|
On May 13 2017 00:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
its funny watching guys like SjoW and Avilo attempt other races thinking they'll easily steamroll their opponents only to discover its not that easy.
Or be Scarlett. Claim protoss is easy race which can be played with one hand. https://twitter.com/onfirescarlett/status/480801440307236865?lang=en
Play as protoss vs DRG. Win Game.
|
United States1951 Posts
DRG played extremely greedily and didn't scout for a really simple (and generally considered bad) all in. He lost that game because he played terribly, not because she was playing Protoss.
|
On May 12 2017 21:47 Ransomstarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 13:51 hiroshOne wrote:On May 12 2017 03:24 youngjiddle wrote:On May 11 2017 06:18 Tyrhanius wrote:
P and T shouldn't receive any buffs, particulary vs Z, and a fortiori they shouldn't get some lategame buff.
Just take a look on the last tournaments, Zerg isn't competitive.
P and T just repete their builds, and if they do it right, they end up being ahead, even if Zerg scout it, know it's coming, and have seen this buff 1000 times already, it keeps working.
Protoss kit is the most insane thing vs Zerg.
They now have an even economy than Zerg, and always more drone on early game. This is already insane.
But Protoss has now uncounterable harass. With oracle, WP pickup, adept shade, Protoss is able to kill drones without any loss, while they have already more probe than the zerg...
There is nothing zerg can do if the P is able to control his units right, he will fall behind in economy.
After the Zerg need to make something, else the "macro game" is designed to make him lose, so he makes a random timing with some random composition, and pray.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails. Zerg hasn't really played better when it works compared when he get crushed, it's just :
Has the protoss player been surprised or not, transition too fast, or too slow, hasn't look when baneling runbies/baneling drops come.
When it's ladder, or BO3, Zerg can take some games, but when it's BO5-BO7, Zerg hasn't won any premier tournaments for 8 months... I mean, the current meta is zerg has to macro up and defend up to 70~ drones while protoss of terran has to do some damage with their good harrass, or else the zerg gets ahead. and honestly it's the meta that blizzard has force with warp prism pickup range and medivac boost. Is it bad? not exactly. Blizzard reduced the requirement for overlord drop to compensate yet zergs complain they have no tools either. We can't pretend that zerg doesn't have timings like banes, ling drops, or ravagers... and honestly it's what kind of game do you want. and I don't get how you can say that the Protoss kit is the most insane thing vs zerg when zerg has many compositions it can go vs. the standard protoss builds. is the toss going zealot archon? do you want to go roach/hydra/infestor? how about ling/bane/hydra? maybe harrass with spire to keep the toss back and do damage then transition to brood lords? at least on ladder zerg has a lot of viable options. at top level it seems bane hydra is just the best, don't forget the small hydra health buff. All things u wrote would be cool if not macro nerf that Zerg received in LOTV. The biggest nerf compared to other races. And how u can even compare overlord drops to harras options aviable for T or P? Its not even fair. The problem is that even if Zerg is droning like crazy he will be even in income with protoss and Terran (mules) and by droning he lacks of real army. In the same time LOTV harras has been buffed so much for Terran and Protoss that boosted medivacks are the least of the problem. Revert larva nerf back to 4 and it will be fine. Zerg would have more chances to get lil bit ahead with eco into midgame. P.S. Avilo...Ravagers feel strong versus Your Style of massing ststic defence or immobile defences like tanks. In other situation Corrosive Bile is not as easy to hit as you think. Much harder than shift+queue medivack drops or setting mass liberation zones. Watch Innovation vs. Soo from Basetrade yesterday (Thursday, May 11). Spoilers ahead, here's how the series goes. In the first game, Innovation loses for 2 reasons. First, he doesn't know exactly what Soo plans to do with his army. His focus on attacking units only leaves him open to the harass. Second, Soo has a better economy the entire mid and late game. When the game ends, the resources lost is 4000 more for Soo. Imagine what this game would have looked like if Soo was making an extra drone or army unit every cycle. In the second game, Innovation wins because Soo takes a bad engagement off creep and then some bad baneling hits. In the third game, Innovation loses because of exactly the issues we've been talking about here. He tries to open with a harass build, Soo builds Roach/Ravager and walks right over him. Zerg has options. Soo beat Innovation with Muta/Ling/Bane and also with Roach Ravager. He beat him with harass and with brute force. Here we have 2 players who are pretty evenly matched, and it seems outside the realm of any sort of balance to imagine Soo with an extra worker or army unit every cycle.
Terran macro booster didn't change much since HOTS. Zerg had 4 larva inject there and it was pretty much even in MLB vs bio with mines. And we're talking about expansion where Terran had no buffed tanks and Liberators. So....Yeah i can imagine soO with one drone more per cycle. Maybe than Zerg could compete with Protoss chronoboosting nexuses or Terran dropping mule hammer.
|
On May 12 2017 21:47 Ransomstarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 13:51 hiroshOne wrote:On May 12 2017 03:24 youngjiddle wrote:On May 11 2017 06:18 Tyrhanius wrote:
P and T shouldn't receive any buffs, particulary vs Z, and a fortiori they shouldn't get some lategame buff.
Just take a look on the last tournaments, Zerg isn't competitive.
P and T just repete their builds, and if they do it right, they end up being ahead, even if Zerg scout it, know it's coming, and have seen this buff 1000 times already, it keeps working.
Protoss kit is the most insane thing vs Zerg.
They now have an even economy than Zerg, and always more drone on early game. This is already insane.
But Protoss has now uncounterable harass. With oracle, WP pickup, adept shade, Protoss is able to kill drones without any loss, while they have already more probe than the zerg...
There is nothing zerg can do if the P is able to control his units right, he will fall behind in economy.
After the Zerg need to make something, else the "macro game" is designed to make him lose, so he makes a random timing with some random composition, and pray.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails. Zerg hasn't really played better when it works compared when he get crushed, it's just :
Has the protoss player been surprised or not, transition too fast, or too slow, hasn't look when baneling runbies/baneling drops come.
When it's ladder, or BO3, Zerg can take some games, but when it's BO5-BO7, Zerg hasn't won any premier tournaments for 8 months... I mean, the current meta is zerg has to macro up and defend up to 70~ drones while protoss of terran has to do some damage with their good harrass, or else the zerg gets ahead. and honestly it's the meta that blizzard has force with warp prism pickup range and medivac boost. Is it bad? not exactly. Blizzard reduced the requirement for overlord drop to compensate yet zergs complain they have no tools either. We can't pretend that zerg doesn't have timings like banes, ling drops, or ravagers... and honestly it's what kind of game do you want. and I don't get how you can say that the Protoss kit is the most insane thing vs zerg when zerg has many compositions it can go vs. the standard protoss builds. is the toss going zealot archon? do you want to go roach/hydra/infestor? how about ling/bane/hydra? maybe harrass with spire to keep the toss back and do damage then transition to brood lords? at least on ladder zerg has a lot of viable options. at top level it seems bane hydra is just the best, don't forget the small hydra health buff. All things u wrote would be cool if not macro nerf that Zerg received in LOTV. The biggest nerf compared to other races. And how u can even compare overlord drops to harras options aviable for T or P? Its not even fair. The problem is that even if Zerg is droning like crazy he will be even in income with protoss and Terran (mules) and by droning he lacks of real army. In the same time LOTV harras has been buffed so much for Terran and Protoss that boosted medivacks are the least of the problem. Revert larva nerf back to 4 and it will be fine. Zerg would have more chances to get lil bit ahead with eco into midgame. P.S. Avilo...Ravagers feel strong versus Your Style of massing ststic defence or immobile defences like tanks. In other situation Corrosive Bile is not as easy to hit as you think. Much harder than shift+queue medivack drops or setting mass liberation zones. Watch Innovation vs. Soo from Basetrade yesterday (Thursday, May 11). Spoilers ahead, here's how the series goes. In the first game, Innovation loses for 2 reasons. First, he doesn't know exactly what Soo plans to do with his army. His focus on attacking units only leaves him open to the harass. Second, Soo has a better economy the entire mid and late game. When the game ends, the resources lost is 4000 more for Soo. Imagine what this game would have looked like if Soo was making an extra drone or army unit every cycle. In the second game, Innovation wins because Soo takes a bad engagement off creep and then some bad baneling hits. In the third game, Innovation loses because of exactly the issues we've been talking about here. He tries to open with a harass build, Soo builds Roach/Ravager and walks right over him. Zerg has options. Soo beat Innovation with Muta/Ling/Bane and also with Roach Ravager. He beat him with harass and with brute force. Here we have 2 players who are pretty evenly matched, and it seems outside the realm of any sort of balance to imagine Soo with an extra worker or army unit every cycle.
In a GSL/IEM game Innovation washes the floor with soO every single time.
|
small sample size.
both players' reactions to that game indicate Scarlett can't have long term success with Protoss playing with 1 hand.
|
On May 13 2017 00:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 07:29 Suchbalancemuchwow wrote:
Also I'd like to point out the importance of the played ratio of races. Regardless of the races ''real strength'', ladder's population is quite skewed by zergs. This would either mean that zerg is fun, easy to play, and very strong. Or.. that the other races atleast to most people feel very weak and or are boring to play. Let me remind you by the way that zerg has to play against zergs. It takes one 1 minute of watching twitch chat to see how people feel about ZvZ. (They feel the same about PvP thanks to the disruptor and carrier now though so, there's that.
I always end up at the same conclusion anyway. Blizzard should just balance per matchup to make all matchups fun and yet balanced to play. It's far too hard to keep the game fun whilst also balanced if they want to keep the same stats on all units, in all matchups, and for all game modes. SC2 as it stands is balanced at the highest lvl of play in 1v1. (And I hope fun for those people) That's all it has really achieved.
A diverse 3-race RTS can only be balanced at 1 level. People below that level have to accept that fact. my best race is zerg but i play terran mainly. i don't worry about the fact that i could've beaten a player with my Zerg game. i just consider playing Terran part of the challenge. i can understand why a player who lives off of event prize money can be upset about imbalance. how many people in this thread live off of prize money? its funny watching guys like SjoW and Avilo attempt other races thinking they'll easily steamroll their opponents only to discover its not that easy.
You realize that people play to have fun and that for most people that is a mix between winning and playing a race that's fun to play. People worry about their self-image and all that crap on ladder. It's why there's such a thing as ladder anxiety and unranked. Not everyone is a masochist that wants to play with 1 hand behind their back.
For noobs it's obvious that A move zerg is currently the best way to win. All non z's below diamond opt for an all-in. And like I tried to prove, playing vs all-ins in LOTV is especially annoying.
Also ''a diverse 3-race RTS can only be balanced at 1 level'' Well I won't deny that it'll only be balanced at the top level. But the diverse-3 race thing is just because they refuse to balance races around singular matchups.
Like you could change TvP whilst keeping the current TvZ as it is. You could delete the adept/oracle revelation 60 seconds pylon overcharge and buff gateway units all that jazz. Without impacting the game for TvZ.
You could remove speed medivacs in TvT and keep them in all other matchups (doomdrops always end TvT's)
You could remove the disruptor in PvP and keep them in all other matchups (disruptor causes carriers)
And for teammodes you could just roll back the 12 worker start and move ravager's to lair for a start.
If there's too little variety in a matchup (TvZ according to the mech crowd) you could just buff mech only in that matchup etc.
Instead here we are debating over whether giving combat shields to the baneling and the hydra didn't fuck up the matchup it wasn't intended to screw over (like banelings vs protoss). It's quite simple really, there are too many units with too many spells and there's too many matchups. So simply remove the amount of variables you need to account for by splitting them up. Aka balancing per matchup and gamemode. Balancing in this manner allows for a lot more freedom and that means easier access to making a fun game. To me it's so damn elementary that I wonder why it hasn't happened yet, so I expect to be called delusional or something along those lines in a reply.
At the very least i'd like to see them differentiate between the stats and availability of 1v1 units and teammode units.
I hope I made myself clear now? Really, hope I did.
|
For noobs it's obvious that A move zerg is currently the best way to win. All non z's below diamond opt for an all-in. And like I tried to prove, playing vs all-ins in LOTV is especially annoying.
Dear God what a scrub you are lol
|
On May 13 2017 05:44 jpg06051992 wrote:Show nested quote +For noobs it's obvious that A move zerg is currently the best way to win. All non z's below diamond opt for an all-in. And like I tried to prove, playing vs all-ins in LOTV is especially annoying.
Dear God what a scrub you are lol
haha I was going to post this exact response
if you're losing to an all-in and not Code S, then the game balance is not your problem and changing the game to accommodate you would eliminate depth and alienate higher level players on the ladder due to the simplification
|
On May 13 2017 05:51 Meepman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 05:44 jpg06051992 wrote:For noobs it's obvious that A move zerg is currently the best way to win. All non z's below diamond opt for an all-in. And like I tried to prove, playing vs all-ins in LOTV is especially annoying.
Dear God what a scrub you are lol haha I was going to post this exact response if you're losing to an all-in and not Code S, then the game balance is not your problem and changing the game to accommodate you would eliminate depth and alienate higher level players on the ladder due to the simplification
Calling all-in depth is the problem here.
|
On May 13 2017 06:01 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 05:51 Meepman wrote:On May 13 2017 05:44 jpg06051992 wrote:For noobs it's obvious that A move zerg is currently the best way to win. All non z's below diamond opt for an all-in. And like I tried to prove, playing vs all-ins in LOTV is especially annoying.
Dear God what a scrub you are lol haha I was going to post this exact response if you're losing to an all-in and not Code S, then the game balance is not your problem and changing the game to accommodate you would eliminate depth and alienate higher level players on the ladder due to the simplification Calling all-in depth is the problem here.
A variety of strats is a problem?
|
On May 13 2017 05:51 Meepman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 05:44 jpg06051992 wrote:For noobs it's obvious that A move zerg is currently the best way to win. All non z's below diamond opt for an all-in. And like I tried to prove, playing vs all-ins in LOTV is especially annoying.
Dear God what a scrub you are lol haha I was going to post this exact response if you're losing to an all-in and not Code S, then the game balance is not your problem and changing the game to accommodate you would eliminate depth and alienate higher level players on the ladder due to the simplification
So unless your code S, the game balance is not your problem, even though the game balancing also dictates how games are played for casual players? So if you get the worst possible gameplay as a noob it's not a problem, because it's balanced at the code S level? Yea okay, seems legit. Who cares about the majority of the players of starcraft 2 right.
I'm apparently also a scrub for stating an opinion about lower level gameplay in general, okay. So if anyone says something about lower level leagues they are instantly a scrub. Truly I am learning a lot here.
What I meant to say about all-in strategies in LOTV is that they hit faster and are a lot harder to scout than in earlier iterations of sc2. They also deal damage more quickly because of the sheer number of units. Not to mention that the adept/invincible nydus and the ravager are all exceptionally nasty to deal with when your not a scrub. Which is atleast around diamond or masters league.
Oh well, your free to love the game as it is, I'm just saying that it's not casual friendly that's all. Ironically nor are you guys.
Guess I'll just be rational and make this my last post, clearly scrubs aren't wanted.
|
On May 13 2017 06:02 Meepman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 06:01 Foxxan wrote:On May 13 2017 05:51 Meepman wrote:On May 13 2017 05:44 jpg06051992 wrote:For noobs it's obvious that A move zerg is currently the best way to win. All non z's below diamond opt for an all-in. And like I tried to prove, playing vs all-ins in LOTV is especially annoying.
Dear God what a scrub you are lol haha I was going to post this exact response if you're losing to an all-in and not Code S, then the game balance is not your problem and changing the game to accommodate you would eliminate depth and alienate higher level players on the ladder due to the simplification Calling all-in depth is the problem here. A variety of strats is a problem?
God is a problem?
|
On May 12 2017 21:47 Ransomstarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 13:51 hiroshOne wrote:On May 12 2017 03:24 youngjiddle wrote:On May 11 2017 06:18 Tyrhanius wrote:
P and T shouldn't receive any buffs, particulary vs Z, and a fortiori they shouldn't get some lategame buff.
Just take a look on the last tournaments, Zerg isn't competitive.
P and T just repete their builds, and if they do it right, they end up being ahead, even if Zerg scout it, know it's coming, and have seen this buff 1000 times already, it keeps working.
Protoss kit is the most insane thing vs Zerg.
They now have an even economy than Zerg, and always more drone on early game. This is already insane.
But Protoss has now uncounterable harass. With oracle, WP pickup, adept shade, Protoss is able to kill drones without any loss, while they have already more probe than the zerg...
There is nothing zerg can do if the P is able to control his units right, he will fall behind in economy.
After the Zerg need to make something, else the "macro game" is designed to make him lose, so he makes a random timing with some random composition, and pray.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails. Zerg hasn't really played better when it works compared when he get crushed, it's just :
Has the protoss player been surprised or not, transition too fast, or too slow, hasn't look when baneling runbies/baneling drops come.
When it's ladder, or BO3, Zerg can take some games, but when it's BO5-BO7, Zerg hasn't won any premier tournaments for 8 months... I mean, the current meta is zerg has to macro up and defend up to 70~ drones while protoss of terran has to do some damage with their good harrass, or else the zerg gets ahead. and honestly it's the meta that blizzard has force with warp prism pickup range and medivac boost. Is it bad? not exactly. Blizzard reduced the requirement for overlord drop to compensate yet zergs complain they have no tools either. We can't pretend that zerg doesn't have timings like banes, ling drops, or ravagers... and honestly it's what kind of game do you want. and I don't get how you can say that the Protoss kit is the most insane thing vs zerg when zerg has many compositions it can go vs. the standard protoss builds. is the toss going zealot archon? do you want to go roach/hydra/infestor? how about ling/bane/hydra? maybe harrass with spire to keep the toss back and do damage then transition to brood lords? at least on ladder zerg has a lot of viable options. at top level it seems bane hydra is just the best, don't forget the small hydra health buff. All things u wrote would be cool if not macro nerf that Zerg received in LOTV. The biggest nerf compared to other races. And how u can even compare overlord drops to harras options aviable for T or P? Its not even fair. The problem is that even if Zerg is droning like crazy he will be even in income with protoss and Terran (mules) and by droning he lacks of real army. In the same time LOTV harras has been buffed so much for Terran and Protoss that boosted medivacks are the least of the problem. Revert larva nerf back to 4 and it will be fine. Zerg would have more chances to get lil bit ahead with eco into midgame. P.S. Avilo...Ravagers feel strong versus Your Style of massing ststic defence or immobile defences like tanks. In other situation Corrosive Bile is not as easy to hit as you think. Much harder than shift+queue medivack drops or setting mass liberation zones. Watch Innovation vs. Soo from Basetrade yesterday (Thursday, May 11). Spoilers ahead, here's how the series goes. In the first game, Innovation loses for 2 reasons. First, he doesn't know exactly what Soo plans to do with his army. His focus on attacking units only leaves him open to the harass. Second, Soo has a better economy the entire mid and late game. When the game ends, the resources lost is 4000 more for Soo. Imagine what this game would have looked like if Soo was making an extra drone or army unit every cycle. In the second game, Innovation wins because Soo takes a bad engagement off creep and then some bad baneling hits. In the third game, Innovation loses because of exactly the issues we've been talking about here. He tries to open with a harass build, Soo builds Roach/Ravager and walks right over him. Zerg has options. Soo beat Innovation with Muta/Ling/Bane and also with Roach Ravager. He beat him with harass and with brute force. Here we have 2 players who are pretty evenly matched, and it seems outside the realm of any sort of balance to imagine Soo with an extra worker or army unit every cycle.
Yeah, Inno vs soO is a really bad example to use, even if your point about 4 larva is completely correct. Inno wins 2/3rds of their tournament games and most of those aren't even close. I remember commenting on their matchups in GSLTV and most of Inno vs soO can basically be summarized as: "Inno punches soO in the face a few times and soO falls over dead."
Inno vs Dark is a much better picture of TvZ at the very highest level, and they are virtually dead-even.
http://aligulac.com/m/m3zeQBShYTAtGJd9
Regardless, 4 larva is an utterly ridiculous suggestion and would totally break the current balance (which has been ~50% ever since 3.8 and even before that). LotV is not HotS, but LotV TvZ is still well-balanced just like HotS TvZ. Throw in the fact that the current meta is extremely entertaining to watch and anyone who suggests messing with it must be crazy-biased or just pure crazy. And this applies just as much to the mech whiners as the Zerg whiners.
We don't need turtle mech, and we don't need 4 larva. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
And for that one smartass who says "it's broke," take a look at these TvZ numbers first and shut up.
http://aligulac.com/periods/188/
http://aligulac.com/periods/187/
http://aligulac.com/periods/186
http://aligulac.com/periods/185/
http://aligulac.com/periods/184/
http://aligulac.com/periods/183/
http://aligulac.com/periods/182/
http://aligulac.com/periods/181/
http://aligulac.com/periods/180/
http://aligulac.com/periods/179/
http://aligulac.com/periods/178/
http://aligulac.com/periods/177/
http://aligulac.com/periods/176/
On May 12 2017 22:30 Karpfen wrote:
As a Zerg player, I really think people advocating for an inject buff with the current zerg units are mental.
Could not have said it better myself.
|
On May 13 2017 06:43 pvsnp wrote: Throw in the fact that the current meta is extremely entertaining to watch
Yeah right MMMMlibs and MMMtanks every single game is so much fun. I get so thrilled when I see the tech lab or the reactor finally displayed in the production tab. Is it gonna be tanks? Is it gonna be mines? OH MY GOD HE'S BUILDING 3 TANKS THEN GOING FOR MINES?!
Also : using the word "fact" when talking about the subjective appreciation of a meta.
|
avilo logic: mass air is bad mk
makes a mod to allow massable vikings from factories
claims it's not an issue because they are air-to-air
fails to mention that they have some of the highest air-to-air range in the game for their cost and deal bonus to armored
fails to mention that it doesn't matter if vikings are only air-to-air when he already has a mass of tanks which are impenetrable by anything other than an air unit or uh, that unit he hates, the swarm host. Oh and even if vikings don't directly counter mutas, he can just spam missile turrets and they shred them.
-----
look, i don't mind if mech has more air options, in fact i'd prefer if the goliath was brought back, just have to be careful because units clump so easily, it makes tanks better and they were just buffed. SC2 is kind of in this weird place where it can't go back on a lot of it's design choices, may just be best for the mech players to go play SC:BW:HD, SC2 was fun while it lasted.
|
On May 13 2017 08:06 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 06:43 pvsnp wrote: Throw in the fact that the current meta is extremely entertaining to watch Yeah right MMMMlibs and MMMtanks every single game is so much fun. I get so thrilled when I see the tech lab or the reactor finally displayed in the production tab. Is it gonna be tanks? Is it gonna be mines? OH MY GOD HE'S BUILDING 3 TANKS THEN GOING FOR MINES?! Also : using the word "fact" when talking about the subjective appreciation of a meta.
The continual back-and-forth, the fantastic micro, and the multitasking are what is entertaining. Not the surprise. Between surprising and boring vs predictable and entertaining, I know which one I'd choose.
4M vs LBM compared to hour-long turtle mech. If you like the latter that's your business but I for one am glad it's gone.
As far as the usage of "fact" goes, I should rephrase it as such: "It's a fact that turtle mech has far less battles/harass than equivalent bio TvZ." The leap of logic from "more fighting" to "more entertaining" seems to be a trivially obvious one, but I guess not in your case. If you can argue with a straight face that sitting on your ass is more thrilling to the audience than drops and parade pushes, I stand impressed.
|
On May 13 2017 08:36 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 08:06 JackONeill wrote:On May 13 2017 06:43 pvsnp wrote: Throw in the fact that the current meta is extremely entertaining to watch Yeah right MMMMlibs and MMMtanks every single game is so much fun. I get so thrilled when I see the tech lab or the reactor finally displayed in the production tab. Is it gonna be tanks? Is it gonna be mines? OH MY GOD HE'S BUILDING 3 TANKS THEN GOING FOR MINES?! Also : using the word "fact" when talking about the subjective appreciation of a meta. The continual back-and-forth, the fantastic micro, and the multitasking are what is entertaining. Not the surprise. Between surprising and boring vs predictable and entertaining, I know which one I'd choose. 4M vs LBM compared to hour-long turtle mech. If you like the latter that's your business but I for one am glad it's gone. As far as the usage of "fact" goes, I should rephrase it as such: "It's a fact that turtle mech has far less battles/harass than equivalent bio TvZ." The leap of logic from "more fighting" to "more entertaining" seems to be a trivially obvious one, but I guess not in your case. If you can argue with a straight face that sitting on your ass is more thrilling to the audience than drops and parade pushes, I stand impressed.
I mean you simply use the worst (boring turtle mech where nothing happens) to prove that only having bio at the top lvl is better. Well that's kinda absurd. There could be mech games which actually have a fair amount of action and at that point it means that there will be more diversity.
Also if something becomes too predictable it actually becomes boring. That's a basic "fact" seen in lots and lots of different entertainment scenarios. "Surprise" is an integral part of entertainment.
That doesn't necessarily mean that only having bio is "too predictable" but at the end of the day this is actually subjective. For people like you (and me) the mechanical part of the game makes it entertainign enough, because it actually introduces uncertainty at the execution lvl. For other people the strategy part is higher on the priority list.
So you are pretty off with this post tbh.
|
On May 13 2017 09:15 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 08:36 pvsnp wrote:On May 13 2017 08:06 JackONeill wrote:On May 13 2017 06:43 pvsnp wrote: Throw in the fact that the current meta is extremely entertaining to watch Yeah right MMMMlibs and MMMtanks every single game is so much fun. I get so thrilled when I see the tech lab or the reactor finally displayed in the production tab. Is it gonna be tanks? Is it gonna be mines? OH MY GOD HE'S BUILDING 3 TANKS THEN GOING FOR MINES?! Also : using the word "fact" when talking about the subjective appreciation of a meta. The continual back-and-forth, the fantastic micro, and the multitasking are what is entertaining. Not the surprise. Between surprising and boring vs predictable and entertaining, I know which one I'd choose. 4M vs LBM compared to hour-long turtle mech. If you like the latter that's your business but I for one am glad it's gone. As far as the usage of "fact" goes, I should rephrase it as such: "It's a fact that turtle mech has far less battles/harass than equivalent bio TvZ." The leap of logic from "more fighting" to "more entertaining" seems to be a trivially obvious one, but I guess not in your case. If you can argue with a straight face that sitting on your ass is more thrilling to the audience than drops and parade pushes, I stand impressed. I mean you simply use the worst (boring turtle mech where nothing happens) to prove that only having bio at the top lvl is better. Well that's kinda absurd. There could be mech games which actually have a fair amount of action and at that point it means that there will be more diversity. Also if something becomes too predictable it actually becomes boring. That's a basic "fact" seen in lots and lots of different entertainment scenarios. "Surprise" is an integral part of entertainment. That doesn't necessarily mean that only having bio is "too predictable" but at the end of the day this is actually subjective. For people like you (and me) the mechanical part of the game makes it entertainign enough, because it actually introduces uncertainty at the execution lvl. For other people the strategy part is higher on the priority list. So you are pretty off with this post tbh.
@pvsnp : very good answer to your fallacies.
Now about the subjective aspect of enjoyement, there is three topics we have to consider :
- execution (mechanics/micro)
- strategy (everything you can plan, gameplans, mind games)
- diversity (how many compositions and builds are performable)
Some people like execution better, some people like strategy better. Even if sometimes execution can be part of a strategy (for instance Bomber and his insane production, playing with a very srtaightforward style because his execution allows him to).
But near everyone loves diversity. Near everyone gets excited when innovation landed 2 factories with reactors versus Dark (at GSL i think?) and started pumping hellions and cyclones, when mech was considered complete trash. Near everyone gets excited when Solar starts building hydras and lurkers in TvZ, when hydras were pretty much terrible vs bio since HOTS.
And (and that's maybe the most important thing) : diversity is very fun to play. Everyone likes to play with and versus different builds and compositions, and not the same shit everytime. I think it's fun for everyone when you play and face different strategies and not feel like two monkeys copying the same meta build.
Personally i think LOTV overemphazised execution heavily, at the cost of strategy. Tankivac TvT was symptomatic of that : games were totally devoid of any strategy. It was execution, and execution only : "perform your build then shove with tankivacs/marines and try to outmanoeuver your opponent". Pvsnp mentionned parade pushes : there's nothing more strategically poor than a parade parade push. It's litterally about getting 3 bases going, and then rallying your entire production into the zerg's fourth and outmanoeuvering ("out-executing") him.
Personally I get way more excited when i see players like gumiho do completely insane builds or strats. I get way more excited when i see Major dropping 3 starports and starting to research banshee speed : and this isn't about execution. I don't care if he gets destroyed by a korean zerg that has a much better micro and macro than him, i'm interested in the thinking behind the build/comp.
As I said this is all subjective, however i think everyone likes diversity. I think everyone would be much more interested to see and play TvZ being bio tank, bio mines liberators, an allin, agressive mech, standard mech, and other stuff.
|
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As you said, this is all subjective. I know what I prefer, and presumably you can say the same. And the same goes for everyone else.
|
On May 13 2017 10:03 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 09:15 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 13 2017 08:36 pvsnp wrote:On May 13 2017 08:06 JackONeill wrote:On May 13 2017 06:43 pvsnp wrote: Throw in the fact that the current meta is extremely entertaining to watch Yeah right MMMMlibs and MMMtanks every single game is so much fun. I get so thrilled when I see the tech lab or the reactor finally displayed in the production tab. Is it gonna be tanks? Is it gonna be mines? OH MY GOD HE'S BUILDING 3 TANKS THEN GOING FOR MINES?! Also : using the word "fact" when talking about the subjective appreciation of a meta. The continual back-and-forth, the fantastic micro, and the multitasking are what is entertaining. Not the surprise. Between surprising and boring vs predictable and entertaining, I know which one I'd choose. 4M vs LBM compared to hour-long turtle mech. If you like the latter that's your business but I for one am glad it's gone. As far as the usage of "fact" goes, I should rephrase it as such: "It's a fact that turtle mech has far less battles/harass than equivalent bio TvZ." The leap of logic from "more fighting" to "more entertaining" seems to be a trivially obvious one, but I guess not in your case. If you can argue with a straight face that sitting on your ass is more thrilling to the audience than drops and parade pushes, I stand impressed. I mean you simply use the worst (boring turtle mech where nothing happens) to prove that only having bio at the top lvl is better. Well that's kinda absurd. There could be mech games which actually have a fair amount of action and at that point it means that there will be more diversity. Also if something becomes too predictable it actually becomes boring. That's a basic "fact" seen in lots and lots of different entertainment scenarios. "Surprise" is an integral part of entertainment. That doesn't necessarily mean that only having bio is "too predictable" but at the end of the day this is actually subjective. For people like you (and me) the mechanical part of the game makes it entertainign enough, because it actually introduces uncertainty at the execution lvl. For other people the strategy part is higher on the priority list. So you are pretty off with this post tbh. @pvsnp : very good answer to your fallacies. Now about the subjective aspect of enjoyement, there is three topics we have to consider : - execution (mechanics/micro) - strategy (everything you can plan, gameplans, mind games) - diversity (how many compositions and builds are performable) Some people like execution better, some people like strategy better. Even if sometimes execution can be part of a strategy (for instance Bomber and his insane production, playing with a very srtaightforward style because his execution allows him to). But near everyone loves diversity. Near everyone gets excited when innovation landed 2 factories with reactors versus Dark (at GSL i think?) and started pumping hellions and cyclones, when mech was considered complete trash. Near everyone gets excited when Solar starts building hydras and lurkers in TvZ, when hydras were pretty much terrible vs bio since HOTS. And (and that's maybe the most important thing) : diversity is very fun to play. Everyone likes to play with and versus different builds and compositions, and not the same shit everytime. I think it's fun for everyone when you play and face different strategies and not feel like two monkeys copying the same meta build. Personally i think LOTV overemphazised execution heavily, at the cost of strategy. Tankivac TvT was symptomatic of that : games were totally devoid of any strategy. It was execution, and execution only : "perform your build then shove with tankivacs/marines and try to outmanoeuver your opponent". Pvsnp mentionned parade pushes : there's nothing more strategically poor than a parade parade push. It's litterally about getting 3 bases going, and then rallying your entire production into the zerg's fourth and outmanoeuvering ("out-executing") him. Personally I get way more excited when i see players like gumiho do completely insane builds or strats. I get way more excited when i see Major dropping 3 starports and starting to research banshee speed : and this isn't about execution. I don't care if he gets destroyed by a korean zerg that has a much better micro and macro than him, i'm interested in the thinking behind the build/comp. As I said this is all subjective, however i think everyone likes diversity. I think everyone would be much more interested to see and play TvZ being bio tank, bio mines liberators, an allin, agressive mech, standard mech, and other stuff.
What about tactics? Mindgames doesnt have to be a strategy either, it can be a tactic.
You say subjective, but i feel that word is a bad word because it can be used anytime and we all know we are humans and every opinion is already set. One opinion might be that ONE STRATEGY AND ONE UNIT COMPOSITION IS FUN AND GOOD. If the game have variation or you have more depth in the tactics THATS BAD:
You see how silly it really is. Yes it is subjective, but opinions value matters alot. I would bet that person above with that opinion has his mental mind blocked in some way. The brain likes to use all its brain pretty much. This is a fact. Its not consructive or fun to look into the wall for several minutes straight BUT SOMEONE WITH THE SUBJECTIVE OPINION WILL SAY that he enjoys it and its fun.
We also have the lack of knowledge and imagination department. People who dont think to much about design or/and what a rts game should look like, they might think of sc2 as a really great game and that game sets the standard.
Having a set unit composition and when they do fight each other its over really fast. Is a bad standard.
But lets go a bit deeper.
So we have all these units and in combat, they pretty much do one part and one part only in general. This is the standard in sc2.
I would like a game which has more open tactics and executions.
One game i might decide that my zealots will attack the hydras behind the roaches every single time.
While another game i might decide to simple attack the roaches, or another game i might decide to flank every game.
We dont see this in sc2. Key word here is concistent and general approach. I dont care if we see once in a while. I want a game where you as a player can decide how you want to approach fights without them ending in a matter of seconds so therefore makes more moves possible for all players involved in the fight.
This whole rock paper scissor is another standard set. Its garbage in my "subjective" opinion.
When one side can micro alot while the other cant its also something i dont want in a standard rts game.
Look at any sport irl or any martial art, you do interract with your opinion and there are little to no hardcounters.
Right? What is the point if we look from the brains perspective if you have little to no interraction with your opponent? Why do that thing in the first place if thats the case?
Skill comes from interraction, and fun comes from interraction.
When you talk to someone you dont talk 100%, right? You go back and forth. Even new born babies do that ffs.
So this subjective opinion is bullshit in the grand scheme of things.
A game where you open marine/marauder vs gateway pressure opening:
Terran fears zealots/sentries, play passive dont go out on the map. Just defend.
When stim is done, and the numbers increase protoss will fear you and decide to go home and defend.
Sc2 has set the stnadard very low and its hard for people to understand that, i dont blame them either but following those opinions isnt wise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
