Reasons for downfall of SC2 in Korea and Solution - Page 9

On October 06 2016 19:00 Denjor1elf wrote:
im fine with the game ballance and when we look on the pro tournaments its pretty even between the races.
crying about the game balance because people are not able to master the game is stupid and makes no sense

On October 06 2016 19:30 Highways wrote:
I agree that design is what killed SC2.

Rather than fixing up the fundamentals of the game, David Kim only cares about little stats here and there to achieve balance.

LotV should have been a major revamp of the whole game, but they went for the safe easy route.

Issues are:
- Lack of micro (see the famous TL article Depth of micro) This was published in 2013 and Blizzard has done nothing.

- Warp gates. Gives no defenders advantage and encourages Protoss all-ins.

- One 2 second battle decides the game, units have way too much DPS.

- Too many attack move units that do massive damage (protoss collosus deathballs, banelings etc...)


Seriously LotV should've fixed up fundamental flaws, but they went for the increase bunker build time by 5 seconds route.

At least Co-Op is massive and fun in SC2, that will be the main mode people play now.

On October 03 2016 01:21 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Just say it like it is and cut the tldr out brother

Blizzard put a man who ruined Dawn of War in a position to balance the most complex and in depth RTS ever created maybe besides Brood War.

Just look at David Kims method of operation, there really isn't one, he has been floundering around and flip flopping since day 1 pretty much with no clear concise vision of what he wants to do or where he wants the game to go.

Anyone remember Ghosts and blue flame hellions? They got abused for maybe 1 or 2 tournaments and Kim promptly brings the nerf hammer down, then when BL/Infestor chased away 1/4 of the viewers and was obviously imbalanced we had to deal with it for 6 months while the balance team say on their hands claiming that waiting it out was the way to go.

Theres multitudes of examples like this throughout the patches that I'm sure everyone here remembers so theres little need to harp on them all, but still, you can't put someone incompetent in charge and then except things to go good, that doesn't work in real life, and it didn't work with SC2.

On October 06 2016 21:31 FoxDog wrote:
Here is my solution which is mindnumbingly obvious to anyone with proper balance experience

what i mean is that you should be able to set a minimum league to post when you make a new thread to keep the feedback relevant

what you need is channeled feedback, one for casuals one for pros achieved through league locking the bnet forum so we can have serious discussions and have a dialogue with david kim or blizzards devs/managers without being pitchforked by lowleaguers


im masters every season ive played since wol beta and i dont post on bnet forums because i will get -30 and twenty people in gold saying "you are biased" when i post nothing but objective facts and welcome discussion where/when am i wrong and how, instead people just throw aspersions and ad hominems because they dont have any real arguments because again they are bad at the game.

Without a league lock everyone thinks they are gm level and balance applies directly to them and so the forums would be flooded with balance complaints, bnet forums have a solution to this they are not implementing making the bnet forums unserious.

Just to prove balance does not apply to average joe, if you learned to split your marines recently, banelings were not overpowered before that, you just didnt know how to deal with them

but to a novice obviously banelings will SEEM imbalanced because they require an unintuitive solution, same goes for mech, lategame protoss, ultras etc

On October 06 2016 22:49 InfCereal wrote:


It didn't change anything, though. I have to take a fourth earlier to support 3 base economy, but that changes nothing. Right now, you build your fourth, it finishes, you move 8 workers from the main to the fourth. When the rest of the main mines out, you move the other 8 down.

Basically what they did was artificially upped the base count. Before, you needed 3 for a longer game. Now you need 4 for a longer game. Oh boy, so different.

On October 06 2016 17:50 LongShot27 wrote:


I will concede the adept is a problem, and I wish the unit had never been implemented.

On October 06 2016 21:31 FoxDog wrote:
im masters every season ive played since wol beta and i dont post on bnet forums because i will get -30 and twenty people in gold saying "you are biased" when i post nothing but objective facts and welcome discussion where/when am i wrong and how, instead people just throw aspersions and ad hominems because they dont have any real arguments because again they are bad at the game.

On October 07 2016 11:35 RCCar wrote:
BW ladder was as every bit stressful as SC2 ladder. I'm a big advocate of the "SC2 sucked bc of terribad UMS."
People complain harass is too op in SC2.
A reaver gets your entire mineral line while you take 3 seconds off to click on your macro structures in the natural.
1 DT can still ruin the entire game if you don't prepare for it after meticulous scouting, defilers and statis field are BS, bio isn't viable vs protoss unless you're going for an half all in bichanic timing attack (switch bio to mech, you get SC2 - just gives me the giggles every time.), vultures are too op, they should cost at least some gas for the mines... I never see ghosts in play... BoxeR has no golden mouse...
All words I wrote on a korean SC community back in the 2000s.
Never has there been complete satisfaction with a game- even if it was 'the' SCBW. I find a lot of the complaints I had in SCBW transition into SC2, which is why I don't understand people saying BW was so much better. (Especially people who play fastest. Fastest kinda turns into a dull, never ending macro, A move, try to harass through 123456543234563 turrets. whoever gets off 1 good harass and gets a trade with their army wins with the next wave. I don't see how they play it.)

I know I was first introduced to SC because of a UMS called Zergling Blood. My uncle showed 6 yo me how to play it, and I was in love with the game since. It wasn't until much later I would actually try out 1v1 and become a salty random player on GameI.

P.S. I sometimes hear the words
BW was more balanced than SC2.
Most bs argument I've ever seen. I know people say that BW was balanced, but I think this is a most common misconception of the nostalgia goggles kicking in. BW was so imbalanced that you ended up fixing the winrate with heavy race favored maps. Vultures are OP- I do admit it as a former dirty Random player. But you know what? Stasis field OP, Dark swarm OP!
But on the maps, I actually think that this is an awesome idea, fix balance through maps,because
1. mappers don't need to focus on perfect 3 race balance as much,
2. you could get cooler looking dynamics suited for PvZ but not so much PvT, which is OK, because the underperforming race can ban it.
3. maps with specific race matches in mind can be themed to fit that. A good Terran map could be themed Korean War, and take the theme of a famous Korean War battlefield. Many TvTs will be played on it and it will be kewl.''

On October 07 2016 12:02 RCCar wrote:

You seem to be saying that vultures aren't op because scrubs use them. No, they're op because scrubs play scrubs (not really because matchmaking is garbage in BW), but in a similar skillset, vultures do their worth with very minimum effort- after they deposit their 3 spider mines. I don't know if this is a thing in TL but people used to say "get a vulture for every 3 mines you purchase!" FanTaSy was a hero because he knew not only how to press 'i' and shart out spider mines, but also how to utilize the unit itself to the max.
I don't know why balance has you triggered all of a sudden. It is a fact that while SC2 maps divide maps into macro and rush categories, BW would blatantly make maps where a certain race was weak. Take the era back when Sav***(may his name be forever cursed) and Zerg would dominate the entire game with its Lair triforce tech. We got freaking 'longinus', the most biased freaking map against Zerg. If you look at the name, the spear that penetrated Jesus Christ the savior, you know who the fuck the map was gunning for.
Also, I don't know what you mean when 'any race can win at any point in the game'. It was pretty obvious in BW that Terran was the turtle race that would have its strengths in the late game with 3/3 mech while Toss was the gimicky race which would have to recall and field its way before Terran got its upgrade in stride(I think 2/1 was when T started to tilt the scale), Zerg was very strong in its lair tech back in the day, especially vs P with its stupid mass hydra rush. There were definitely all ins and timings you could do in SCBW, but I would say that SC2 is actually entirely made of timing rushes.

On October 07 2016 12:23 petro1987 wrote:


I was essentialy saying that units being "OP" in a vaccum is pretty much pointless. Every race has their "OP" units and the game is balanced as a whole. Yes, vultures are obviously efficient units, but even in pro games, you could easily see that only a handful of pros could actually make them look OP.

Some maps were (very) good for certain races in BW. But this also was true for SC2. Hell, I've see people complaining about map pools in SC2 a lot. So your point here is moot.

Terran was the turtle race? Since when? Flash style in TvP (one matchup) is defensive, but not what I would call turtly. He harass a lot. Fantasy and others played a much more offensive style, depending on the map. In TvZ is completely different though. Terran is usually the aggressor. See? The game has a mix of styles depending on the matchup. Your generalizations aren't exactly correct.

I guess the most important point that I was trying to make though is that the game at least FEELS more balanced and fair in every skill level. You don't see people complaining all the time about balance in BW forums.