One of the goals of the major patch is an increase of strategic diversity.
The widow mine change for example opens up new ways for protoss to play TvP, which is obviously something good.
More strategic diversity is always something good in my opinion.
But my concern is the way how strategic diversity gets achieved in lotv by the dev team.
Changing the widow mine like this obviously opens up new ways for protoss, but at the same time it limits terran's options even more.
During the lifespan of lotv, terran got more and more restricted in terms of viable openings, which is something that i really miss from wol and hots.
While zerg and protoss both got more options, terran lost most.
The combination of more options for both protoss and zerg in the early game lead to terran having less ways of opening the game.
For example Tier 1 ravagers/droplords, oracle/adepts,... etc. require terran to have an early factory (off a reaper fe or gas first) in order to counter it.
Back in hots a roach rush or gateway pressure could get defended with bunkers and worker micro. This way terran could defend a rush, if scouted properly, even if the build order wasn't suited to perfectly counter it.
In lotv terran always needs atleast an early factory to defend anything, because ravagers outrange bunkers and adepts can shade past them etc....
My point is that early game units/mechanics should get adjusted for every race, so that you can defend aggression with more basic units and defensive buildings instead of being forced to get tech units fast, no matter what.
Early game unit interaction should be less extreme. Perfect example for extreme unit interactions are T1 ravagers vs terran. If you have cyclones, you can defend it (but it's still not hardcounter like tank vs roach), but if you don't have cyclone you just lose.
Ravagers are tier 1 and have a low cooldown spell with siege ability due to their high casting range.
Bunkers are not a softcounter, they only buy time for your tech units.
just an example^^
As i said, i like the direction of the patch. I like their goal of increasing strategic diversity, but i think they are not consequent enough with their changes.
Diversity doesn't mean if terran goes mech or bio. Diversity begins much earlier.
Different early games lead to different midgames. And different midgames lead to different lategames.
I feel after the patch i will still play the same reaper FE every single game.
Back in hots i could actually play the way i wanted. In TvZ i almost always opened the game with a classic 1rax FE simply because i really enjoyed this opening. Bomber was famous for his 3CC builds and other terrans were known for their harass or timing oriented styles off reaper fe's, 15 gas FE or gas first etc... Players had their own playstyles and preferences.
I believe there are multiple ways of opening up more early game options for terran without breaking balance.
Lotv made the mistake of giving very early basic units too much damage potential too early on, which hurt the strategic options, because you have to blindcounter with your opening, because it can hit so early. Reaper grenade for example finally got nerfed and we all know how negative they affected the gameplay...
Besides the new added lotv units/mechanics the increased starting workers also had negative impact on strategic diversity in terms of openings.
the increased mineral income in the early game took away the impact of the decision of the gas timings.
If you start with only 6 workers, it obviously matters a lot more if you take an early gas or if you delay your gas until you have an expansion etc.
If you already start with 12 workers, taking an early gas only takes away a very small percentage of your mineral income in order to gain gas.
So going for tech early (gas first/reaper fe) doesn't actually impact your mineral income in a meaningful way, but on the other hand going for gasless openings just delays your tech a lot without boosting your mineral income accordingly in a meaningful way to make the opening worth it's lack of mapcontrol/harass.
The original reasoning behind the increased starting workers was to promote more action early on, making the game more "action packed", but at the cost of drastically taking away early game decision making.
If you're familiar with age of empires 2, 12 worker start is like you would just cut out the dark age and skip to the feudal age at the start of a game.
For the average viewer who doesn't understand the game on a higher leve, it would actually feel like the game is more action packed, because you would see more units faster on the field, but in reality you take away crucial decision making.
In the early game of aoe2 there are already drastic decision being made which have a lot of impact on the mid- and lategame.
As i said, for the average viewer those decisions may seem to be no big deal or they don't even see whats going on, because its not as obvious as 2 armies crashing into each other, but the experienced veteran player has a lot of strategic control in the early game and it improves the game overall on a strategic level.
The same was the case for SC2 with 6 starting worker.
the 12 worker start gives people the impression of making the game more action packed, but in reality it took away a lot of strategical depth and variety in openings.
So in my opinion the logical step would be to revert back to 6 start workers, but unfortunately we have a lot of vocal people in the community who don't think about 12 worker start the same way.
They just like the faster start and dont see the bigger picture.
In my opinion SC2 early game feels like a moba, everything has gimmicky spells, its just about micro and actual decision making just doesn't matter anymore.
AnossSC2 (OGTV) also made countless threads and also a video explaining this in detail:
FireCake also made a video on why lotv has problems in its game design:
His standpoint is that especially the new units are too powerful in the early game and therefore limit strategic diversity because of the need of hardcounter openings since they can hit so early (for example ravager being able to siege in the early game without any upgrade, adepts being able to bypass static defense with shade and reapers being able to trade extremely well with grenades [nerfed], or droplords on tier1 etc,....). The 12 worker start would be fine, if early game units would be less dominant, he says.
I'm going a bit offtopic now, but i want the following to be said.
I want to add that one of lotv's biggest problems so far was also the overall reduced defenders advantage which is caused by the combination of very powerful early game unit, the reduced ressources per base snd the increased starting workers.
The increased starting workers reduced the time window you can scout your opponent and the time you have to react to that scouting information.
Back in hots, if you went for a macro build and your opponent played extremely aggressive and you managed to hold the attack, you are on atleast 2 full bases with maybe even a 3rd on the way. At this point the game is 100% decided, if both players have equal skill.
But in lotv due to the ressource per base reduction, the defending player often finds himself sitting on 1,5 mining bases or even less, even if he manages to hold the inital attack. This gives the aggressor an unnecessary advantage.
So at this point the defender is basically playing against the game and not the player.
That's what gives a lot of players the impression that lotv is basically "harasscraft" and wasting units into the opponent over and over again can lead to being ahead in the game, because the lower ressources decreased the comeback potential a lot.
...
Im glad they saw how negative the reduced ressources per base impact the game and they slightly increase the economy in the upcoming patch.
Im excited to see what they will do with SC2 in the future, i think currently there is still a lot of room for improvement.
I hope you all could understand what im trying to say, even though my english is not good.
What the fuck are you even talking about? 211 is very much a build in TvZ and opening 2rax befote factory in any expansion build was NEVER a thing in HotS.
Do we even play the same game????
E: that's aside the entire OP being one huge lowkey balance whine
i'm happy with the strategic diversity in LotV in 2017. Hopefully, the post-BlizzCon patch lowers the frequency that Protoss and Terran build giant air armies.
On October 03 2017 02:14 Ej_ wrote: What the fuck are you even talking about? 211 is very much a build in TvZ and opening 2rax befote factory in any expansion build was NEVER a thing in HotS.
Do we even play the same game????
E: that's aside the entire OP being one huge lowkey balance whine
Judging from history I'm sure this thread will go just swimmingly...
When it comes to widowmine the frustration factor should always be kept in mind. I agree that adept and ravagers could use a tone down for the very same reason.
Personally, Im feeling fine about strategic diversity. Each race has multiple viable compositions for all phases of the game, and the only reason it seems worse for terran is the super strong marine overshadowing anything else (not saying that its imba!).
From a terran perspective, i guess there's much more strategic diversity now. You can do few bio builds and few mech builds in pretty much every matchup. The only real problems i see concerning diversity right now are : - TvZ mech late game pigeonholed into massing ravens, which should change with the next design patch - the cyclone still being useless except for allins or early defense. Unfortunately, i don't think that the next will change this. Cyclones will always be too expensive and un-microable unless they're more reliable, or cheaper, or able to fire their AG weapon while moving. I'd like blizz to look into this mess of a unit - ghost compositions still unreliable because of the snipe cancel, which is just silly (just like its infinite range) - phenixes making mech extremely difficult to pull off in TvP because every mech unit is worth lifting
Appart from that, and the mine nerf in the design patch is duly cancelled, things are looking better for terran diversity right now and in the future. Liberator could still use a tiny buff to its AA, though.
On October 03 2017 02:14 Ej_ wrote: What the fuck are you even talking about? 211 is very much a build in TvZ and opening 2rax befote factory in any expansion build was NEVER a thing in HotS.
Do we even play the same game????
E: that's aside the entire OP being one huge lowkey balance whine
Judging from history I'm sure this thread will go just swimmingly...
i know im sometimes very whiney, but i just wanted to say how i currently feel about the game as a terran player.
I feel very limited in terms of opening choices.
Back then a lot of players were able to create their very own unique playstyles, simply because they had the choices.
That's a part of star craft that i just miss and i wanted to talk about it.
So if that's considered to be whining, then i probably should just stop posting anything SC2 related ever again.
Terran has plenty of diversity atm. The problem with Terran diversity is that it's more in playstyle than unit composition. I could tell you which top terran is playing in a TvP just by playstyle, even though they all get marine / maurader / mine / medivac / liberator / ghost. Even then though, mech is viable in TvZ (and TvT up till top pro) which is a more drastic difference in composition than the other races get.
On October 03 2017 02:23 Siegetank_Dieter1 wrote: i know im sometimes very whiney, but i just wanted to say how i currently feel about the game as a terran player. I feel very limited in terms of opening choices.
as a Terran player i am basically satisfied with LotV and the diversity of my opening choices. my only complaint is that "air only" is too strong. i'm glad they are changing the role of the Raven soon.
During it's lifespan LotV did so many things wrong and got so little right that I've just stopped playing it. Although people can't reiterate enough how LotV is by far the best SC2 version, to me this game just feels like it has no soul and that's partly because it lacks early game diversity.
Especially as a Terran player the game just feels shoehorned and one-dimensional.
You lost me at "Terran is forced to build an early factory now." Oh you mean the building that unlocks literally all of their tech paths? (Except ghost i guess). Might as well say Zerg is forced to build Ling speed or Protoss is forced to research WG. I get what youre trying to say, and I think a bit more resources on each base might remedy it, allowing for more 2 base builds which apparently some people liked? I still think the widow mine change is bad, hurts high level sc to help casual sc but eh.
On October 03 2017 03:11 Finch518 wrote: You lost me at "Terran is forced to build an early factory now." Oh you mean the building that unlocks literally all of their tech paths? (Except ghost i guess). Might as well say Zerg is forced to build Ling speed or Protoss is forced to research WG. I get what youre trying to say, and I think a bit more resources on each base might remedy it, allowing for more 2 base builds which apparently some people liked? I still think the widow mine change is bad, hurts high level sc to help casual sc but eh.
With "early factory" i meant a standard factory timing off a reaper fe or even gas first.
If you play late gas builds like cc first or 1rax fe, you're extremely vulnerable to aggression, you have very late tech and very limited harass/mapcontrol potential without gaining a meaningful economic advantage.
Back in hots starting workers were only 6 and mules gave more minerals which means that economic gasless openings actually gave a big noticeable economy boost in the midgame.
On October 03 2017 03:01 Creager wrote: During it's lifespan LotV did so many things wrong and got so little right that I've just stopped playing it. Although people can't reiterate enough how LotV is by far the best SC2 version, to me this game just feels like it has no soul and that's partly because it lacks early game diversity.
Especially as a Terran player the game just feels shoehorned and one-dimensional.
No one but casters and silly blizzard fanboys say that LOTV is "by far the best version of SC2"
On October 03 2017 03:01 Creager wrote: During it's lifespan LotV did so many things wrong and got so little right that I've just stopped playing it. Although people can't reiterate enough how LotV is by far the best SC2 version, to me this game just feels like it has no soul and that's partly because it lacks early game diversity.
Especially as a Terran player the game just feels shoehorned and one-dimensional.
No one but casters and silly blizzard fanboys say that LOTV is "by far the best version of SC2"
nice arguments
LotV have the most features of all Starcraft 2 expansion, you can not deny that, and I find the gameplay just as good as in WoL, so yes LotV is the best version of Starcraft2.
On October 03 2017 03:01 Creager wrote: During it's lifespan LotV did so many things wrong and got so little right that I've just stopped playing it. Although people can't reiterate enough how LotV is by far the best SC2 version, to me this game just feels like it has no soul and that's partly because it lacks early game diversity.
Especially as a Terran player the game just feels shoehorned and one-dimensional.
No one but casters and silly blizzard fanboys say that LOTV is "by far the best version of SC2"
nice arguments
LotV have the most features of all Starcraft 2 expansion, you can not deny that, and I find the gameplay just as good as in WoL, so yes LotV is the best version of Starcraft2.
yeah, because the oracle, the viper, the swarm host, the liberator and the mothership core (that'll probably be removed) are such well designed units that are truly worthy of SC1's legacy.
I get that WOL already benefits from some kind of nostalgia bias, but thinking that LOTV is anywhere as good as it should have been (considering how groundbreaking WOL was in the RTS genre) is laughable.
On October 03 2017 05:27 JackONeill wrote: but thinking that LOTV is anywhere as good as it should have been (considering how groundbreaking WOL was in the RTS genre) is laughable.
you can create whatever dreamworld standards you want and call anything bad. "experts" are doing it for every Blizzard game and then proclaiming that the reason Blizz is still afloat is that all their other titles are good. the only title that is bad is the 1 that they have "expert level" knowledge.
its interesting to see Blizz unwilling to release the name of the multiplayer design lead now that DK is gone. Prolly sick of the irrational hate.
On October 03 2017 01:48 Siegetank_Dieter1 wrote: One of the goals of the major patch is an increase of strategic diversity.
The widow mine change for example opens up new ways for protoss to play TvP, which is obviously something good.
More strategic diversity is always something good in my opinion.
But my concern is the way how strategic diversity gets achieved in lotv by the dev team.
Changing the widow mine like this obviously opens up new ways for protoss, but at the same time it limits terran's options even more.
During the lifespan of lotv, terran got more and more restricted in terms of viable openings, which is something that i really miss from wol and hots.
While zerg and protoss both got more options, terran lost most.
The combination of more options for both protoss and zerg in the early game lead to terran having less ways of opening the game.
For example Tier 1 ravagers require terran to have an early factory (off a reaper fe or gas first) in order to counter it.
Back in hots a roach rush could get defended with bunkers and worker micro. This way terran could defend a rush, if scouted properly, even if the build order wasn't suited to perfectly counter it.
In lotv terran always needs atleast an early factory to defend anything, because ravagers outrange bunkers and adepts can shade past them etc....
My point is that early game units/mechanics should get adjusted for every race, so that you can defend aggression with more basic units instead of being forced to get tech units fast, no matter what.
Early game unit interaction should be less extreme. Perfect example are T1 ravagers vs terran. If you have cyclones, you can defend it, but if you don't have cyclone you just lose.
Ravagers are tier 1 and have a low cooldown spell with siege ability due to their high casting range.
Bunkers are not a softcounter, they only buy time for your tech units.
just an example^^
As i said, i like the direction of the patch. I like their goal of increasing strategic diversity, but i think they are not consequent enough with their changes.
Diversity doesn't mean if terran goes mech or bio. Diversity begins much earlier.
Different early games lead to different midgames. And different midgames lead to different lategames.
I feel after the patch i will still play the same reaper FE every single game.
So if we would for example decrease ravager bile casting range and let it be increased with a cheap but longer upgrade, this could already open up some options for terran. Or maybe making ravager tier 2 or whatever,... Whatever is best for the balance.
Similar treatment for adepts.
I believe there are multiple ways of opening up more early game options for terran without breaking balance.
Lotv made the mistake of giving very early basic units too much damage potential too early on, which hurt the strategic options, because you have to blindcounter with your opening, because it can hit so early. Reaper grenade for example finally got nerfed and we all know how negative they affected the gameplay...
Besides the new added lotv units/mechanics the increased starting workers also had negative impact on strategic diversity in terms of openings, but thats another topic and i feel like they will never change that anyways...
I hope you all could understand what im trying to say, even though my english is not good.
glhf.
* Edit:
I want to make clear that im only talking about early game openings like for example reaper fe, 1rax fe, cc first, etc... im not talking about unit compositions or playstyles.
I would agree that ravagers do force a certain tech path, however, I don't think the same can be said of adepts. All adepts force is building placement, you can take any build and make it stronger vs adepts by optimizing building placement.
EPT
