mech play in TvZ is kinda weak but very fun. You are : 1) able to do very strong timing pushes : tanks/hellbats/liberators go through roach/hydra like butter, and hellbats/mines/thors/liberators go through LBM 2) your mech army will be eventually terrible against BL/corru/viper, so while you're not playing under a timer you can't split the map like an idiot 3) because bases are depleated very quickly, you don't have the money to transition into mass libs/vikings/raven/ghosts (for instance) quickly, and you can't go straight to this composition because it's too expansive and you're gonna die for sure on the way there. I play mech at high masters/low GM level, and it's tons of fun. Because you're able to have a mid game comp that moves on the map while you're building your "frontal push" army. With hellion/cyclones you can go out on the map and snipe workers, or even bases with the lock, while getting some liberators, tanks and thors at home. That's why i'd very much like for the cyclone to be brought down to 3 pop and have a little HP increase. If they had 150 hps, they'd still be very fragile and 3 pop would still make them unmassable and cost inefficient. And because they allow a mech style that can move around the map, that's tons of fun. I didn't want to advocate for HotS Swarm Hosts in any way  But I don't see that much of a problem with not having to attack, if it gives me the highest win chance, why not go for it. It's actually VERY hard to do correctly as a single mistake could easily cost you the game, so there's room to exploit for the opponent. I agree that transitioning into air shouldn't be THAT easy, but current comps kinda always have to include a fair amount of Liberators so your argument seems kinda contradicting (at least when looking at current balance). Apparently we have slightly different views of what defines "mech" play, as I don't want it do be just "another mobile composition" coming out of the factory, but actually being able to put pressure on your opponent by entrechning certain positions on the map (siege tank lines around watch towers), thus having a different strategical approach from the get-go as opposed to MMM.
- Not attacking being the most efficient way to play will always cause boring and very long games. The SH era saw the biggest drop in viewership ever seen in SC2. It's okay to make the choice not to attack at some points in the game, and that what strategy is. But if your whole plan revolves around never attacking at any point, that's just boring for the opponent, and for viewers.
- Having some amount of air with mech comps isn't "an air comp", it's air support, and wether it's liberators or viking, mech play always had to rely on starport tech. Also, you don't "have" to build liberators with your mech army, I won games against GM zergs playing mech without liberators.
- And about "what is mech play", what you describe is a fantasy, it never happened over the whole course of SC2, except for TvT where mech is already good on certain maps. TvZ mech play never really was able to hold strategic locations without spamming turrets and PFs. However, having the possibility to move out on the map early game-mid game with mobile units doesn't, in any way, prevents strong positional play in the other phases of the game.
- Also, being able to move out on the map with mobile units isn't directly the same as playing bio. Bio play relies on heavy multi proned attacks, and even the non bio support units are very mobile and move around the map with the bio.
Mech can absolutely be about having a few mobile units on the map that can counterattack and harass while massing a much more static but powerfull and cost efficient army to defend agressions and eventually push.
Anyway, while mech should be, and is a different playstyle from bio, it's not healthy for the game for it to be absolutely passive and fully defensive. Mech play should have options to be agressive in some form throughout the game, while retaining its ability to lock down positions with immobile units, and the combinaison of the two would give a fun playstyle to play and watch.
For instance, Lillkanin vs Sortoff in DH valencia, game on apotheosis. While lillkanin transitioned to slowly to a more powerful/static comp, and because the cyclones are too weak at the moment, he eventually lost, but the game was fun and intense.
|
Um, why are they considering nerfing protoss?
Protoss is already way down in ladder, to a point that there is not a single league in WoL, HotS or LotV that has 33% protoss in it (Stats are bit old, but last buff was to zerg) and there are almost twice as many zergs globally in LotV diamond and plat than protosses.
I dont remember seeing overrepresentation of protoss in premium leagues either.
There are some very good P players, like Zest who is a contender for a title of best player SC2 has seen, and players like Neeb and Showtime in europe who have made deep runs. Is the nerf aimed towards them? Or has the game gone to a point where protoss is too difficult for casuals to play, so there are no masses to defend it in public forums, and therefore every way protoss wins is represented as a balance problem?
|
On July 24 2016 02:26 temporary1 wrote:Um, why are they considering nerfing protoss? Protoss is already way down in ladder, to a point that there is not a single league in WoL, HotS or LotV that has 33% protoss in it ( Stats are bit old, but last buff was to zerg) and there are almost twice as many zergs globally in diamond and plat than protosses. I dont remember seeing overrepresentation of protoss in premium leagues either. There are some very good P players, like Zest who is a contender for a title of best player SC2 has seen, and players like Neeb and Showtime in europe who have made deep runs. Is the nerf aimed towards them? Or has the game gone to a point where protoss is too difficult for casuals to play, so there are no masses to defend it in public forums, and therefore every way protoss wins is represented as a balance problem?
protoss is only good in lotv if u are high level.
|
|
|
On July 24 2016 02:33 coolmiyo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2016 02:26 temporary1 wrote:Um, why are they considering nerfing protoss? Protoss is already way down in ladder, to a point that there is not a single league in WoL, HotS or LotV that has 33% protoss in it ( Stats are bit old, but last buff was to zerg) and there are almost twice as many zergs globally in diamond and plat than protosses. I dont remember seeing overrepresentation of protoss in premium leagues either. There are some very good P players, like Zest who is a contender for a title of best player SC2 has seen, and players like Neeb and Showtime in europe who have made deep runs. Is the nerf aimed towards them? Or has the game gone to a point where protoss is too difficult for casuals to play, so there are no masses to defend it in public forums, and therefore every way protoss wins is represented as a balance problem? protoss is only good in lotv if u are high level.
While I agree with this, my question still remains who are they aiming these proposed nerfs against? If Zest, Dear, Stats, Neeb and Showtime weren't playing for some reason, protoss would be underrepresented in pretty much every league and noteworthy tournament there is in the game.
So, are they nerfing against these handful of players that still can make it with protoss? Is Blizzard listening to Zest's competetitors whine against his play for example, and nerfing whole race based on that?
|
On July 24 2016 02:48 temporary1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2016 02:33 coolmiyo wrote:On July 24 2016 02:26 temporary1 wrote:Um, why are they considering nerfing protoss? Protoss is already way down in ladder, to a point that there is not a single league in WoL, HotS or LotV that has 33% protoss in it ( Stats are bit old, but last buff was to zerg) and there are almost twice as many zergs globally in diamond and plat than protosses. I dont remember seeing overrepresentation of protoss in premium leagues either. There are some very good P players, like Zest who is a contender for a title of best player SC2 has seen, and players like Neeb and Showtime in europe who have made deep runs. Is the nerf aimed towards them? Or has the game gone to a point where protoss is too difficult for casuals to play, so there are no masses to defend it in public forums, and therefore every way protoss wins is represented as a balance problem? protoss is only good in lotv if u are high level. While I agree with this, my question still remains who are they aiming these proposed nerfs against? If Zest, Dear, Stats, Neeb and Showtime weren't playing for some reason, protoss would be underrepresented in pretty much every league and noteworthy tournament there is in the game. So, are they nerfing against these handful of players that still can make it with protoss? Is Blizzard listening to Zest's competetitors whine against his play for example, and nerfing whole race based on that?
where would terran be if Maru, TY, Cure, Marinelord and Masa weren't playing for some reason?
where would zerg be if L̶i̶̶f̶̶e̶ Dark, Rogue, Solar, Nerchio and Snute weren't playing for some reason?
|
On July 24 2016 02:48 temporary1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2016 02:33 coolmiyo wrote:On July 24 2016 02:26 temporary1 wrote:Um, why are they considering nerfing protoss? Protoss is already way down in ladder, to a point that there is not a single league in WoL, HotS or LotV that has 33% protoss in it ( Stats are bit old, but last buff was to zerg) and there are almost twice as many zergs globally in diamond and plat than protosses. I dont remember seeing overrepresentation of protoss in premium leagues either. There are some very good P players, like Zest who is a contender for a title of best player SC2 has seen, and players like Neeb and Showtime in europe who have made deep runs. Is the nerf aimed towards them? Or has the game gone to a point where protoss is too difficult for casuals to play, so there are no masses to defend it in public forums, and therefore every way protoss wins is represented as a balance problem? protoss is only good in lotv if u are high level. While I agree with this, my question still remains who are they aiming these proposed nerfs against? If Zest, Dear, Stats, Neeb and Showtime weren't playing for some reason, protoss would be underrepresented in pretty much every league and noteworthy tournament there is in the game. So, are they nerfing against these handful of players that still can make it with protoss? Is Blizzard listening to Zest's competetitors whine against his play for example, and nerfing whole race based on that?
I find this really strange tbh. I don't find P significantly harder to play than it was in HotS. Does anyone have an idea about why P are virtually extinct below masters ?
|
On July 24 2016 03:50 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2016 02:48 temporary1 wrote:On July 24 2016 02:33 coolmiyo wrote:On July 24 2016 02:26 temporary1 wrote:Um, why are they considering nerfing protoss? Protoss is already way down in ladder, to a point that there is not a single league in WoL, HotS or LotV that has 33% protoss in it ( Stats are bit old, but last buff was to zerg) and there are almost twice as many zergs globally in diamond and plat than protosses. I dont remember seeing overrepresentation of protoss in premium leagues either. There are some very good P players, like Zest who is a contender for a title of best player SC2 has seen, and players like Neeb and Showtime in europe who have made deep runs. Is the nerf aimed towards them? Or has the game gone to a point where protoss is too difficult for casuals to play, so there are no masses to defend it in public forums, and therefore every way protoss wins is represented as a balance problem? protoss is only good in lotv if u are high level. While I agree with this, my question still remains who are they aiming these proposed nerfs against? If Zest, Dear, Stats, Neeb and Showtime weren't playing for some reason, protoss would be underrepresented in pretty much every league and noteworthy tournament there is in the game. So, are they nerfing against these handful of players that still can make it with protoss? Is Blizzard listening to Zest's competetitors whine against his play for example, and nerfing whole race based on that? I find this really strange tbh. I don't find P significantly harder to play than it was in HotS. Does anyone have an idea about why P are virtually extinct below masters ?
I'm pretty sure Protoss has always been the least common race in the middle tier of players (IIRC in bronze and silver they're always decently common).
|
On July 24 2016 04:00 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2016 03:50 [PkF] Wire wrote:On July 24 2016 02:48 temporary1 wrote:On July 24 2016 02:33 coolmiyo wrote:On July 24 2016 02:26 temporary1 wrote:Um, why are they considering nerfing protoss? Protoss is already way down in ladder, to a point that there is not a single league in WoL, HotS or LotV that has 33% protoss in it ( Stats are bit old, but last buff was to zerg) and there are almost twice as many zergs globally in diamond and plat than protosses. I dont remember seeing overrepresentation of protoss in premium leagues either. There are some very good P players, like Zest who is a contender for a title of best player SC2 has seen, and players like Neeb and Showtime in europe who have made deep runs. Is the nerf aimed towards them? Or has the game gone to a point where protoss is too difficult for casuals to play, so there are no masses to defend it in public forums, and therefore every way protoss wins is represented as a balance problem? protoss is only good in lotv if u are high level. While I agree with this, my question still remains who are they aiming these proposed nerfs against? If Zest, Dear, Stats, Neeb and Showtime weren't playing for some reason, protoss would be underrepresented in pretty much every league and noteworthy tournament there is in the game. So, are they nerfing against these handful of players that still can make it with protoss? Is Blizzard listening to Zest's competetitors whine against his play for example, and nerfing whole race based on that? I find this really strange tbh. I don't find P significantly harder to play than it was in HotS. Does anyone have an idea about why P are virtually extinct below masters ? I'm pretty sure Protoss has always been the least common race in the middle tier of players (IIRC in bronze and silver they're always decently common).
I think you're right (not too sure though) but the proportions had never been this low. I think last season I played 20 P and 50 T / 50 Z on ladder for instance, while in HotS I would get P more often than the other races. Do you think all P players got a liberator no overcharge could reach in their mineral lines and said "screw it" ?
|
On July 24 2016 03:33 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2016 02:48 temporary1 wrote:On July 24 2016 02:33 coolmiyo wrote:On July 24 2016 02:26 temporary1 wrote:Um, why are they considering nerfing protoss? Protoss is already way down in ladder, to a point that there is not a single league in WoL, HotS or LotV that has 33% protoss in it ( Stats are bit old, but last buff was to zerg) and there are almost twice as many zergs globally in diamond and plat than protosses. I dont remember seeing overrepresentation of protoss in premium leagues either. There are some very good P players, like Zest who is a contender for a title of best player SC2 has seen, and players like Neeb and Showtime in europe who have made deep runs. Is the nerf aimed towards them? Or has the game gone to a point where protoss is too difficult for casuals to play, so there are no masses to defend it in public forums, and therefore every way protoss wins is represented as a balance problem? protoss is only good in lotv if u are high level. While I agree with this, my question still remains who are they aiming these proposed nerfs against? If Zest, Dear, Stats, Neeb and Showtime weren't playing for some reason, protoss would be underrepresented in pretty much every league and noteworthy tournament there is in the game. So, are they nerfing against these handful of players that still can make it with protoss? Is Blizzard listening to Zest's competetitors whine against his play for example, and nerfing whole race based on that? where would terran be if Maru, TY, Cure, Marinelord and Masa weren't playing for some reason? where would zerg be if L̶i̶̶f̶̶e̶ Dark, Rogue, Solar, Nerchio and Snute weren't playing for some reason?
1. In terran's case there are similarities, at least that was the case when Maru was keeping terran in GSL almost by himself. In Zerg's case, players on top level seem to change more often, and like in GGlord/infestors case, I think we have seen a pretty big surge of zerg players coming back from nowhere after lotv started. Snute has been quite consistently on top level, but likes of Nerchio, Bly, Sorfof and so on have taken a huge step forwards after hots, and they are not only ones.
2. Zerg would still have huge overrepresentation in ladder.
And the question was, why protoss is getting nerfed. Zerg was just buffed.
|
|
|
On July 24 2016 04:15 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2016 04:00 Elentos wrote:On July 24 2016 03:50 [PkF] Wire wrote:On July 24 2016 02:48 temporary1 wrote:On July 24 2016 02:33 coolmiyo wrote:On July 24 2016 02:26 temporary1 wrote:Um, why are they considering nerfing protoss? Protoss is already way down in ladder, to a point that there is not a single league in WoL, HotS or LotV that has 33% protoss in it ( Stats are bit old, but last buff was to zerg) and there are almost twice as many zergs globally in diamond and plat than protosses. I dont remember seeing overrepresentation of protoss in premium leagues either. There are some very good P players, like Zest who is a contender for a title of best player SC2 has seen, and players like Neeb and Showtime in europe who have made deep runs. Is the nerf aimed towards them? Or has the game gone to a point where protoss is too difficult for casuals to play, so there are no masses to defend it in public forums, and therefore every way protoss wins is represented as a balance problem? protoss is only good in lotv if u are high level. While I agree with this, my question still remains who are they aiming these proposed nerfs against? If Zest, Dear, Stats, Neeb and Showtime weren't playing for some reason, protoss would be underrepresented in pretty much every league and noteworthy tournament there is in the game. So, are they nerfing against these handful of players that still can make it with protoss? Is Blizzard listening to Zest's competetitors whine against his play for example, and nerfing whole race based on that? I find this really strange tbh. I don't find P significantly harder to play than it was in HotS. Does anyone have an idea about why P are virtually extinct below masters ? I'm pretty sure Protoss has always been the least common race in the middle tier of players (IIRC in bronze and silver they're always decently common). I think you're right (not too sure though) but the proportions had never been this low. I think last season I played 20 P and 50 T / 50 Z on ladder for instance, while in HotS I would get P more often than the other races. Do you think all P players got a liberator no overcharge could reach in their mineral lines and said "screw it" ?
I don't feel I'm facing less Protoss players than in HotS. Protoss has always been the race I've played the least against by far.
|
On July 24 2016 04:15 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2016 04:00 Elentos wrote:On July 24 2016 03:50 [PkF] Wire wrote:On July 24 2016 02:48 temporary1 wrote:On July 24 2016 02:33 coolmiyo wrote:On July 24 2016 02:26 temporary1 wrote:Um, why are they considering nerfing protoss? Protoss is already way down in ladder, to a point that there is not a single league in WoL, HotS or LotV that has 33% protoss in it ( Stats are bit old, but last buff was to zerg) and there are almost twice as many zergs globally in diamond and plat than protosses. I dont remember seeing overrepresentation of protoss in premium leagues either. There are some very good P players, like Zest who is a contender for a title of best player SC2 has seen, and players like Neeb and Showtime in europe who have made deep runs. Is the nerf aimed towards them? Or has the game gone to a point where protoss is too difficult for casuals to play, so there are no masses to defend it in public forums, and therefore every way protoss wins is represented as a balance problem? protoss is only good in lotv if u are high level. While I agree with this, my question still remains who are they aiming these proposed nerfs against? If Zest, Dear, Stats, Neeb and Showtime weren't playing for some reason, protoss would be underrepresented in pretty much every league and noteworthy tournament there is in the game. So, are they nerfing against these handful of players that still can make it with protoss? Is Blizzard listening to Zest's competetitors whine against his play for example, and nerfing whole race based on that? I find this really strange tbh. I don't find P significantly harder to play than it was in HotS. Does anyone have an idea about why P are virtually extinct below masters ? I'm pretty sure Protoss has always been the least common race in the middle tier of players (IIRC in bronze and silver they're always decently common). I think you're right (not too sure though) but the proportions had never been this low. I think last season I played 20 P and 50 T / 50 Z on ladder for instance, while in HotS I would get P more often than the other races. Do you think all P players got a liberator no overcharge could reach in their mineral lines and said "screw it" ?
Possibly. Maybe some others were given the final blow by the 20th ravager bust they couldn't defend properly at their level. And some probably saw their units die in liberation zones and decided "Fuck this liberators OP"
|
On July 23 2016 22:38 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 22:11 Creager wrote:On July 23 2016 21:33 JackONeill wrote:On July 23 2016 16:56 Creager wrote:On July 23 2016 06:51 JackONeill wrote:On July 23 2016 03:42 Charoisaur wrote:On July 23 2016 01:04 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 23 2016 00:53 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 22 2016 22:42 geokilla wrote:
Again Blizzard doesn't know how to fix their game. The problem is the pickup range for Warp Prism, not their health! Well, the high health makes it very forgiving to do WP shit. With lower HP, lower level Ps should loose them more often. Removing the +light damage of Liberators would take away the only interesting aspect of the unit for me: an alternative to the Thor as anti Muta. The main problem i think is the huge anti ground dmg, and that it's in direct conflict with the siege tank as a role; true that the tank is crap right now. So buff the Tank and nerf the anti ground of the Lib. There should never have been an anti ground attack for the liberator to begin with. I would go as far as to say that every single new unit they added in lotv was a design failure. Couldn't disagree more. I think the new positional units (liberators, lurkers and disruptors) are the best things that happened to the game in a long time because they added a ton of depth to the game. Also adepts are very cool imo and have made toss very multitasking-depending. Ravagers suck though. Positionnal units are very important I feel in every matchup. Wether both opponent have some, or one of the opponent has some and you have to screw him with a mobile comp. TvT mech vs bio gave us the most glorious pieces of starcraft i've ever seen. Beautiful mechanic play and brilliant strategy from both sides. However, blizzard took away the main drawbacks of positionnal units in LOTV, and that's why they're not really positionnal units. I liked the liberator concept : an insanely strong AG on a very tiny zone. However, it flies. It kinda defeats the "positionning" aspect of the unit because it doesn't really accounts for terrain, and it's so so so easy to place into abusive positions, effectively killing the beauty of the play. Who ever said "wow, these liberator positionnements are so skillfull?" Another illustration of this problem lies with the tankivac. Tanks used to be very carefully set up in a position to exploit their range and slash at best. Now it's just "boost in and throw them wherever, it's more important to be poorly positionned fast than to be well positionned slowly". Where the tankivac gained in how microable it is, it lost in how strategic it was. With their main weakness being their cooldown, disruptors are also not really about positioning, they're about micro. Even though we've seen some pretty awesome moves from PvP in Korea, with blink baits followed by well placed disruptors, in the EU pro scene we see them more used as a micro skillshot. The main exception would be the lurkers, which are mobile and cloacked, but are still very position-dependant because of their "short" range and their linear AoE Finally, the colossi, while naysayers said it's a terrible unit that promotes deathballs (which is true sometimes, and no one like that), promoted interesting positionnal play in TvP. Vikings/bio vs stalker/colossi was a constant dance between armies where the bio had to be concaving on stalkers while vikings shot colossi. And increasing how the colossus needs to be positionned well to dish out as much damage as possible for the longest time during the fight should have been the goal of its buff, not a stupid "MOAR ATTAK SPEED LOL". I think that having a clear weakness for a positionnal unit isn't enough for it to be fun. Colossi being targetable by AA isn't enough if in most cases you can Amove it like an idiot. Tankivacs aren't about position, they're about micro and speed. Disruptors aren't about the positionning of the unit, they're a 14 range skillshot. Liberators aren't that much about positioning since the fact they fly make them more usefull to abuse shift-clic-siege-onto-mineral-lines than to occupy strategic chokes or pathways. In LOTV, most of the "positionnal units" are simply micro intensive units that don't really require strategy, but speed of execution. Yup, couldn't agree more. All to make the game more "exciting" for viewers, no one gave two shits about the players. RTS imo is about building stuff and securing/expanding your territory, lots of people complained about games being too long and boring to watch (ok, 2h turtle mech vs SH was hard to endure, but it didn't happen THAT often), when in fact those games had strategical beauty from a player perspective. LotV economy changes killed that methodical approach, it's all about mobility and while that may be exciting for the average viewer, I'd really like some diversity here as a player. I'm a very fervant supporter of bringing back strategy in LOTV, and mainly through positional units, but SH were just cancer. Just like late HOTS mech play was cancer too. Why ? Because it was never worth it to attack. Which is something that happen whenever one race has a garanteed win late game. Innovation mech style, which was the best mech style was about never attacking and splitting the map in two, because the mech army was always more cost effective than the zerg army. Turtly comps are okay if they : 1) are able to perform strong timing pushes 2) are eventually weaker than a late game air comp 3) aren't able to transition to an air comp too easily For instance : right now mech play in TvZ is kinda weak but very fun. You are : 1) able to do very strong timing pushes : tanks/hellbats/liberators go through roach/hydra like butter, and hellbats/mines/thors/liberators go through LBM 2) your mech army will be eventually terrible against BL/corru/viper, so while you're not playing under a timer you can't split the map like an idiot 3) because bases are depleated very quickly, you don't have the money to transition into mass libs/vikings/raven/ghosts (for instance) quickly, and you can't go straight to this composition because it's too expansive and you're gonna die for sure on the way there. I play mech at high masters/low GM level, and it's tons of fun. Because you're able to have a mid game comp that moves on the map while you're building your "frontal push" army. With hellion/cyclones you can go out on the map and snipe workers, or even bases with the lock, while getting some liberators, tanks and thors at home. That's why i'd very much like for the cyclone to be brought down to 3 pop and have a little HP increase. If they had 150 hps, they'd still be very fragile and 3 pop would still make them unmassable and cost inefficient. And because they allow a mech style that can move around the map, that's tons of fun. I didn't want to advocate for HotS Swarm Hosts in any way But I don't see that much of a problem with not having to attack, if it gives me the highest win chance, why not go for it. It's actually VERY hard to do correctly as a single mistake could easily cost you the game, so there's room to exploit for the opponent. I agree that transitioning into air shouldn't be THAT easy, but current comps kinda always have to include a fair amount of Liberators so your argument seems kinda contradicting (at least when looking at current balance). Apparently we have slightly different views of what defines "mech" play, as I don't want it do be just "another mobile composition" coming out of the factory, but actually being able to put pressure on your opponent by entrechning certain positions on the map (siege tank lines around watch towers), thus having a different strategical approach from the get-go as opposed to MMM. - Not attacking being the most efficient way to play will always cause boring and very long games. The SH era saw the biggest drop in viewership ever seen in SC2. It's okay to make the choice not to attack at some points in the game, and that what strategy is. But if your whole plan revolves around never attacking at any point, that's just boring for the opponent, and for viewers. - Having some amount of air with mech comps isn't "an air comp", it's air support, and wether it's liberators or viking, mech play always had to rely on starport tech. Also, you don't "have" to build liberators with your mech army, I won games against GM zergs playing mech without liberators. - And about "what is mech play", what you describe is a fantasy, it never happened over the whole course of SC2, except for TvT where mech is already good on certain maps. TvZ mech play never really was able to hold strategic locations without spamming turrets and PFs. However, having the possibility to move out on the map early game-mid game with mobile units doesn't, in any way, prevents strong positional play in the other phases of the game. - Also, being able to move out on the map with mobile units isn't directly the same as playing bio. Bio play relies on heavy multi proned attacks, and even the non bio support units are very mobile and move around the map with the bio. Mech can absolutely be about having a few mobile units on the map that can counterattack and harass while massing a much more static but powerfull and cost efficient army to defend agressions and eventually push. Anyway, while mech should be, and is a different playstyle from bio, it's not healthy for the game for it to be absolutely passive and fully defensive. Mech play should have options to be agressive in some form throughout the game, while retaining its ability to lock down positions with immobile units, and the combinaison of the two would give a fun playstyle to play and watch. For instance, Lillkanin vs Sortoff in DH valencia, game on apotheosis. While lillkanin transitioned to slowly to a more powerful/static comp, and because the cyclones are too weak at the moment, he eventually lost, but the game was fun and intense.
It's not about never attacking, but only harrassing with fast units like hellions and some flyers maybe while using your main army to secure space and expanding behind it. There will be holes and weaknesses the opponent can exploit (with the right map design, that is). WoL and HotS TvT are a splendid example of how differently the match-up could be played, you simply don't see it in LotV due to Tankivacs and the economy model.
And the most important thing is, it should be completely irrelevant how boring it is to watch, if it's fun to play. Different people prefer different things, so if someone likes to play longer and more methodical games, why is that a bad thing per se?
|
On July 24 2016 04:15 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I think you're right (not too sure though) but the proportions had never been this low. I think last season I played 20 P and 50 T / 50 Z on ladder for instance, while in HotS I would get P more often than the other races. Do you think all P players got a liberator no overcharge could reach in their mineral lines and said "screw it" ?
The proportions have never been this low, but it's easy to see why Protoss players at lower levels are dropping out.
LotV begins and Protoss' macro mechanic is the most changed, their proxy-warp-ins practically removed, base-building (already the hardest of the three races) further complicated by the need to perfectly PO to defend ... well, basically anything, colossus nerfed (mainstay of entire race for all of SC2), and Disruptors are hard-to-control units with a much larger chance of the opponent learning to avoid them than the low-level protoss learning to use warp-prisms + excellent and extremely risky flanks to get a better chance at a hit.
LotV Protoss focuses upon getting massive early-game damage on the opponent so the Protoss has a chance at success.
For months (the longest period that any race has been this low in a single match-up for all of SC2 excluding the very first period where Zergs learned to inject perfectly versus Terran in WoL), PvZ was an absolute train-wreck -- even professional players had ~40% win-rates in the match-up.
Fast forward to balance patches:
- PO massively nerfed
- Adept harassment massively nerfed
- Immortal massively nerfed
- Colossus barely buffed
...
While top Protoss are being carried into the mid- and late- game by the threat (and often the actuality) of adept + prism harassment, the race as a whole is in dire straights.
If the shade nerf goes through ... or both the shade and prism nerfs ... Protoss is going to be struggling everywhere for a long, long time.
Even the narrative that "Protoss is wrecking Terran" is so one-sided it's kind of funny. Zest and Stats, alone, account for the SSL win-rate and the GSL win-rate is due to massive Terran over-representation in the lower levels of that league (Terran will account for 7 or 8 out of 16 slots in the next round ... 50% representation isn't being "wrecked").
To be honest, I'm still surprised that people are surprised to see Protoss so screwed on ladder.
|
|
|
Lest you read too far into the endless diatribe that had preceeded this.
Time and time again, I spend copious amounts of time trying to express my personal idiocy with the rest of the club. I realize much too late how pointless it is for me but, I need that pissing match fix too.
~ Just about when im done with my thoughts, I close the webpage. I see i'm just giving myself another dope kick for the brain, and I try to nip it before my words go beyond my comprehension. It's my angst with dumbassery met with blind rationality (do you lead a horse to water? Well is it sick or healthy? dead animals next to a watering hole scares others away.). Do I benefit from telling a narcissistic person they're bullying people with their candor, and from time to time the 'facts' are fallacies? They're here to indulge people of their own afflictions.
...
However, there was a part of my heart yearning to let innocent children know of the greater machine this game gears the brain towards, and the detrimental roll it can play left unchecked.
Furthermore, in community forums: submitting words to public forums you don't firmly believe in, rewires your brain too (Neuroplasticity)
Peoplies'- engage your self and brainies for moments, please guys's's. Mehk it happen.s~.
"This new study highlights the importance of the dopamine system, a less appreciated target in the current antidepression therapies," he says.
Short-term surges of dopamine are normally associated with feelings of pleasure. But abnormally high concentrations of the chemical messenger are linked to schizophrenia, attention deficit disorder, and other psychiatric disorders.
-----
In laboratory tests with mice, researchers found prolonged exposure to dopamine through this pathway inactivated a regulatory protein in the brain known as Akt and caused the mice to behave like they were depressed in response to stress
-----
Researchers say this type of prolonged exposure to dopamine may also help explain the impact of drug abuse on the brain. Most addictive drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines, directly or indirectly raise dopamine levels, and the chemical plays a major role in drug-induced highs.
"This mechanism appears to be more important than those earlier described for prolonged stimulation by dopamine, as would be the case in those with psychiatric conditions,"
But the widespread use of neuroimaging techniques to observe brain activity in real time has found that video games mobilize specific regions of this organ.
In every sense of the word, play is an enjoyable activity at any stage of life.
Play in childhood, for example, provides the first impulse in the development of a healthy life, both physically and psychologically. Playing video games, in turn, activates different regions of the brain related to pleasure, such as the left ventral striatal circuit which is an area involved in reward anticipation. In people who play more than nine hours of video games per day, a greater volume of gray matter was found in this region.
It has been further discovered that dopamine, a chemical that the brain produces, is released when we play video games. This release has been seen in abundance in the above-mentioned circuit—specifically in the nucleus accumbens, a brain structure known to play a role in feelings of pleasure, as well as with addiction.
Be mindful with your time as these grey days can potentially turn into discontent years.
10years down this road, of what value is any of this?
20years down this road, what are you expecting to utilize along the way, does physical/mental health play a roll in maintaining these?
Are those worthy values worth more than the otherwise grande potential worldly skills? (marksman, carpenter, chef, chemical engineer, clinical psychologist, physio-therapist, aeronautical engineer/mechanic )
Youth/young adults/ anything younger and a geriatric: sponge up essential skills now. Prepare for your own trials and tribulations- Not Blizzard's...
PS.
google BMI calculator.
Taeja clap^^
PPS
This can be a fun game experience through and through. It needs to be regulated with moderation per person. Keep your personal life goals in the forefront. If they are stale and you play this because it's fun, you need to updated goals,
We're not all meant to be in the majors, be very clear about it.
This pays homage to KadaverBB & The_Templar for telling me to put more content in my posts. Thanks for the ego checks. some times im a total dumbass
Thank you, Sirs.
|
On July 24 2016 06:51 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 22:38 JackONeill wrote:On July 23 2016 22:11 Creager wrote:On July 23 2016 21:33 JackONeill wrote:On July 23 2016 16:56 Creager wrote:On July 23 2016 06:51 JackONeill wrote:On July 23 2016 03:42 Charoisaur wrote:On July 23 2016 01:04 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 23 2016 00:53 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 22 2016 22:42 geokilla wrote:
Again Blizzard doesn't know how to fix their game. The problem is the pickup range for Warp Prism, not their health! Well, the high health makes it very forgiving to do WP shit. With lower HP, lower level Ps should loose them more often. Removing the +light damage of Liberators would take away the only interesting aspect of the unit for me: an alternative to the Thor as anti Muta. The main problem i think is the huge anti ground dmg, and that it's in direct conflict with the siege tank as a role; true that the tank is crap right now. So buff the Tank and nerf the anti ground of the Lib. There should never have been an anti ground attack for the liberator to begin with. I would go as far as to say that every single new unit they added in lotv was a design failure. Couldn't disagree more. I think the new positional units (liberators, lurkers and disruptors) are the best things that happened to the game in a long time because they added a ton of depth to the game. Also adepts are very cool imo and have made toss very multitasking-depending. Ravagers suck though. Positionnal units are very important I feel in every matchup. Wether both opponent have some, or one of the opponent has some and you have to screw him with a mobile comp. TvT mech vs bio gave us the most glorious pieces of starcraft i've ever seen. Beautiful mechanic play and brilliant strategy from both sides. However, blizzard took away the main drawbacks of positionnal units in LOTV, and that's why they're not really positionnal units. I liked the liberator concept : an insanely strong AG on a very tiny zone. However, it flies. It kinda defeats the "positionning" aspect of the unit because it doesn't really accounts for terrain, and it's so so so easy to place into abusive positions, effectively killing the beauty of the play. Who ever said "wow, these liberator positionnements are so skillfull?" Another illustration of this problem lies with the tankivac. Tanks used to be very carefully set up in a position to exploit their range and slash at best. Now it's just "boost in and throw them wherever, it's more important to be poorly positionned fast than to be well positionned slowly". Where the tankivac gained in how microable it is, it lost in how strategic it was. With their main weakness being their cooldown, disruptors are also not really about positioning, they're about micro. Even though we've seen some pretty awesome moves from PvP in Korea, with blink baits followed by well placed disruptors, in the EU pro scene we see them more used as a micro skillshot. The main exception would be the lurkers, which are mobile and cloacked, but are still very position-dependant because of their "short" range and their linear AoE Finally, the colossi, while naysayers said it's a terrible unit that promotes deathballs (which is true sometimes, and no one like that), promoted interesting positionnal play in TvP. Vikings/bio vs stalker/colossi was a constant dance between armies where the bio had to be concaving on stalkers while vikings shot colossi. And increasing how the colossus needs to be positionned well to dish out as much damage as possible for the longest time during the fight should have been the goal of its buff, not a stupid "MOAR ATTAK SPEED LOL". I think that having a clear weakness for a positionnal unit isn't enough for it to be fun. Colossi being targetable by AA isn't enough if in most cases you can Amove it like an idiot. Tankivacs aren't about position, they're about micro and speed. Disruptors aren't about the positionning of the unit, they're a 14 range skillshot. Liberators aren't that much about positioning since the fact they fly make them more usefull to abuse shift-clic-siege-onto-mineral-lines than to occupy strategic chokes or pathways. In LOTV, most of the "positionnal units" are simply micro intensive units that don't really require strategy, but speed of execution. Yup, couldn't agree more. All to make the game more "exciting" for viewers, no one gave two shits about the players. RTS imo is about building stuff and securing/expanding your territory, lots of people complained about games being too long and boring to watch (ok, 2h turtle mech vs SH was hard to endure, but it didn't happen THAT often), when in fact those games had strategical beauty from a player perspective. LotV economy changes killed that methodical approach, it's all about mobility and while that may be exciting for the average viewer, I'd really like some diversity here as a player. I'm a very fervant supporter of bringing back strategy in LOTV, and mainly through positional units, but SH were just cancer. Just like late HOTS mech play was cancer too. Why ? Because it was never worth it to attack. Which is something that happen whenever one race has a garanteed win late game. Innovation mech style, which was the best mech style was about never attacking and splitting the map in two, because the mech army was always more cost effective than the zerg army. Turtly comps are okay if they : 1) are able to perform strong timing pushes 2) are eventually weaker than a late game air comp 3) aren't able to transition to an air comp too easily For instance : right now mech play in TvZ is kinda weak but very fun. You are : 1) able to do very strong timing pushes : tanks/hellbats/liberators go through roach/hydra like butter, and hellbats/mines/thors/liberators go through LBM 2) your mech army will be eventually terrible against BL/corru/viper, so while you're not playing under a timer you can't split the map like an idiot 3) because bases are depleated very quickly, you don't have the money to transition into mass libs/vikings/raven/ghosts (for instance) quickly, and you can't go straight to this composition because it's too expansive and you're gonna die for sure on the way there. I play mech at high masters/low GM level, and it's tons of fun. Because you're able to have a mid game comp that moves on the map while you're building your "frontal push" army. With hellion/cyclones you can go out on the map and snipe workers, or even bases with the lock, while getting some liberators, tanks and thors at home. That's why i'd very much like for the cyclone to be brought down to 3 pop and have a little HP increase. If they had 150 hps, they'd still be very fragile and 3 pop would still make them unmassable and cost inefficient. And because they allow a mech style that can move around the map, that's tons of fun. I didn't want to advocate for HotS Swarm Hosts in any way But I don't see that much of a problem with not having to attack, if it gives me the highest win chance, why not go for it. It's actually VERY hard to do correctly as a single mistake could easily cost you the game, so there's room to exploit for the opponent. I agree that transitioning into air shouldn't be THAT easy, but current comps kinda always have to include a fair amount of Liberators so your argument seems kinda contradicting (at least when looking at current balance). Apparently we have slightly different views of what defines "mech" play, as I don't want it do be just "another mobile composition" coming out of the factory, but actually being able to put pressure on your opponent by entrechning certain positions on the map (siege tank lines around watch towers), thus having a different strategical approach from the get-go as opposed to MMM. - Not attacking being the most efficient way to play will always cause boring and very long games. The SH era saw the biggest drop in viewership ever seen in SC2. It's okay to make the choice not to attack at some points in the game, and that what strategy is. But if your whole plan revolves around never attacking at any point, that's just boring for the opponent, and for viewers. - Having some amount of air with mech comps isn't "an air comp", it's air support, and wether it's liberators or viking, mech play always had to rely on starport tech. Also, you don't "have" to build liberators with your mech army, I won games against GM zergs playing mech without liberators. - And about "what is mech play", what you describe is a fantasy, it never happened over the whole course of SC2, except for TvT where mech is already good on certain maps. TvZ mech play never really was able to hold strategic locations without spamming turrets and PFs. However, having the possibility to move out on the map early game-mid game with mobile units doesn't, in any way, prevents strong positional play in the other phases of the game. - Also, being able to move out on the map with mobile units isn't directly the same as playing bio. Bio play relies on heavy multi proned attacks, and even the non bio support units are very mobile and move around the map with the bio. Mech can absolutely be about having a few mobile units on the map that can counterattack and harass while massing a much more static but powerfull and cost efficient army to defend agressions and eventually push. Anyway, while mech should be, and is a different playstyle from bio, it's not healthy for the game for it to be absolutely passive and fully defensive. Mech play should have options to be agressive in some form throughout the game, while retaining its ability to lock down positions with immobile units, and the combinaison of the two would give a fun playstyle to play and watch. For instance, Lillkanin vs Sortoff in DH valencia, game on apotheosis. While lillkanin transitioned to slowly to a more powerful/static comp, and because the cyclones are too weak at the moment, he eventually lost, but the game was fun and intense. It's not about never attacking, but only harrassing with fast units like hellions and some flyers maybe while using your main army to secure space and expanding behind it. There will be holes and weaknesses the opponent can exploit (with the right map design, that is). WoL and HotS TvT are a splendid example of how differently the match-up could be played, you simply don't see it in LotV due to Tankivacs and the economy model. And the most important thing is, it should be completely irrelevant how boring it is to watch, if it's fun to play. Different people prefer different things, so if someone likes to play longer and more methodical games, why is that a bad thing per se?
Actually KR terrans are starting to play mech in TvT again, and it's pretty much just like in WOL/HOTS. Tankivac is cancer for marine tanks vs marine tanks, but in mech vs bio case it's pretty irrelevant.
And player's fun should always be prioritised over viewer's fun. However, when you play against someone that doesn't need to attack to win, that's never fun. If you play a zerg that doesn't ever attack, only right clics packs of lings in your mineral lines while rushing BL/viper/corru and spamming spines and spores all over the map, that's not remotely fun to play against. Good thing, it doesn't work.
Late HOTS mech was the terran version of that, and I'm glad it's gone. Fun is defined by a majority. And most people feel like playing against someone that never has to attack to win is complete cancer. Sure, a wide range of styles and strategies should be allowed into the game, but massing tanks while right clicking hellions into mineral lines is kind of an extreme on a "should it be viable" vs "considered fun" ratio.
By the way, about this : when mech players turtle it's considered cancer, but when zerg does it, it's every ZvT ever since 8 months that LOTV's been released. Double standards for the win.
Bottom line, giving mech the ability to push onto the map, while still retaining its positional aspect should be possible if done intelligently. Buffing the tank, nerfing the tankivac, buffing the cyclone's pop efficiency would definetly help.
|
On July 24 2016 08:30 Edowyth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2016 04:15 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I think you're right (not too sure though) but the proportions had never been this low. I think last season I played 20 P and 50 T / 50 Z on ladder for instance, while in HotS I would get P more often than the other races. Do you think all P players got a liberator no overcharge could reach in their mineral lines and said "screw it" ? To be honest, I'm still surprised that people are surprised to see Protoss so screwed on ladder.
Really? Doesn't protoss have a reputation for being the race with the most horrendously sneaky and "underhanded" tactics to kill opponents, such as DTs and Oracles? When did protoss suddenly become the race that gets f---ed the most?
I mean I'm protoss, but terrans and zergs have had to deal with shit like psi storm and force fields forever yet you don't see them fleeing the ladder.
I generally enjoy the balance in LotV and it feels much more fun and intellectual to play than WoL or HotS, which were basically games where the player that macro-ed better always won. In LotV positional play has been much more important which I happen to find very enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
