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.
LOTV seems to have opened up a lot of strategic options from all races. Some strats emerged strong, like early mass oracle and adept all in, but all in all there are more things to choose from now than before.
Also, I sense a small hint of whine in what you wrote.
On October 03 2017 07:59 Twinkle Toes wrote: LOTV seems to have opened up a lot of strategic options from all races. Some strats emerged strong, like early mass oracle and adept all in, but all in all there are more things to choose from now than before.
Also, I sense a small hint of whine in what you wrote.
yea, i generally agree.
also, "strategic diversity" as spectators imagine it is more about patch recency than design tbh. most stuff gets figured out and most people at the top levels play stable styles because they're trying to win. on ladder at almost any level there's an insane amount of diversity in how you can play if you execute well and understand your own build. look at ruff for example - not a fan of the guy but he makes crazy shit work at high levels. harstem just cannon rushed in pvp the other day. i personally play in diamond and i do crazy made up builds all the time with all 3 races because it's fun.
it's never going to be the top pros doing wacky new shit every single game because as a general rule pros pick stable builds. thats why players like sOs are celebrated, because theyre unusual and special
I find that LoTV feels less diverse than HoTS because the methods of each race are basically the same, and almost all build orders look identical. You mass units so quickly and try to harrass. Whoever gets more economic damage just swarms the other.
However, in terms of actual tactics/unit comps, LoTV is probably more diverse than HoTS which was rather static for most of the time
I think so many people get this thread wrong. Dieter already said he does not mean the build and playstyle diversity of the game in general BUT that you always have to do a reaper opening. You cannot deny the fact that it is boring to see and play reaper opening only.
And the general trend that mass reapers got nerfed (which is a really good thing) and widow mine gets nerfed (also good against frustration) the question is what builds will replace these strats.
And i think it is good to discuss this. Maybe some people have tried out some new strats at ptr. I think there could be some nice early game unit interaction in general against protoss without the mothership core and the shield battery IN THEORY. But i doubt that there will be anything vs z.
I meet players who go for 1 bases aggression on the ladder (diamond 1 level), as well as people who go for CC first. CC first is either followed by a factory or 2, or simply by 3 rax for constant marine production.
With the LOTV eco there are 3 CC builds. For example rax FE factory 3rd CC. And TY played a build where he skipped the factory on Acolyte vs Dark and put the 3rd CC straight after the 2nd CC.
There are plenty of ways to play it early on, and I meet different builds. A reaper is important for scouting which tech the protoss goes for in TvP, as well as denying the 3rd as long as possible in TvZ. Many people on the ladder treat it as a tool to grab a few workers early on, but pros treat the reaper otherwise. This is why a reaper fast expand is that common on pro level, and on the ladder many just go for builds the find on the internet or simply copy pros.
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.
How interesting is it that when i state that "only casters and silly blizzard fanboys" call LOTV the best version of SC2, someone immediately proceeds to defend blizzard as a company and not argue the point?
HOTS was a failure, and only solved the BLfestor meta to remplace it with even more ridiculous mechanics. LOTV was even more of a trainwreck, with an absolute lack of hype from the community and a failed "long beta stage".
Any counterpoint should be about how community reception and player population evolution. You illustrate yourself perfectly as a blizz fanboy defending the company, and not the product.
That LoTV is a disappointment for many is probably a fact, but I still find it waaay more interesting to watch and to play than WoL, even a BLInfestor-fixed version of WoL.
To be honest this sounds a bit like balance whine (OP). But I'll try to make a bit of a counter argument.
First there are two very important general concepts
T was always the most vulnerable and awkward race when it comes to macro openings since forever and this is not exclusive to LotV and even SC2. This is because Marines *suck* before they have stim plus healing and mech is kind of slow and expensive in the early game.
When it comes to the midgame T is the dictating race in both non-mirrors. In general T has the most firepower per ressource (min/gas/supply) which makes it so that P and Z get punished ultra hard and *fast* if they make mistakes or don't react accordingly to what T is doing. T is simply the best midgame race when it comes to both controlling space (tanks/liberators) and counterattacking (MMM).
Now specifically to roach ravager openings
Look back at some of the losses you had against ravager timings. Any potent roach ravager attack is a huge investment on the Z side. In most of those games you are up in economy and Z is trying to deal damage as efficient as possible to you.
This is Z abusing the fact that T is so vulnerable in a macro opening. But this is true for all races. If you are up against an aggressive opening then you need to respond as efficiently as possible or you die. If you look at the number of really safe openings for all matchups then you will notice that they aren't really that many. All races have about 1-2 general openings that lead to a macro game and *can* react to early game aggression. With Z it is either baneling nest or roach warren, with T it is additional barracks with stim or factory and with P it is robo or stargate.
There are build order variations on all of those but the general theme is the same with all of them: You need to scout and be ready to pump out an early-midgame centric composition if you need it. This is just the way safe openings work, not just for T but for all races.
So going back to the tradeoff T has I mentioned at the start
There are basically two solutions to the early game of T. You can open aggressively yourself. In terms of aggressive openings T has by far the most options and is the best at denying scouts. Or you can simply scout with a reaper and/or scans which are the best scouting options in the game and build reactively until you reach your huge midgame spike which will reward you for scouting and reacting in the early game.
If bunkers would be able to hold things like ravagers or early adepts, it could result in terran being able to go for more kinds of openings like for example the 1rax fe.
back in hots bunkers could defend roach pressure or gateway pressure, which allowed terran to go for openings that don't have an early gas and factory.
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.
How interesting is it that when i state that "only casters and silly blizzard fanboys" call LOTV the best version of SC2, someone immediately proceeds to defend blizzard as a company and not argue the point?
HOTS was a failure, and only solved the BLfestor meta to remplace it with even more ridiculous mechanics. LOTV was even more of a trainwreck, with an absolute lack of hype from the community and a failed "long beta stage".
Any counterpoint should be about how community reception and player population evolution. You illustrate yourself perfectly as a blizz fanboy defending the company, and not the product.
The only metric you provided so far to evalutate the quality of a game is popularity. Also you mentioned the new units, implying that you don't like them. IMO LotV is the best version of SC2 by far mostly because it is more economy based which leads to longer, more multitasking oriented games. This is mostly due to the map design and economy rehaul, but also due to the fact that the races got cleaned up with new units and balance changes.
P moved a way from pure deathball into a more mobile midgame style with adepts (and oracles) while getting disruptors to hold off big midgame pushes.
Z got AoE options for the midgame that can also be used aggressively vs macro opponents (due to nydus and the fact that the map opens up much more).
T got a more mobile area control unit and the cyclone which helps to tech more smoothly into mech.
All of these changes are very beneficial if you want longer games with more variety, especially tactically. Now the upcomming big balance changes will improve this even more.
P will get more mobile with the removal of MSC and the changes to Nexus. Right now there are still too many base trades happening against P IMO. The stalker buff helps to diverge even more from deathball scenarios.
Z gets stronger defensively with the lurker changes against midgame mass attacks.
T mech is overall buffed with the transformation upgrade and the raven being a mech support unit instead of being a pure infinite value generator.
Guys please don't get this thread wrong. I'm not whining about mech or something like that.
My point is that lotv lost a lot of strategic depth in the early game, due to the combination of 12 worker start and certain early game units and mechanics being able to do way too much.
Back in hots you had to tech up in order to do what early game units are able to do now in lotv.
On October 03 2017 17:49 SpecKROELLchen wrote: I think so many people get this thread wrong. Dieter already said he does not mean the build and playstyle diversity of the game in general BUT that you always have to do a reaper opening. You cannot deny the fact that it is boring to see and play reaper opening only.
And the general trend that mass reapers got nerfed (which is a really good thing) and widow mine gets nerfed (also good against frustration) the question is what builds will replace these strats.
And i think it is good to discuss this. Maybe some people have tried out some new strats at ptr. I think there could be some nice early game unit interaction in general against protoss without the mothership core and the shield battery IN THEORY. But i doubt that there will be anything vs z.
For what it's worth, I've had a couple games against Protoss where I skip the Reaper and go directly into Reactored Marines. I use my SCV to scout the best I can and I can sometimes get away with it. Granted I'm only around 4100MMR so this probably doesn't work at the pro level, but yes, Reaper expands are getting boring. We can't aggro much anymore. I've tried Cyclone openings as well and I get completely destroyed most of the time.
idk my problem with lotv was/is the fact that we went to 12 workers and min/gas change, maybe if we chose just one it would be ok but who knows.
I understand trying to speed the game for the viewers but as a player it just seemed to much to me and one of the reason i have stopped playing as much (plus a few units but will not bitch here its a waste). maybe after the new patch ill try and come back but idk.
personally i feel we lost a lot in the early game with the changes to the workers and min/gas. everything just feels very rushed like by the time i scout its to late to change my build were as WOL and Hots i could adjust in time, again idk I don't play enough anymore to really have the best opinion. just my 2 cents
On October 05 2017 07:12 IMOrion wrote: personally i feel we lost a lot in the early game with the changes to the workers and min/gas. everything just feels very rushed like by the time i scout its to late to change my build were as WOL and Hots i could adjust in time, again idk I don't play enough anymore to really have the best opinion. just my 2 cents
i play 40% Terran and 60% Random.
early game SC2 pacing feels a lot like the pace of the early game of a C&C title... and i like it... its more fun.
when i'm Terran and i lose and i meticulously go over the replay what i discover is.. its usually because my opponent is better than me.
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.
How interesting is it that when i state that "only casters and silly blizzard fanboys" call LOTV the best version of SC2, someone immediately proceeds to defend blizzard as a company and not argue the point?
HOTS was a failure, and only solved the BLfestor meta to remplace it with even more ridiculous mechanics. LOTV was even more of a trainwreck, with an absolute lack of hype from the community and a failed "long beta stage".
Any counterpoint should be about how community reception and player population evolution. You illustrate yourself perfectly as a blizz fanboy defending the company, and not the product.
there have been dozens of versions of SC2 since March 2010. its difficult for me to say if this is the absolute best version. the current version is very, very good. i'm satisfied with the product.
my #1 beef is that i can't use my skins in WoL games. that is complete and total bullshit and the kind of oversight Blizzard used to never make. Blizzard used to make sure ever dime i spent was 100% well earned.
To be honest, this topic is ridiculous. Because Terran must make reaper in the beginning of the game? Did u see Zerg whining that he must open with ling speed? Or that Zerg has limited options because he can go Spire straight...
Well, i kinda agree that playing terran in earlygame feels more straightforward and less creative than before atleast for me. I don't think that's anywhere near Lotvs biggest problem though. I feel like the starting worker change, mineral change and almost all the new units (i think only ravagers and lurkers are something i don't actively hate) just made the game much less enjoyable for me. It feels like there is no soul compared to the earlier versions of SC2.
I know there are people who like Lotv more than the other versions, but atleast for me WoL late 2011-early 2012 and most of HotS was a better time.
Yeah right and Terran players believe their race is supposed to have 2 completely different yet equally powerful play styles while the other 2 races never do, so clearly the master race deserves to have more fun and diversity to play with.
The widowmine change is a travesty. Protoss will be able to do 100 different allins because they can skip detection since mine drop is a non factor, just like during blink allin era( only worse now, because they can actually kill mines with no detection.) I imagine this will only be made worse by how hard defensive macro play will be for protoss without MSC, so toss will be forced into allins. TvZ and ZvP are already a mess on live, and will be worse after this patch.
On October 05 2017 18:20 yht9657 wrote: Yeah right and Terran players believe their race is supposed to have 2 completely different yet equally powerful play styles while the other 2 races never do, so clearly the master race deserves to have more fun and diversity to play with.
i don´t know much about the game, but isn´t going stargate or robo or twilight a decision you make very early on and that has more severe implications for the late-early and midgame than whether you build your fac and starport after 1,2 oder 17 raxes? so saying protoss as one of "the other 2 races" has less diverse and equally powerful playstyles than 2 seems odd. but maybe i´m wrong.
On October 05 2017 17:57 Luolis wrote: Well, i kinda agree that playing terran in earlygame feels more straightforward and less creative than before atleast for me. I don't think that's anywhere near Lotvs biggest problem though. I feel like the starting worker change, mineral change and almost all the new units (i think only ravagers and lurkers are something i don't actively hate) just made the game much less enjoyable for me. It feels like there is no soul compared to the earlier versions of SC2.
I know there are people who like Lotv more than the other versions, but atleast for me WoL late 2011-early 2012 and most of HotS was a better time.
i completely agree with you. In my opinion almost every new unit just brought a lot of unnecessary problems to the game without adding any meaningful depth to it.
As a Terran i feel the early openings, at decent level, mostly in TvT and TvP, are nearly a non-choice : viable macro builds are like one unique build (gaz first reaper expo factory then variation on 1/1/1), and yeah from a terran history perspective it's pretty boring. In TvP in particular we are forced to reactor marines + defensive factory unit(s) (mine or cyclone) just to not die to unscoutable shit (i.e fast proxy oracle after FE plus some adepts), witch makes all terran builds very boring and predictable for the toss (who have a tons of legit opening variation in this MU, thanks to the mothership... )
Playing FE into 3rax in TvP, a TvP signature build from early WoL to the end of HoTs, is totally non-viable (can't defend efficiently nearly everything protoss throw at you, esp. oracles+adepts ). Some pro tested it a few times after CC first, but it's not that conclusive, to say the least.
So multirax oriented players were nerfed hard in LoTV (Polt, ..), while 1-1-1ers still did fine ( TY, Gumi, Byun, etc. ).
In TvZ we have more variations, mostly because zergs players don't throw random early shit at us half the games like T and P ^^, and Z is more easy to scout (no random proxy, no pylon killing your scout), so we can do a lot more non very-safe builds on ladder or even in pro games. Still, when we abuse non-viable builds for long time, even zergs players finds ways to scout&punish un-viable shit (i.e Buyn fast 2 stim drop killed with ravager/ling push 10 sec before stim )
So yeah openings in LOTV are more boring from a terran perspective, especially in TvP, but it's probably not the biggest issue with LOTV, or at least it is only one of the multiple consequences of some major issues (like mothership core overcharge non-sense, stupid T1 ravager to counter stupid early liberator harass, etc. )
On October 05 2017 18:20 yht9657 wrote: Yeah right and Terran players believe their race is supposed to have 2 completely different yet equally powerful play styles while the other 2 races never do, so clearly the master race deserves to have more fun and diversity to play with.
i don´t know much about the game, but isn´t going stargate or robo or twilight a decision you make very early on and that has more severe implications for the late-early and midgame than whether you build your fac and starport after 1,2 oder 17 raxes? so saying protoss as one of "the other 2 races" has less diverse and equally powerful playstyles than 2 seems odd. but maybe i´m wrong.
Yes, Protoss has 3 ways how to achieve the end game composition. The question is whether the end game composition is always the same or is different(in standard games ). I don't watch LotV so I don't know. In HotS we had 3 tech paths how to get into late game, but the lategame composition was just 1.
On October 05 2017 18:20 yht9657 wrote: Yeah right and Terran players believe their race is supposed to have 2 completely different yet equally powerful play styles while the other 2 races never do, so clearly the master race deserves to have more fun and diversity to play with.
i don´t know much about the game, but isn´t going stargate or robo or twilight a decision you make very early on and that has more severe implications for the late-early and midgame than whether you build your fac and starport after 1,2 oder 17 raxes? so saying protoss as one of "the other 2 races" has less diverse and equally powerful playstyles than 2 seems odd. but maybe i´m wrong.
Bio and Mech have completely different unit composition, upgrades, playstyle and strats, while Protoss does have different openings and early-game tech choices they always tend to complete all three techtrees to gain the perfect deathball composition, for example in PVZ the Protoss may go for either SG, DT or Robo/TC opening, but after that they always get immortal/archon/chargelots supported by HTs and later into Skytoss comp.
On October 05 2017 20:58 xongnox wrote: As a Terran i feel the early openings, at decent level, mostly in TvT and TvP, are nearly a non-choice : viable macro builds are like one unique build (gaz first reaper expo factory then variation on 1/1/1), and yeah from a terran history perspective it's pretty boring. In TvP in particular we are forced to reactor marines + defensive factory unit(s) (mine or cyclone) just to not die to unscoutable shit (i.e fast proxy oracle after FE plus some adepts), witch makes all terran builds very boring and predictable for the toss (who have a tons of legit opening variation in this MU, thanks to the mothership... )
Playing FE into 3rax in TvP, a TvP signature build from early WoL to the end of HoTs, is totally non-viable (can't defend efficiently nearly everything protoss throw at you, esp. oracles+adepts ). Some pro tested it a few times after CC first, but it's not that conclusive, to say the least.
So multirax oriented players were nerfed hard in LoTV (Polt, ..), while 1-1-1ers still did fine ( TY, Gumi, Byun, etc. ).
In TvZ we have more variations, mostly because zergs players don't throw random early shit at us half the games like T and P ^^, and Z is more easy to scout (no random proxy, no pylon killing your scout), so we can do a lot more non very-safe builds on ladder or even in pro games. Still, when we abuse non-viable builds for long time, even zergs players finds ways to scout&punish un-viable shit (i.e Buyn fast 2 stim drop killed with ravager/ling push 10 sec before stim )
So yeah openings in LOTV are more boring from a terran perspective, especially in TvP, but it's probably not the biggest issue with LOTV, or at least it is only one of the multiple consequences of some major issues (like mothership core overcharge non-sense, stupid T1 ravager to counter stupid early liberator harass, etc. )
EPT
). I don't watch LotV so I don't know. In HotS we had 3 tech paths how to get into late game, but the lategame composition was just 1.
