|
On December 25 2016 22:55 icesergio wrote:
So many people complaining about overcharge, so here is my handy dandy guide to beating a protoss player that has a msc in the early game: For the terrans:
1. Build your army
2. Build ONE siege tank
3. Park your army outside the protoss base so that the pylons are in range
4. Poke up with your mobile army
5. overcharge
6. Get out of range of the overcharge
7. Either stay up enough so your tank has vision or force a second overcharge
8. No more energy
9. Stim up the ramp
10.???
11. Profit
There is an alternative:
Build 2 Medivacs, send one to the main, the toss will send the mama core to overcharge
Load up your things back into the medivac while also stimming up the ramp with the other plotoon of units
???
Profit.
For zerg:
Make an evo chamber
Use the overlord outside the main to morph it into a dropper overloard
Drop 6 lings into his mineral line, the mama core will come up to defend
Run lings/roaches ecc. Into the natural
???
Profit
There you go, I just solved your game breaking dilemma of bad design and aparently invincible protoss ability
you will never solve it because gold players complain always about everything except their race.
|
Must agree about zerg. When hydras had +7 range i was actually curious about playing zerg(or playing lotv at all) so i gave zerg a try. Felt like "inspiration" to play zerg. Felt cool to have a overall good unit on the field, going drops with it etc.
Now when hydras are reverted, meh.
Blizzard revert things for the sake of it it feels :S
Doesnt mean hydras were microable much, with its fast attackspeed.
I dont know man, why dont blizzard try and make micro more effecient on units, it would be so much more fun to play the game aswell.
Thats why CS:Go is so popular and why i even play the game, the skill factor is just insane. Firing the weapons have such a high skill cap.
|
On December 25 2016 22:55 icesergio wrote:
So many people complaining about overcharge, so here is my handy dandy guide to beating a protoss player that has a msc in the early game: For the terrans:
1. Build your army
2. Build ONE siege tank
3. Park your army outside the protoss base so that the pylons are in range
4. Poke up with your mobile army
5. overcharge
6. Get out of range of the overcharge
7. Either stay up enough so your tank has vision or force a second overcharge
8. No more energy
9. Stim up the ramp
10.???
11. Profit
There is an alternative:
Build 2 Medivacs, send one to the main, the toss will send the mama core to overcharge
Load up your things back into the medivac while also stimming up the ramp with the other plotoon of units
....
....
There you go, I just solved your game breaking dilemma of bad design and aparently invincible protoss ability
Often I build the Reactor using a Rax then i swap Starport into the Reactor; that gives me 3 Medivacs. I send an empty Medivac someplace and draw the Protoss to it and then my real drop occurs with 2 other Medivacs packed with Infantry.
Usually, when I lose to Protoss its because my opponent is better than me and 10+ years younger and has better reaction times. It sucks losing to 17 year olds who've been playing the game for less than a year but its the nature of game.
|
On December 26 2016 01:20 Foxxan wrote:
Must agree about zerg. When hydras had +7 range i was actually curious about playing zerg(or playing lotv at all) so i gave zerg a try. Felt like "inspiration" to play zerg. Felt cool to have a overall good unit on the field, going drops with it etc.
Now when hydras are reverted, meh.
Blizzard revert things for the sake of it it feels :S
Doesnt mean hydras were microable much, with its fast attackspeed.
I dont know man, why dont blizzard try and make micro more effecient on units, it would be so much more fun to play the game aswell.
Thats why CS:Go is so popular and why i even play the game, the skill factor is just insane. Firing the weapons have such a high skill cap.
This is really the kind of comments that make me think I'm just happy Blizzard doesn't listen too much to the "community".
Many times here on TL I read beautiful posts, with a lot of research behind (on the macro/economy changes, and so), but most of the time it's just blind whining vs Blizzard as a whole (picking whatever argument just for the sake of complaining), or balance whining from each race (P,T,Z) because the others are "too strong" or OP...
Overall (of course it's my very personal opinion): SC2 is a very good game, it's fun and enjoyable
There are issues of course, but I like the idea to fine tune the balance changes from the current iteration of the game, which, in my opinion, is by far the best one (wrt WOL and HOTS, or early LOTV).
|
On December 26 2016 07:29 VHbb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 01:20 Foxxan wrote:
Must agree about zerg. When hydras had +7 range i was actually curious about playing zerg(or playing lotv at all) so i gave zerg a try. Felt like "inspiration" to play zerg. Felt cool to have a overall good unit on the field, going drops with it etc.
Now when hydras are reverted, meh.
Blizzard revert things for the sake of it it feels :S
Doesnt mean hydras were microable much, with its fast attackspeed.
I dont know man, why dont blizzard try and make micro more effecient on units, it would be so much more fun to play the game aswell.
Thats why CS:Go is so popular and why i even play the game, the skill factor is just insane. Firing the weapons have such a high skill cap.
This is really the kind of comments that make me think I'm just happy Blizzard doesn't listen too much to the "community". Many times here on TL I read beautiful posts, with a lot of research behind (on the macro/economy changes, and so), but most of the time it's just blind whining vs Blizzard as a whole (picking whatever argument just for the sake of complaining), or balance whining from each race (P,T,Z) because the others are "too strong" or OP... Overall (of course it's my very personal opinion): SC2 is a very good game, it's fun and enjoyable There are issues of course, but I like the idea to fine tune the balance changes from the current iteration of the game, which, in my opinion, is by far the best one (wrt WOL and HOTS, or early LOTV).
You: http://i.imgur.com/Uubhkr8.jpg
|
Yep, I think that the fact that i can enjoy a game I like, without ranting at blizzard every time they update us with some changes, as a positive aspect of my life 
|
The problem with any game mechanic people dislike is that it feels unfair to play against. In most cases this means that the opponent's action is mechanically easier to execute than action you wanna execute.
In pylon overcharge's case it means that you just tried to find your way into that base, spending attention there ready to micro your units and the enemy drops an overcharge and possibly kills your unit(s) without much execution at all.
Same is true for any spell in the game, it is not very enjoyable to lose a lot of air units to some vipers simply because it is obviously way easier to use the spells than it would be to split your mutas/vikings/whatever unit it is.
Ofc you cannot have a perfect balance for this, but the bigger the gap the higher the frustration. You can talk about it being a strategy game all you want, but at the end of the day it feels unfair to a lot of people that "superior strategy" (having the better army comp right at that time, etc) almost auto wins situations.
|
On December 26 2016 08:21 VHbb wrote:Yep, I think that the fact that i can enjoy a game I like, without ranting at blizzard every time they update us with some changes, as a positive aspect of my life
Yeah, we should all congratulate blizzard for making a game so bad kespa teams disbanded and top korean players streams get less viewers than boob streamers.
I want to be a positive person too. I'm happy that Life matchfixed, because now other zergs have the opportunity to be the best in the world.
|
On December 26 2016 10:22 xTJx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 08:21 VHbb wrote:Yep, I think that the fact that i can enjoy a game I like, without ranting at blizzard every time they update us with some changes, as a positive aspect of my life Yeah, we should all congratulate blizzard for making a game so bad kespa teams disbanded and top korean players streams get less viewers than boob streamers. I want to be a positive person too. I'm happy that Life matchfixed, because now other zergs have the opportunity to be the best in the world.
To be fair 'and top korean players streams get less viewers than boob streamers.' most streamers would get less viewers than boob streamers.
|
I wonder when Blizzard is going to give the hydralisk a buff so that Zerg can finally have a new unit to play with like they promised us...
In the end due to overwhelming T/P bitching all we ended up with are nerfs...and one stupidly strong infestor which isn't really that fun to play with and feels more like a gimmick. Woo hoo! This is HOTS all over again...
If you're not going to give us any new units, how about 4 larva per inject instead? It would feel great to be swarmy again...
|
it has been 6 years now and people at Blizz still can't admit they don't know what they're doing.
think about it, who in the IT industry gets 6 years time to tweak his product until it's finally stable?
Boing: "with the next update we buff the left engine a bit, this time it REALLY should fly straight"
NASA: "uh.. we missed the moon again, but with the next patch we promise we will make it!"
NSA: "at the moment we are sniffing data from 60% Europeans and only 40% Americans, but we are confident we can achieve a 50% sniff rate within one year"
Ford: "we have been listening very closely to the community and after 6 years we think you might have been right - we will try adding a 4th wheel to the car in the next major update to make it more stable"
|
On December 26 2016 09:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The problem with any game mechanic people dislike is that it feels unfair to play against. In most cases this means that the opponent's action is mechanically easier to execute than action you wanna execute.
In pylon overcharge's case it means that you just tried to find your way into that base, spending attention there ready to micro your units and the enemy drops an overcharge and possibly kills your unit(s) without much execution at all.
Same is true for any spell in the game, it is not very enjoyable to lose a lot of air units to some vipers simply because it is obviously way easier to use the spells than it would be to split your mutas/vikings/whatever unit it is.
Ofc you cannot have a perfect balance for this, but the bigger the gap the higher the frustration. You can talk about it being a strategy game all you want, but at the end of the day it feels unfair to a lot of people that "superior strategy" (having the better army comp right at that time, etc) almost auto wins situations.
Yeah, blizzard should totally create mirror army composition for all 3 races and just let players duke it out in micro war. Whoever has the best micro wins 10 out of 10 times.
Wait, Blizzard already gave us that 20years ago, warcraft2 cough ahem cough.
Sc2 is a RTS game. If you take out "strategy" what does it left with?
Not everyone playing sc2 enjoys splitting, kiting, speed boost & doom drop at multiple locations. The last time I checked, only 1 race have the all the tools to do so.
|
On December 26 2016 11:58 Qwyn wrote:
I wonder when Blizzard is going to give the hydralisk a buff so that Zerg can finally have a new unit to play with like they promised us...
In the end due to overwhelming T/P bitching all we ended up with are nerfs...and one stupidly strong infestor which isn't really that fun to play with and feels more like a gimmick. Woo hoo! This is HOTS all over again...
If you're not going to give us any new units, how about 4 larva per inject instead? It would feel great to be swarmy again...
Exactly this. If u want to make Zerg units so weak, just give us more of them. Its freaking stupid that u designed Zerg as a race with weaker units compensating it with Swarm characteristics. In LOTV u nerfed it by limiting the larva and now we have funny situation in which Terran and Toss have better economy and stronger units through whole early and midgame. So again- if u are nerfing our units again and again- just rebuff our macro and things will be even.
|
On December 26 2016 16:02 fx9 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 09:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The problem with any game mechanic people dislike is that it feels unfair to play against. In most cases this means that the opponent's action is mechanically easier to execute than action you wanna execute.
In pylon overcharge's case it means that you just tried to find your way into that base, spending attention there ready to micro your units and the enemy drops an overcharge and possibly kills your unit(s) without much execution at all.
Same is true for any spell in the game, it is not very enjoyable to lose a lot of air units to some vipers simply because it is obviously way easier to use the spells than it would be to split your mutas/vikings/whatever unit it is.
Ofc you cannot have a perfect balance for this, but the bigger the gap the higher the frustration. You can talk about it being a strategy game all you want, but at the end of the day it feels unfair to a lot of people that "superior strategy" (having the better army comp right at that time, etc) almost auto wins situations. Yeah, blizzard should totally create mirror army composition for all 3 races and just let players duke it out in micro war. Whoever has the best micro wins 10 out of 10 times. Wait, Blizzard already gave us that 20years ago, warcraft2 cough ahem cough. Sc2 is a RTS game. If you take out "strategy" what does it left with? Not everyone playing sc2 enjoys splitting, kiting, speed boost & doom drop at multiple locations. The last time I checked, only 1 race have the all the tools to do so.
The point is not to have mirrors, the point is to try and create interactions which are somewhat similar in mechanical difficulty overall.
I am not advocating for no strategy, but it seems clear that losses which are mainly due to strategic errors (bad scouting, not having the counter composition in time, etc) is frustrating. Again my example about vipers, i don't think anyone thinks it's fun to lose a bunch of air units because it's simply way, way harder to split these than it is to spam the viper ability 5 times. You can argue that the viper player had the superior strategy but it's irrelevant, it's still lame.
Strategy will always be a part of starcraft and that's good. But each strategy you can choose should in the best case scenario be somewhat consistenst in mechanical difficulty to the strategy the opponent has to execute to play against your choice. As i said before, it's obviously impossible to get that right 100% (because it would be a mirror in this case  ) but if the gap is simply too big the game becomes frustrating.
This isn't even about the pace of the game so much,though i would actually agree that it's too fast. Especially the hyper mobility of some things should be reduced (balancing around medivacs was a huge error imo).
Overall it's mostly about spells and massing of certain units though which seems ridiculous. That's where sc2 is at its worst and these interactions would imo need the most attention because throughout its history it seems to be obvious that spamming certain spells (fungal, snipe, storm, infested terrans, forcefield, basically every powerful spell) will always be broken in this game. Air units in general also create problems, that's one thing avilo is spot on btw
|
I can say same thing about widomines, disruptors, high templars and psistorm, new tanks, liberators, ravens with both pdd and seeker missile. Same shit that vipers and its parasatic bomb. The problem is that without Vipers Zerg stands no chance vs air of Toss and Terran and mech. So nerfing vipers means zerg dead race.
|
On December 26 2016 22:33 hiroshOne wrote:
I can say same thing about widomines, disruptors, high templars and psistorm, new tanks, liberators, ravens with both pdd and seeker missile. Same shit that vipers and its parasatic bomb. The problem is that without Vipers Zerg stands no chance vs air of Toss and Terran and mech. So nerfing vipers means zerg dead race.
Yeah sure we can say the same about all kinds of game mechanics and spells. That's the point, that's the problem.
I am also not saying that vipers should ne nerfed per se, in general i want spells to be harder to spam though for sure. I don't care about specific balance points here, i want to make the design 'better' and then balance around that.
|
On December 26 2016 08:16 xTJx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 07:29 VHbb wrote:On December 26 2016 01:20 Foxxan wrote:
Must agree about zerg. When hydras had +7 range i was actually curious about playing zerg(or playing lotv at all) so i gave zerg a try. Felt like "inspiration" to play zerg. Felt cool to have a overall good unit on the field, going drops with it etc.
Now when hydras are reverted, meh.
Blizzard revert things for the sake of it it feels :S
Doesnt mean hydras were microable much, with its fast attackspeed.
I dont know man, why dont blizzard try and make micro more effecient on units, it would be so much more fun to play the game aswell.
Thats why CS:Go is so popular and why i even play the game, the skill factor is just insane. Firing the weapons have such a high skill cap.
This is really the kind of comments that make me think I'm just happy Blizzard doesn't listen too much to the "community". Many times here on TL I read beautiful posts, with a lot of research behind (on the macro/economy changes, and so), but most of the time it's just blind whining vs Blizzard as a whole (picking whatever argument just for the sake of complaining), or balance whining from each race (P,T,Z) because the others are "too strong" or OP... Overall (of course it's my very personal opinion): SC2 is a very good game, it's fun and enjoyable There are issues of course, but I like the idea to fine tune the balance changes from the current iteration of the game, which, in my opinion, is by far the best one (wrt WOL and HOTS, or early LOTV). You: http://i.imgur.com/Uubhkr8.jpg
regarding the burning house...
no other game studio ever made an RTS that made enough profit to build a house. no one else's house is in decline because every one else is homeless and they never had a house to begin with.
EA made enough profit on RTS to pay for blanket, pillow and tent.
RTS stopped being Blizzard's #1 priority more than 10 years ago and they're still far and away the best.
|
On December 26 2016 13:42 imp42 wrote:
it has been 6 years now and people at Blizz still can't admit they don't know what they're doing.
think about it, who in the IT industry gets 6 years time to tweak his product until it's finally stable?
diverse race RTS games almost never get fully balanced.
SC2 came out in July 2010. C&C4 came out in March 2010. How is C&C4 doing?
|
On December 26 2016 22:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 08:16 xTJx wrote:On December 26 2016 07:29 VHbb wrote:On December 26 2016 01:20 Foxxan wrote:
Must agree about zerg. When hydras had +7 range i was actually curious about playing zerg(or playing lotv at all) so i gave zerg a try. Felt like "inspiration" to play zerg. Felt cool to have a overall good unit on the field, going drops with it etc.
Now when hydras are reverted, meh.
Blizzard revert things for the sake of it it feels :S
Doesnt mean hydras were microable much, with its fast attackspeed.
I dont know man, why dont blizzard try and make micro more effecient on units, it would be so much more fun to play the game aswell.
Thats why CS:Go is so popular and why i even play the game, the skill factor is just insane. Firing the weapons have such a high skill cap.
This is really the kind of comments that make me think I'm just happy Blizzard doesn't listen too much to the "community". Many times here on TL I read beautiful posts, with a lot of research behind (on the macro/economy changes, and so), but most of the time it's just blind whining vs Blizzard as a whole (picking whatever argument just for the sake of complaining), or balance whining from each race (P,T,Z) because the others are "too strong" or OP... Overall (of course it's my very personal opinion): SC2 is a very good game, it's fun and enjoyable There are issues of course, but I like the idea to fine tune the balance changes from the current iteration of the game, which, in my opinion, is by far the best one (wrt WOL and HOTS, or early LOTV). You: http://i.imgur.com/Uubhkr8.jpg regarding the burning house... no other game studio ever made an RTS that made enough profit to build a house. no one else's house is in decline because every one else is homeless and they never had a house to begin with. EA made enough profit on RTS to pay for blanket, pillow and tent. RTS stopped being Blizzard's #1 priority more than 10 years ago and they're still far and away the best.
Yes we got it, regarding the whole market sc2 does incredibly well as an rts game. When people are talking about the decline and problems of sc2 they talk about the esports scene and the frustarting game mechanics they see in the game.
Blizzard is bad at handling esports and the current rts team also doesn't seem to be able to produce the best starcraft game possible. We can talk about the market and the whole picture all you want, at the end of the day sc2 is/was as successful as it is/was because of the singleplayer experience. One aspect people here don't really care about though. It is hard to discuss specific examples with you because you refuse to look at these in the favor of talking about the ability of ATVI to print money. It's largely irrelevant to the discussion here though
On December 26 2016 23:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 13:42 imp42 wrote:
it has been 6 years now and people at Blizz still can't admit they don't know what they're doing.
think about it, who in the IT industry gets 6 years time to tweak his product until it's finally stable?
diverse race RTS games almost never get fully balanced. SC2 came out in July 2010. C&C4 came out in March 2010. How is C&C4 doing?
You can cut the "almost". There is no way the game will be truly balanced ever. That's no problem though, as long is it is close enough it's basically no issue for most people. People should focus on the fun part, does it feel fair? Does it feel fun? Does it promote the design goals we had in mind? Does it violate any rts philosphophies which might be important?
Warpgate is a good example.(i know that this will never change) Is it worth it to violate defenders advantage just so we have a unique macro mechanic? It's obvious that warpgates alone create so many problems which have to be fixed in other ways (not the best ones at that either; weaker units, msc, etc) so i have to ask WHY?
|
i'm happy with the game and how Blizzard has supported it the past 6+ years. you are dissatisfied. you're a consumer and you have many choices at your disposal. take all the time u r spending on this issue and use that time to earn money to buy an alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
