|
|
|
On August 25 2016 19:26 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2016 04:08 jinjin5000 wrote:On August 23 2016 07:03 a_flayer wrote:On August 23 2016 00:12 Blackfeather wrote:On August 22 2016 23:22 a_flayer wrote:On August 22 2016 22:43 JCoto wrote:On August 22 2016 22:16 Blackfeather wrote:On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I'm just going to throw some shit out there. I don't know what my icon says, but I've only been playing random on those rare occasions that I've played SC2 in the past 5 years or so. I started out as a Zerg player in WoL when I borderlined as a low-level master player (I've been in and out of masters during the first season).
Personally, I'm still upset that they didn't remove the macro mechanics. I just feel like it's detrimental to my enjoyment of the game. I never played as much SC2 as I did in that short time period where they reduced the need for macro mechanics. In addition to that, I feel like units such as the Queen and MSC detract from my freedom to pick and choose my strategies, both in offence (playing against those units) and defence (where they are basically 100% necessary to be built). Add to that the economic "defence" of the MULE (which allows Terran to sustain worker damage and recover from it), and we've covered all three races somewhat in this respect, I think.
Me too. I really hope they will at some point re-evaluate the macro mechanics removal. IMO, one of the major reasons of why they didn't keep this change was that it tipped balance against Terran. With the buffs to mech it may have played out otherwise. From my experience, without macro mechanics your micro in battles became way more important if you played Protoss or Terran (inject was just toned down, so not much of a change for Zerg). I really enjoyed that. On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I would like to see a SC2 where these units just aren't absolutely necessary in order to play the game and at the same time deal with my dislike for the macro mechanics.
Maybe increase the natural larvae spawn of hatcheries to the point where queens aren't necessary, or at least not quite as prolific. Remove the spawn larvae ability of queens or reduce it to 1 larva per inject to make it an optional boost if you want more zerglings for your strategy of choice and increase the cost of the queen (maybe 200/50?) and her abilities (50 energy?) so that maybe you'll just have one or two if you really want to spread creep fast or something.
Change the MULE into something where it can provide a boost to the Terran economy without making it necessary to be dropped constantly. Perhaps allow it to be dropped and convert into a building at a faster rate than normal SCVs build them instead of the harvest-resources-at-an-increased-rate ability.
I'm not sure how to handle the MSC at all. It just seems like such an incredible mess of a unit, as you absolutely 100% cannot go around this unit in any shape way or form when you are playing Protoss. I basically hated sentries throughout WoL and HotS for the same reason. Stuff like that just disgusts me as someone who likes to get a choice in where I invest my resources.
It's bad enough that we have to make all these workers all the time (joke!).
Ah well, it's never gonna happen, I guess. I agree with this completely. Why are there units (other than workers) you basically must build regardless of your strategy? Queens, MULEs and Chrono Boost just add a mechanical barrier but very little strategic-wise. While I agree and always thought that sc2 had too many inflexible elements that take the focus away from actual strategy (yay, macro apm, so interesting...), blizzard made clear that they want the game to be mechanical taxing and they want to keep their dog trainer parts in the game. They reemphasized this again @fundamental changes. I doubt we are going to see any macro changes that aren't +/-costs. So I guess talking about it really serves no purpose  I think that what I prosposed above is not a bad solution. I think I've read your proposed solutions before and I found them terribly vague and incomplete. And I still think that. Much like mine, except in different ways. I was really just venting with my original post because I can't be arsed to play the game in the way Blizzard seems to want the game to be played. I wasn't trying to start a discussion or even expecting people to agree with me, lel. Can totally relate to that, was a random plat/diamond player in wol and feel the same about macro mechanics (although I couldn't test it cause I got no beta key). One of the reasons I stopped playing was because Sc2 was for me too much RT and too little S. But the macro mechanics resolution made pretty clear that Blizz wants to keep it that way, or at least keep APM a major factor. I feel that, if you remove artificial macro mechanics, the excessive APM will simply be dedicated to more multi-pronged harassments & engaging the other player in combat instead of macroing. But maybe I'm crazy like that and people will still go for the 1a deathball while APM drops down to next to nothing cause its so easy in SC2 to do that. You need to completely redesign the game then. Macro mechanics balanced each races economy to roughly equal rates despite the differences between them and when blizzard just flat out half heartedly removed macro mechanic back in beta, it was a big imbalanced mess that was nowhere near remotely balanced. Terran w/o mule couldn't even 1/1/1 off one base without significant gaps and asking blizzard to modify every single units cost in relative to eco is too much for a major balance patch. By the way, zerg kept inject on autocast while other races got theirs flat out removed during that patch so other races were significantly nered that time in beta. It isn't a major game design patch you know. Except for the fact that they could just build them in... I mean how hard is it to double larvae production once you have a spawning pool, reduce protoss build times and either give orbitals an aoe that increases mining or just increase mining rates of terran workers nonconditionally? I know that that wouldn't be exactly the same, but their current proposals aren't 100% linear either. Hell the worst approximation is chronoboost, which they could just leave in in it's current form since it doesn't take a lot of apm anyways. Again I don't believe a second that Blizz is gonna do that, but seriously, it's half an hour of numbers crunching if they want it.
Tell me what that adds? Autocasted macro mechanics do nothing for the state of game but ensure that the said macro mechanics are automated and easier on newer players and it affects some race more than others (protoss would still need to cast).
It adds absolutely nothing to the argument and original points about slowing game down/ect. It's the current version without any macro mechanic that at least serves to differentiate people who use it correctly
|
On August 26 2016 03:36 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2016 22:58 RaFox17 wrote:On August 24 2016 22:50 Barrin wrote:Prediction: Mech becomes OP, but not because things can't beat it head on, but rather because powerful harassment at the same time as powerful defense and space control breaks so many backs. What does "breaks so many backs" even mean? That it breaks your opponent. Nice that you are asking the hard hitting questions  Oh. I was thinking it was some sort of appeal to emotion. I see now. I think one major misconception is that Terran Mech is the only way to have space controlling units. Yes, Terran's (Mech in particular) major strength is space-controlling units (the loading screen in one of the LotV epilogue campaigns, where you're playing Terran defending a siege basically says as much), but they are not the only race with space-controlling units. Protoss: - Photon Cannon- Mothership/ Core's Photon Overcharge on a Pylon- Mothership/ Core's Time Warp- Sentry's Force Field- Collosus- Oracle's Stasis Ward- Tempest and its new ability. - High hitpoint units like Archons and Immortals are good at holding the line. Zerg: - Creep from Creep Tumors, etc. - Spine Crawler- Spore Crawler- Queen squads with Tranfusion- (Burrowed) Baneling- Lurker- Brood Lord and especially their Broodlings help cause friendly-fire. - Again, high hitpoint units like Roaches and Ultralisks are good at holding the line. And the other race's strengths? Protoss in particular has the best tools for breaking positions that are already controlled by space-controlling units (as the loading screen indicates in the LotV mission where immortals are unlocked). Note that all of the non-stationary units/abilities listed above (most of them) can be used for this. Here are some more of these "siege-breaking" units and instant-cast abilities not listed above (some of the better ones are only listed above): Protoss - Zealots in particular can be used to cause friendly-fire against sieged tanks. - Adept with Psionic Transfer to mitigate siege range and help cause friendly-fire against sieged tanks. - Stalker with Blink to snipe liberators. - High Templar's Psionic Storm- Disruptor- Phoenix Graviton Beam- Void Ray to snipe sieged tanks and thors. - Carrier with their new highly efficient Interceptors used in conjunction with your own well space-controlled area for baiting can be used to break down a sieged position. Zerg - Zerglings in particular can be used to cause friendly-fire against sieged tanks. - Roaches with Tunneling Claws to get up next to sieged tanks for initiating a fight. - Ravager's Corrosive Bile- Swarm Host with Flying Locusts should be good at this now that I think about it. - Infestor's Neural Parasite (note that Infestors will be able to cast while burrowed) - Infestor's Fungal Growth if there are clumped up units, or Infested Terran if not. - Viper's Abduct- Viper's Blinding CloudKey concept: AoE can be used to force enemy units to spread out allowing a greater concentration of force to overcome. This is a double-edged sword for sieged tanks, which generally need support. I haven't found it written anywhere what Zerg's strength is supposed to be, but it's basically: controlling most areas most of the time. This allows them to take the extra bases that they need for extra income and production because their units are generally the least efficient. The extra base(s) also help them survive semi-base-trades, as economic counter-attacks are often an ideal choice with their highly mobile units (particularly Zerglings & Mutalisks). Splitting a Zerg's production is often a useful tactic, but it can also backfire if the Zerg can manage to do multiple flanks. Completely containing a Zerg and preventing flanks from happening, if you manage to do it, can indeed be game-ending. Which I guess is partially why Zerg has the best tools for moving an entire army around with their cheap transports and Nydus Network (which allows even their slower units to counter-attack and retreat before fatal damage). The thing about space-controlling units is that they generally take a moment to set up. Which is easier to do when you're defending and not attacking. Blizzard is being smart here and will look at increasing siege-up time on siege tanks before nerfing anything else about them. I should commend you on recognizing that space-controlling units can be offensive as well as defensive (related: Is High Ground Only Defensive?, but it is really not quite so simple. Disclaimer: Almost all of the units listed above have more uses/roles then mentioned.
It is the first time I see someone mentioning campaign loading screens as a proof for anything... quite funny! Nice post anyway ;-)
I agree that map control is supposed to be Zerg's strength, initially with speedlings and later on with creep, mutalisks and/or lurkers. Roaches just do not feel right for Zerg... but that's another story.
|
On August 26 2016 05:22 jinjin5000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2016 19:26 Blackfeather wrote:On August 25 2016 04:08 jinjin5000 wrote:On August 23 2016 07:03 a_flayer wrote:On August 23 2016 00:12 Blackfeather wrote:On August 22 2016 23:22 a_flayer wrote:On August 22 2016 22:43 JCoto wrote:On August 22 2016 22:16 Blackfeather wrote:On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I'm just going to throw some shit out there. I don't know what my icon says, but I've only been playing random on those rare occasions that I've played SC2 in the past 5 years or so. I started out as a Zerg player in WoL when I borderlined as a low-level master player (I've been in and out of masters during the first season).
Personally, I'm still upset that they didn't remove the macro mechanics. I just feel like it's detrimental to my enjoyment of the game. I never played as much SC2 as I did in that short time period where they reduced the need for macro mechanics. In addition to that, I feel like units such as the Queen and MSC detract from my freedom to pick and choose my strategies, both in offence (playing against those units) and defence (where they are basically 100% necessary to be built). Add to that the economic "defence" of the MULE (which allows Terran to sustain worker damage and recover from it), and we've covered all three races somewhat in this respect, I think.
Me too. I really hope they will at some point re-evaluate the macro mechanics removal. IMO, one of the major reasons of why they didn't keep this change was that it tipped balance against Terran. With the buffs to mech it may have played out otherwise. From my experience, without macro mechanics your micro in battles became way more important if you played Protoss or Terran (inject was just toned down, so not much of a change for Zerg). I really enjoyed that. On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I would like to see a SC2 where these units just aren't absolutely necessary in order to play the game and at the same time deal with my dislike for the macro mechanics.
Maybe increase the natural larvae spawn of hatcheries to the point where queens aren't necessary, or at least not quite as prolific. Remove the spawn larvae ability of queens or reduce it to 1 larva per inject to make it an optional boost if you want more zerglings for your strategy of choice and increase the cost of the queen (maybe 200/50?) and her abilities (50 energy?) so that maybe you'll just have one or two if you really want to spread creep fast or something.
Change the MULE into something where it can provide a boost to the Terran economy without making it necessary to be dropped constantly. Perhaps allow it to be dropped and convert into a building at a faster rate than normal SCVs build them instead of the harvest-resources-at-an-increased-rate ability.
I'm not sure how to handle the MSC at all. It just seems like such an incredible mess of a unit, as you absolutely 100% cannot go around this unit in any shape way or form when you are playing Protoss. I basically hated sentries throughout WoL and HotS for the same reason. Stuff like that just disgusts me as someone who likes to get a choice in where I invest my resources.
It's bad enough that we have to make all these workers all the time (joke!).
Ah well, it's never gonna happen, I guess. I agree with this completely. Why are there units (other than workers) you basically must build regardless of your strategy? Queens, MULEs and Chrono Boost just add a mechanical barrier but very little strategic-wise. While I agree and always thought that sc2 had too many inflexible elements that take the focus away from actual strategy (yay, macro apm, so interesting...), blizzard made clear that they want the game to be mechanical taxing and they want to keep their dog trainer parts in the game. They reemphasized this again @fundamental changes. I doubt we are going to see any macro changes that aren't +/-costs. So I guess talking about it really serves no purpose I think that what I prosposed above is not a bad solution. I think I've read your proposed solutions before and I found them terribly vague and incomplete. And I still think that. Much like mine, except in different ways. I was really just venting with my original post because I can't be arsed to play the game in the way Blizzard seems to want the game to be played. I wasn't trying to start a discussion or even expecting people to agree with me, lel. Can totally relate to that, was a random plat/diamond player in wol and feel the same about macro mechanics (although I couldn't test it cause I got no beta key). One of the reasons I stopped playing was because Sc2 was for me too much RT and too little S. But the macro mechanics resolution made pretty clear that Blizz wants to keep it that way, or at least keep APM a major factor. I feel that, if you remove artificial macro mechanics, the excessive APM will simply be dedicated to more multi-pronged harassments & engaging the other player in combat instead of macroing. But maybe I'm crazy like that and people will still go for the 1a deathball while APM drops down to next to nothing cause its so easy in SC2 to do that. You need to completely redesign the game then. Macro mechanics balanced each races economy to roughly equal rates despite the differences between them and when blizzard just flat out half heartedly removed macro mechanic back in beta, it was a big imbalanced mess that was nowhere near remotely balanced. Terran w/o mule couldn't even 1/1/1 off one base without significant gaps and asking blizzard to modify every single units cost in relative to eco is too much for a major balance patch. By the way, zerg kept inject on autocast while other races got theirs flat out removed during that patch so other races were significantly nered that time in beta. It isn't a major game design patch you know. Except for the fact that they could just build them in... I mean how hard is it to double larvae production once you have a spawning pool, reduce protoss build times and either give orbitals an aoe that increases mining or just increase mining rates of terran workers nonconditionally? I know that that wouldn't be exactly the same, but their current proposals aren't 100% linear either. Hell the worst approximation is chronoboost, which they could just leave in in it's current form since it doesn't take a lot of apm anyways. Again I don't believe a second that Blizz is gonna do that, but seriously, it's half an hour of numbers crunching if they want it. Tell me what that adds? Autocasted macro mechanics do nothing for the state of game but ensure that the said macro mechanics are automated and easier on newer players and it affects some race more than others (protoss would still need to cast). It adds absolutely nothing to the argument and original points about slowing game down/ect. It's the current version without any macro mechanic that at least serves to differentiate people who use it correctly
You're missing the point, buddy. The argument is not about slowing the game down. It's about shifting APM from macro to micro.
What that would add to the game is pretty obvious, right? More focus on battles, less focus on producing.
Just my personal opinion, but I rather watch great unit control than flawless macro. Not to take away from great macro players, but macro skill is largely invisible to the viewer and even where it's visible (bases and army) it's not nearly as exciting as great unit control.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that the type of match shown above (Canata vs FanTaSy) displays an option that should be available to Terran players. That is, the ability to build mostly factory units and win games up to the GM level, without having that feeling that you are playing the race with the most disadvantages and less options available to it. This is of course under the assumption that the units are balanced and that you are winning your GM level games based on the player's skill level being higher.
Let's face it - most spectated GM Terran streamers are frustrated at the current state of SC2, and this new redesign has the potential to make things right. It is necessary.
All of this being said, I believe that at the Pro (Korean/Kespa) level, Bio play should remain the most powerful strategy in all match-ups - at the very highest level. It takes an incredible investment and and the highest skill level in the game to master the multi-tasking, awareness, and unit micro levels needed to make bio work at the highest level, and it should continue to be rewarded as such. The highest level TvT in the world should definitely be won by the Bio player.
|
On August 26 2016 21:19 PressureSC2 wrote:
I believe that the type of match shown above (Canata vs FanTaSy) displays an option that should be available to Terran players. That is, the ability to build mostly factory units and win games up to the GM level, without having that feeling that you are playing the race with the most disadvantages and less options available to it. This is of course under the assumption that the units are balanced and that you are winning your GM level games based on the player's skill level being higher.
Let's face it - most spectated GM Terran streamers are frustrated at the current state of SC2, and this new redesign has the potential to make things right. It is necessary.
All of this being said, I believe that at the Pro (Korean/Kespa) level, Bio play should remain the most powerful strategy in all match-ups - at the very highest level. It takes an incredible investment and and the highest skill level in the game to master the multi-tasking, awareness, and unit micro levels needed to make bio work at the highest level, and it should continue to be rewarded as such. The highest level TvT in the world should definitely be won by the Bio player.
Hard to say.
Mvp vs yellow and Flash vs jaedong games are similar.
|
On August 26 2016 07:37 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 05:22 jinjin5000 wrote:On August 25 2016 19:26 Blackfeather wrote:On August 25 2016 04:08 jinjin5000 wrote:On August 23 2016 07:03 a_flayer wrote:On August 23 2016 00:12 Blackfeather wrote:On August 22 2016 23:22 a_flayer wrote:On August 22 2016 22:43 JCoto wrote:On August 22 2016 22:16 Blackfeather wrote:On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote:
[quote]
Me too. I really hope they will at some point re-evaluate the macro mechanics removal. IMO, one of the major reasons of why they didn't keep this change was that it tipped balance against Terran. With the buffs to mech it may have played out otherwise.
From my experience, without macro mechanics your micro in battles became way more important if you played Protoss or Terran (inject was just toned down, so not much of a change for Zerg). I really enjoyed that.
[quote]
I agree with this completely. Why are there units (other than workers) you basically must build regardless of your strategy? Queens, MULEs and Chrono Boost just add a mechanical barrier but very little strategic-wise.
While I agree and always thought that sc2 had too many inflexible elements that take the focus away from actual strategy (yay, macro apm, so interesting...), blizzard made clear that they want the game to be mechanical taxing and they want to keep their dog trainer parts in the game. They reemphasized this again @fundamental changes. I doubt we are going to see any macro changes that aren't +/-costs. So I guess talking about it really serves no purpose I think that what I prosposed above is not a bad solution. I think I've read your proposed solutions before and I found them terribly vague and incomplete. And I still think that. Much like mine, except in different ways. I was really just venting with my original post because I can't be arsed to play the game in the way Blizzard seems to want the game to be played. I wasn't trying to start a discussion or even expecting people to agree with me, lel. Can totally relate to that, was a random plat/diamond player in wol and feel the same about macro mechanics (although I couldn't test it cause I got no beta key). One of the reasons I stopped playing was because Sc2 was for me too much RT and too little S. But the macro mechanics resolution made pretty clear that Blizz wants to keep it that way, or at least keep APM a major factor. I feel that, if you remove artificial macro mechanics, the excessive APM will simply be dedicated to more multi-pronged harassments & engaging the other player in combat instead of macroing. But maybe I'm crazy like that and people will still go for the 1a deathball while APM drops down to next to nothing cause its so easy in SC2 to do that. You need to completely redesign the game then. Macro mechanics balanced each races economy to roughly equal rates despite the differences between them and when blizzard just flat out half heartedly removed macro mechanic back in beta, it was a big imbalanced mess that was nowhere near remotely balanced. Terran w/o mule couldn't even 1/1/1 off one base without significant gaps and asking blizzard to modify every single units cost in relative to eco is too much for a major balance patch. By the way, zerg kept inject on autocast while other races got theirs flat out removed during that patch so other races were significantly nered that time in beta. It isn't a major game design patch you know. Except for the fact that they could just build them in... I mean how hard is it to double larvae production once you have a spawning pool, reduce protoss build times and either give orbitals an aoe that increases mining or just increase mining rates of terran workers nonconditionally? I know that that wouldn't be exactly the same, but their current proposals aren't 100% linear either. Hell the worst approximation is chronoboost, which they could just leave in in it's current form since it doesn't take a lot of apm anyways. Again I don't believe a second that Blizz is gonna do that, but seriously, it's half an hour of numbers crunching if they want it. Tell me what that adds? Autocasted macro mechanics do nothing for the state of game but ensure that the said macro mechanics are automated and easier on newer players and it affects some race more than others (protoss would still need to cast). It adds absolutely nothing to the argument and original points about slowing game down/ect. It's the current version without any macro mechanic that at least serves to differentiate people who use it correctly You're missing the point, buddy. The argument is not about slowing the game down. It's about shifting APM from macro to micro. What that would add to the game is pretty obvious, right? More focus on battles, less focus on producing. Just my personal opinion, but I rather watch great unit control than flawless macro. Not to take away from great macro players, but macro skill is largely invisible to the viewer and even where it's visible (bases and army) it's not nearly as exciting as great unit control.
Couldn't have said it better. A lot of the ingame time gets wasted on stuff with no conscious decision and strategy involved. It's also not very flashy. It's mainly running after a clock, especially inject. MULE and chrono have at least a little bit decision making involved.
If you want to slow the game down, you can just reduce mining speed. Slowing the game down a lot would take a major rebalancing anyways, even if production and mining speeds would stay at comparable ratios between the races. T1/t1.5 aren't equal in power (not that I want them to be) and making players spend more time with them means that they have more time to inflict damage before T2 comes out.
Again I doubt that Blizz is going to touch that topic in the near future.
On August 26 2016 21:19 PressureSC2 wrote:
I believe that the type of match shown above (Canata vs FanTaSy) displays an option that should be available to Terran players. That is, the ability to build mostly factory units and win games up to the GM level, without having that feeling that you are playing the race with the most disadvantages and less options available to it. This is of course under the assumption that the units are balanced and that you are winning your GM level games based on the player's skill level being higher.
Let's face it - most spectated GM Terran streamers are frustrated at the current state of SC2, and this new redesign has the potential to make things right. It is necessary.
All of this being said, I believe that at the Pro (Korean/Kespa) level, Bio play should remain the most powerful strategy in all match-ups - at the very highest level. It takes an incredible investment and and the highest skill level in the game to master the multi-tasking, awareness, and unit micro levels needed to make bio work at the highest level, and it should continue to be rewarded as such. The highest level TvT in the world should definitely be won by the Bio player.
Classic answer: take what makes something awesome and scaling with skill and apply it to other stuff. If mech had possibilities for a lot of multipronged harass with split micro while still keeping the space control factor I don't see why it shouldn't be possible for it to require equal skill. I think that's the main reason blizz tried so desperately to make mech-medivac work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
