EPTIs LotV more fun to watch than HotS? - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Alluton
Finland113 Posts
| ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
On April 11 2017 18:42 BriD wrote: WoL was more fun to watch imo That's just nostalgia, WOL was : TvZ = mass reaper at the beginning, then bunker rush 50% of the game, finally broodlords infestors. ZvP : 4 gates then 7 gates robot, then broodlords infestors vs archons toilets. TvP : 1-1-1. | ||
|
Espartaquen
88 Posts
On April 15 2017 19:12 Alluton wrote: Actually the answer to OP's question is quite simple. You just need to remember how long the downtime at the start of every hots match was. That alone makes lotv far superior imo. I think this is the least relevant argument of them all. This is a strategy game, what matters is the variety and interaction between builds/tech options and micro/macro, not the game starting sooner. This very same argument was used by blizzard in order to promote the 12 worker change and I think it is as stupid as they come (there are other more intelligent ways to defend whether to have more workers or not at the start). If you really are not going to watch or enjoy a starcraft game because you have to wait 4-5 minutes more for both player´s economy to develop, then you should not be playing or watching this game. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On April 15 2017 19:44 Tyrhanius wrote: That's just nostalgia, WOL was : TvZ = mass reaper at the beginning, then bunker rush 50% of the game, finally broodlords infestors. ZvP : 4 gates then 7 gates robot, then broodlords infestors vs archons toilets. TvP : 1-1-1. Nope, not in all of WoL. I can speak for protoss matches only. PvZ: 200/200 at 12 min, 200/200 at 14 min (mass blink stalkers from pro player to beat broodlord/infestor), HerO's warp prism play, soul train (all-in), etc. PvT: Not just 1-1-1, there were a lot of macro games too. Essentially, long macro game > terran though. Still more fun than mass swarm hosts, mass void rays/carriers, oracles, speed mutas and widow mine drops. | ||
|
-Kuya
Australia20 Posts
On April 15 2017 20:28 Shield wrote: Nope, not in all of WoL. I can speak for protoss matches only. PvZ: 200/200 at 12 min, 200/200 at 14 min (mass blink stalkers from pro player to beat broodlord/infestor), HerO's warp prism play, soul train (all-in), etc. PvT: Not just 1-1-1, there were a lot of macro games too. Essentially, long macro game > terran though. Still more fun than mass swarm hosts, mass void rays/carriers, oracles, speed mutas and widow mine drops. Imo every game as a Zerg player became boring to watch/play once the Queen patch hit, and even more so once Broodlord/Queen/Infestor became the dominant meta in both (arguably all 3) matchups. Final nail in my WoL spectator coffin was when Archon toilets became a thing, then the game just felt like Deathball vs Deathball if it ever made it to late. The only saving grace was every now and then MarineKing would pull out a Hellion/Thor timing attack that nobody had seen before. Coming back to LotV after skipping HotS, I'm much happier with the state of the game now even after swapping to Random. 3-Base turtle Protoss (Ala CombX) in particular is something that I don't really miss. | ||
|
loko822
54 Posts
Now most games are going up to 2-3 bases before action and in WOL/Hots that action happened at 1-2 bases. I somewhat miss those 1 base all ins everything feels to safe atm the first few minutes of the game. Also dont forget players just naturally get better so thats probably a big portion where the additional action comes from. Looking at WOL games now makes me almost think my noobass could beat those guys. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
They used brood war sized battles in an sc2 engine (perfect pathing, unlimited selection, smart casting, 2 click terrible terrible damage). Wrong. The game needs to be designed around 30+ unit battles always. | ||
|
todespolka
221 Posts
On April 11 2017 04:44 avilo wrote: Why are there so many people in this thread mistaking two different things? 1500 mineral economy had nothing to do with the terrible swarmhost/raven/collosus ball lazer gameplay of HOTS. Those things were problems in and of themselves - balance/design problems of those units specifically. 1500 mineral economy has been used since Brood War and is proven that having that much resources per base leads to healthy gameplay where you can play either defensively (turtle) or offensively (attack/harass). Removing the minerals per base in LOTV has led to purely offensive (attack/harrass) oriented gameplay with defensive play being punished for no reason at all. DO NOT CONFUSE THE TWO THINGS GUYS. 1500 MINERAL PATCHES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SWARMHOST/TURTLE gameplay. 1500 minerals was never a problem in the first place. You could not turtle in bw either. 1 base protoss vs 2 base terran? As soon as terran gets ahead in bases protoss is so screwed in bw! Also you had more time to profit from more income. In bw maps are bigger, bases are further away which creates more opportunities to attack. In sc2 bases are close, because certain races need a certain number of secure bases. Another reason for less resources was protoss who made one all in after another, even if they failed the next all in could work. Blizzard reduced the minerals a little bit to create more opportunities to attack and to prevent one 2 base all in after another from protoss. In the past only terrans could harass. Hots and lotv gave other races the same number of options to harass. Yes, you see more harass in tournaments now, but only because other races catched up to terran harass, which is totally fair. Naturally terrans enjoyed wol more, because in wol a 3min hellion runby could kill a zerg. Also just because a game worked in a certain way (1500 minerals per crystal), it doesn't mean another game can't work in a different way. You can't compare two so different games with each other. Doesn't it matter how much units cost? Do timings and the difficulty to expand not matter? | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
Even the sc2 engine has limitations in terms of how combat efficient units can be relative to the battle size. In brood war this occurs early in the game with few units due the the pathing and limitations on unit selection. In sc2 this limitation occurs much later: take for example a 50 stalker ball and a 24 stalker ball. The 50 stalker ball pretty much has stalkers in the back doing nothing especially when you factor in terrain. Whereas the 24 stalker ball has all of them covering eachother from lings and they can blink in with good mobility and all take a shot at buildings etc. The combat characteristics here are mostly determined by the stalker speed, blink range, stalker range, collision size, and of course the pathing fluidity. Another example, what is 2 extra zealots in a 15 zealot squad, pretty huge with the sc2 engine, not so much in brood war. But then lets say what is 5 zealots in a 60 zealot squad, not so much even in the sc2 engine; diminishing returns of combat efficiency. A first draft of this idea to considerably increase the production pace would be some combination of: considerably faster build time for units, considerably cheaper resource cost for units, considerably faster mining rate, reduced DPS. Example: reduce all combat unit build times from 100% to 33% reduce all combat unit cost from 100% to 33% reduce combat unit DPS from 100% to 66% This gives a much finer mechanical difference in terms of production and combat. Brood war has automine and mbs related tasks, here we can have very tight production cycles and very large battles. Your're attention spending on macro has more impact again; better macro differentiation. What made brood war battles interesting is you never knew for sure what the units behavior would do. In sc2 you need to get to large armies to be unsure of what squads in the back/flanks will do. | ||
|
Xalorian
Canada433 Posts
I stopped watching completly during HotS. I hated SH so bad, it killed the game for me. I feel like LotV has great fundamentals and i'm still loving it as of yet, but I hate adepts and liberator more and more every day. I feel like they need to tweak some animations to make it more enjoyable to watch ravagers/liberators/lurkers. So hard to track the damage output and to be excited about what is happening when you almost have no idea what is hitting what, where and for how much. | ||
|
Netto.
Poland523 Posts
| ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
Waxangel
United States33660 Posts
| ||
|
Meepman
Canada610 Posts
| ||
|
SlammerSC2
77 Posts
| ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On April 16 2017 05:04 SlammerSC2 wrote: Protoss players probably find lotv much more fun to play. Not sure if this was meant to be sarcastic. I stopped playing because Protoss lost all strategic depth in lotv. Make adepts, harass with them, allin with them, etc. and hope you do enough damage to clean up with other units or win outright. | ||
|
WhosQuany
Germany257 Posts
On April 10 2017 00:10 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: I bet that "NO" voters never played this game srsly LotV indeed much better both to play and watch in comparison to WoL/Hots I totally agree! | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
On April 16 2017 02:39 Meepman wrote: At this point I feel like most people in the community agree that the sc2 engine gets in the way of a great game. Things like unlimited selection and smart casting make it impossible to not climax in a deathball vs deathball fight. I feel it's not so much the engine, but the fact that we forcefully injected a lot of design ideas from brood war into sc2 when the engines are so far apart. Have 1 dragoon around the time we have 1 stalker... why? Why do you think the production pace should be the same when the engine clearly handles mass units very differently. Things like resource gathering, tech timings, unit costs, and unit build times among other things. These things I feel should be determined after you set the collision radius, attack range, mobility, and pathfinding behavior (and especially after major design decisions such as automine, MBS, unlimited selection, smart casting, etc.). Currently, sc2 engine is trying to make brood war sized battles interesting instead of trying to find the correct scale for various game parameters to suit the engine behaviors. | ||
Mizenhauer
United States1941 Posts
You know, I voted no, but only because I felt so strongly on the subject that I spent a lot of time writing an article to prove that my opinion was not just valid, but defensible. A lot of people in this thread on both sides share poorly founded opinions passed off as fact and expect it to convince anyone of anything. This is real hot button issue that triggers a lot of reflexive rehashed, recycled responses that a lot of people heard from someone else and took as doctrine. I could tell you all the reasons why I think HotS is better (you can read a couple of them in the article if you're interested), but even though I presented them in a logical, structured fashion, you (and almost everyone who agrees with you) wouldn't care. This issue might as well be politics. The two camps are so entrenched on either side that real progressive discussion is impossible. | ||
|
Lssfs234
United States9 Posts
| ||
| ||
