|
On October 11 2018 12:53 Less_Du_Et wrote:
The "speed" of the game has nothing to do with APM or how fast units move or how quick you can max out. Let me try to explain my point with an example.
Take for example the good old 2 rax -
In WOL and HOTS; a failed 2 rax meant you were behind (as it should be). The aggressor took a risk, and it did not pay off (either due to good defence or poor execution of the aggression).
In LOTV; a failed 2 rax, as Maru and a few others have shown time and time again, can transition into a macro game. The aggressor in this case is NOT punished of the failed aggression.
This is because the window to punish is smaller in LOTV. In some cases, less than 30 seconds or a minute - barely enough time to get across the map.
Having to go from doing an all-in off 6 workers is a lot more "all-in" than doing it off 12 workers. ie. The 7th worker increase resource collection by ~17% whereas the 13th worker increase resource collection by 8%. This is huge. So the advantage a defending player has from defending a rush in LOTV is a LOT less than what they would have had in HOTS or WOL.
You're missing the point. A really failed proxyrax will also let you be behind but in LOTV a scouted proxy isn't automatically failed proxy anymore. Look at Maru's Games vs TY: he was mostly scouted quite early but he managed to deal damage to TY while still macroing behind his harassment. He almost always had more workers than TY after his harassment - not because of killing so much workers but because TY had to produce army units instead of workers.
|
I first thought that you were speacking about the speed of the game and I totally disagreed. But now I totally agree with you but I think it depends on the matchup. The really early game is very dynamic and I like it but then the mid-game where we had the (stalkers, roaches, marines marauders compositions) are just a 10sec long period before we see the liberators, tanks, immortals, high templars, hydralisks etc... I think it is relevant to see that the protoss are making 1gate then directly robot or the twilight. The terran are making very quickly the tanks, liberators and ghosts. The zergy quickly have the hydralisks etc.
It's sad because this rendered the units of the early game almost useless so no one makes stalker, adepts except the first 2 at the begining.
|
On October 11 2018 17:38 fronkschnonk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 12:53 Less_Du_Et wrote:
The "speed" of the game has nothing to do with APM or how fast units move or how quick you can max out. Let me try to explain my point with an example.
Take for example the good old 2 rax -
In WOL and HOTS; a failed 2 rax meant you were behind (as it should be). The aggressor took a risk, and it did not pay off (either due to good defence or poor execution of the aggression).
In LOTV; a failed 2 rax, as Maru and a few others have shown time and time again, can transition into a macro game. The aggressor in this case is NOT punished of the failed aggression.
This is because the window to punish is smaller in LOTV. In some cases, less than 30 seconds or a minute - barely enough time to get across the map.
Having to go from doing an all-in off 6 workers is a lot more "all-in" than doing it off 12 workers. ie. The 7th worker increase resource collection by ~17% whereas the 13th worker increase resource collection by 8%. This is huge. So the advantage a defending player has from defending a rush in LOTV is a LOT less than what they would have had in HOTS or WOL. You're missing the point. A really failed proxyrax will also let you be behind but in LOTV a scouted proxy isn't automatically failed proxy anymore. Look at Maru's Games vs TY: he was mostly scouted quite early but he managed to deal damage to TY while still macroing behind his harassment. He almost always had more workers than TY after his harassment - not because of killing so much workers but because TY had to produce army units instead of workers.
So there is something fundamentally wrong with being able to be the aggressor and yet being on par and some fringe cases (like you pointed out) being ahead in economy. RTS game is a game of choice. A choice to do an all-in should be have a risk and reward associated with it. In the present state of the game, I only see reward.
|
I don't mind the actual pace of the game, e.g. starting worker count, fast 3 bases. I would argue that the actual game speed (faster) limits the micro skill ceiling. realistically, there's only so many actions Maru can do during a battle. if the overall game speed was even 5% slower, I think micro would be so much more important. more opportunities for drop-ship micro during large battles (e.g. marauders in a medivac, dodging stalker shots). marine vs banelings splits would also be more impressive.
|
On October 12 2018 21:54 SHODAN wrote:
there's only so many actions Maru can do during a battle.
and yet nobody else can come close to the number actions he does in a battle which gives him an advantage,
I don't see the problem
|
On October 12 2018 21:36 Less_Du_Et wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 17:38 fronkschnonk wrote:On October 11 2018 12:53 Less_Du_Et wrote:
The "speed" of the game has nothing to do with APM or how fast units move or how quick you can max out. Let me try to explain my point with an example.
Take for example the good old 2 rax -
In WOL and HOTS; a failed 2 rax meant you were behind (as it should be). The aggressor took a risk, and it did not pay off (either due to good defence or poor execution of the aggression).
In LOTV; a failed 2 rax, as Maru and a few others have shown time and time again, can transition into a macro game. The aggressor in this case is NOT punished of the failed aggression.
This is because the window to punish is smaller in LOTV. In some cases, less than 30 seconds or a minute - barely enough time to get across the map.
Having to go from doing an all-in off 6 workers is a lot more "all-in" than doing it off 12 workers. ie. The 7th worker increase resource collection by ~17% whereas the 13th worker increase resource collection by 8%. This is huge. So the advantage a defending player has from defending a rush in LOTV is a LOT less than what they would have had in HOTS or WOL. You're missing the point. A really failed proxyrax will also let you be behind but in LOTV a scouted proxy isn't automatically failed proxy anymore. Look at Maru's Games vs TY: he was mostly scouted quite early but he managed to deal damage to TY while still macroing behind his harassment. He almost always had more workers than TY after his harassment - not because of killing so much workers but because TY had to produce army units instead of workers. So there is something fundamentally wrong with being able to be the aggressor and yet being on par and some fringe cases (like you pointed out) being ahead in economy. RTS game is a game of choice. A choice to do an all-in should be have a risk and reward associated with it. In the present state of the game, I only see reward.
But where comes the notion from that 2 proxy rax has to be seen as an all-in? You're confusing being agressive with doing an all-in. It's not that Maru does outright win his games with his proxies. They give him an advantage and therefore they aren't allins but harassment.
|
If they change the pathing, the game speed would not be a problem. It would decrease de "one hit" gg.
|
On October 11 2018 17:38 fronkschnonk wrote:
You're missing the point. A really failed proxyrax will also let you be behind but in LOTV a scouted proxy isn't automatically failed proxy anymore. Look at Maru's Games vs TY: he was mostly scouted quite early but he managed to deal damage to TY while still macroing behind his harassment. He almost always had more workers than TY after his harassment - not because of killing so much workers but because TY had to produce army units instead of workers.
i think this is a great aspect of the game. i love how ... 45 seconds into the game one can be fighting for one's life.
|
making the game slower would just weaken harassment and revert the spirit of the game to heart of the swarm where even people who LIKED the game made fun of every macro game being a long deathball buildup
this is just another in a long line of reachy "grass is greener..." ideas people come up with because they're anxious about how challenging this game is. the real solution to that is for people to behave in a more civilized way on ladder
|
On October 12 2018 21:59 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 21:54 SHODAN wrote:
there's only so many actions Maru can do during a battle. and yet nobody else can come close to the number actions he does in a battle which gives him an advantage,
first, you completely missed my point. second, there is nothing special about Maru's APM (~300-330). it's what he does with his actions that set him apart from the rest.
my point is this: Maru has reached the micro skill ceiling. we are never going to see next-level splits or next level marine shuffling on the current game speed. there is only so much fine unit movements a human can do when the game is this fast.
if the game was slowed down 5%, Maru would be even more godlike than he already is, because of his superior micro mechanics.
here's an example of an imaginary game: Zest somehow survives Maru's early and mid-game aggression. Zest defends with robo units and is slightly ahead of Maru in terms of army quality. Maru has lots of MMM, but no high-tech units like liberators / ghosts. Zest has colossus, disruptors, storm, etc etc.
on the current game speed, Maru is 100% dead.
slow the game down 5%, maybe... just maybe there would be enough delay between all those splash attacks that Maru could out-micro Zest. the battle would last a few more seconds than usual. in that time, he could split his bio better, kite bio better, dodge stalker shots with hot pick-ups.
|
On October 12 2018 23:02 brickrd wrote:
making the game slower would just weaken harassment and revert the spirit of the game to heart of the swarm where even people who LIKED the game made fun of every macro game being a long deathball buildup
this is just another in a long line of reachy "grass is greener..." ideas people come up with because they're anxious about how challenging this game is. the real solution to that is for people to behave in a more civilized way on ladder
these are some good points. there is nothing wrong with a 10 minute game that is a brutal battle starting from the first 70 seconds.
|
On October 12 2018 23:40 SHODAN wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 21:59 Charoisaur wrote:On October 12 2018 21:54 SHODAN wrote:
there's only so many actions Maru can do during a battle. and yet nobody else can come close to the number actions he does in a battle which gives him an advantage, first, you completely missed my point. second, there is nothing special about Maru's APM (~300-330). it's what he does with his actions that set him apart from the rest. my point is this: Maru has reached the micro skill ceiling. we are never going to see next-level splits or next level marine shuffling on the current game speed. there is only so much fine unit movements a human can do when the game is this fast. if the game was slowed down 5%, Maru would be even more godlike than he already is, because of his superior micro mechanics. here's an example of an imaginary game: Zest somehow survives Maru's early and mid-game aggression. Zest defends with robo units and is slightly ahead of Maru in terms of army quality. Maru has lots of MMM, but no high-tech units like liberators / ghosts. Zest has colossus, disruptors, storm, etc etc. on the current game speed, Maru is 100% dead. slow the game down 5%, maybe... just maybe there would be enough delay between all those splash attacks that Maru could out-micro Zest. the battle would last a few more seconds than usual. in that time, he could split his bio better, kite bio better, dodge stalker shots with hot pick-ups. skill at doing task X in Y span of time doesn't translate proportionally when you slow something down. some people perform proportionally better than others in fast-paced environments, which is probably why maru and serral are so good. the idea that if everything became slower the best players would automatically become even more dominant is completely insane and i think you should recheck your logic
|
On October 12 2018 23:52 brickrd wrote:the idea that if everything became slower the best players would automatically become even more dominant is completely insane and i think you should recheck your logic
I didn't write that Maru would automatically become even more dominant. obviously he would have to relearn how to play sc2 on a slower speed.
Maru would become even more dominant in terms of tournament results or win-rate? I didn't write that either.
my entire post was written in the context of micro potential.
read this sentence again: "Maru would be even more godlike than he already is, because of his superior micro mechanics"
now read the rest of my post and you can probably figure out that I'm measuring his "godlike" ability in terms of micro potential.
I'm measuring a -5% game speed Maru against a current game speed Maru. the -5% game speed Maru would have superior micro mechanics.
it follows logically that there would be more micro potential if the game was slowed down 5%. so... players would be able to squeeze more advantages by microing their units on -5% game speed. understand now? which part of that logic should I recheck?
by the way, I honestly don't know if Maru has the best micro in the world. I'm just using him as an example of a terran player with exceptional micro. replace his name with GuMiho, TY, aLive, Innovation...
On October 12 2018 23:52 brickrd wrote:some people perform proportionally better than others in fast-paced environments, which is probably why maru and serral are so good.
it's a factor among many factors. I don't think Serral's ling control is that much better than, say... Reynor or Scarlett or any other top 10 zerg in the world. I don't think Maru's bio control is that much better than GuMiho. Maru wins games because he plays smarter, multi-tasks better, makes better decisions. if you put Maru and aLive in a micro arena custom game, I honest don't know who would win. on the current game speed, a standard 1v1 match between Maru and aLive is hardly decided by micro and micro alone. I think slowing the game down would make micro a much more important factor than it is presently.
|
On October 12 2018 22:31 fronkschnonk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 21:36 Less_Du_Et wrote:On October 11 2018 17:38 fronkschnonk wrote:On October 11 2018 12:53 Less_Du_Et wrote:
The "speed" of the game has nothing to do with APM or how fast units move or how quick you can max out. Let me try to explain my point with an example.
Take for example the good old 2 rax -
In WOL and HOTS; a failed 2 rax meant you were behind (as it should be). The aggressor took a risk, and it did not pay off (either due to good defence or poor execution of the aggression).
In LOTV; a failed 2 rax, as Maru and a few others have shown time and time again, can transition into a macro game. The aggressor in this case is NOT punished of the failed aggression.
This is because the window to punish is smaller in LOTV. In some cases, less than 30 seconds or a minute - barely enough time to get across the map.
Having to go from doing an all-in off 6 workers is a lot more "all-in" than doing it off 12 workers. ie. The 7th worker increase resource collection by ~17% whereas the 13th worker increase resource collection by 8%. This is huge. So the advantage a defending player has from defending a rush in LOTV is a LOT less than what they would have had in HOTS or WOL. You're missing the point. A really failed proxyrax will also let you be behind but in LOTV a scouted proxy isn't automatically failed proxy anymore. Look at Maru's Games vs TY: he was mostly scouted quite early but he managed to deal damage to TY while still macroing behind his harassment. He almost always had more workers than TY after his harassment - not because of killing so much workers but because TY had to produce army units instead of workers. So there is something fundamentally wrong with being able to be the aggressor and yet being on par and some fringe cases (like you pointed out) being ahead in economy. RTS game is a game of choice. A choice to do an all-in should be have a risk and reward associated with it. In the present state of the game, I only see reward. But where comes the notion from that 2 proxy rax has to be seen as an all-in? You're confusing being agressive with doing an all-in. It's not that Maru does outright win his games with his proxies. They give him an advantage and therefore they aren't allins but harassment.
The notion that 2 rax is an all-in has come from 6 years of the game being played. LOTV changed that definition. Its no longer an all-in BUT... you have the opportunity to kill the defender. Therefore...my point about no consequences to failed aggressive openings.
In LOTV, an all-in in true definition of the term is probably left to going balls-to-walls agro by pulling all workers and sticking to 1 base.
And ofcourse, there will be people who like this because their aggressive options are not punished.
|
On October 13 2018 01:25 Less_Du_Et wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 22:31 fronkschnonk wrote:On October 12 2018 21:36 Less_Du_Et wrote:On October 11 2018 17:38 fronkschnonk wrote:On October 11 2018 12:53 Less_Du_Et wrote:
The "speed" of the game has nothing to do with APM or how fast units move or how quick you can max out. Let me try to explain my point with an example.
Take for example the good old 2 rax -
In WOL and HOTS; a failed 2 rax meant you were behind (as it should be). The aggressor took a risk, and it did not pay off (either due to good defence or poor execution of the aggression).
In LOTV; a failed 2 rax, as Maru and a few others have shown time and time again, can transition into a macro game. The aggressor in this case is NOT punished of the failed aggression.
This is because the window to punish is smaller in LOTV. In some cases, less than 30 seconds or a minute - barely enough time to get across the map.
Having to go from doing an all-in off 6 workers is a lot more "all-in" than doing it off 12 workers. ie. The 7th worker increase resource collection by ~17% whereas the 13th worker increase resource collection by 8%. This is huge. So the advantage a defending player has from defending a rush in LOTV is a LOT less than what they would have had in HOTS or WOL. You're missing the point. A really failed proxyrax will also let you be behind but in LOTV a scouted proxy isn't automatically failed proxy anymore. Look at Maru's Games vs TY: he was mostly scouted quite early but he managed to deal damage to TY while still macroing behind his harassment. He almost always had more workers than TY after his harassment - not because of killing so much workers but because TY had to produce army units instead of workers. So there is something fundamentally wrong with being able to be the aggressor and yet being on par and some fringe cases (like you pointed out) being ahead in economy. RTS game is a game of choice. A choice to do an all-in should be have a risk and reward associated with it. In the present state of the game, I only see reward. But where comes the notion from that 2 proxy rax has to be seen as an all-in? You're confusing being agressive with doing an all-in. It's not that Maru does outright win his games with his proxies. They give him an advantage and therefore they aren't allins but harassment. The notion that 2 rax is an all-in has come from 6 years of the game being played. LOTV changed that definition. Its no longer an all-in BUT... you have the opportunity to kill the defender. Therefore...my point about no consequences to failed aggressive openings. In LOTV, an all-in in true definition of the term is probably left to going balls-to-walls agro by pulling all workers and sticking to 1 base. And ofcourse, there will be people who like this because their aggressive options are not punished.
2-rax wasn't as good for a macro game in HotS as it is now, but it was also less all-in than proxy 4-rax is now. Players like Maru macro'd out of it many times.
|
I think the speed of the game is good. I like it how it is. Going back to wol days game speed of things would be terrible.
|
the games shown now are the best they have ever been. yes maru has been winning with alot of proxies but just give it time and let the opposing pro gamers figure it out.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On October 12 2018 22:34 StarscreamG1 wrote:
If they change the pathing, the game speed would not be a problem. It would decrease de "one hit" gg.
What's the problem with the pathing?
|
On October 12 2018 23:40 SHODAN wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 21:59 Charoisaur wrote:On October 12 2018 21:54 SHODAN wrote:
there's only so many actions Maru can do during a battle. and yet nobody else can come close to the number actions he does in a battle which gives him an advantage, first, you completely missed my point. second, there is nothing special about Maru's APM (~300-330). it's what he does with his actions that set him apart from the rest. my point is this: Maru has reached the micro skill ceiling. we are never going to see next-level splits or next level marine shuffling on the current game speed. there is only so much fine unit movements a human can do when the game is this fast. if the game was slowed down 5%, Maru would be even more godlike than he already is, because of his superior micro mechanics. here's an example of an imaginary game: Zest somehow survives Maru's early and mid-game aggression. Zest defends with robo units and is slightly ahead of Maru in terms of army quality. Maru has lots of MMM, but no high-tech units like liberators / ghosts. Zest has colossus, disruptors, storm, etc etc. on the current game speed, Maru is 100% dead. slow the game down 5%, maybe... just maybe there would be enough delay between all those splash attacks that Maru could out-micro Zest. the battle would last a few more seconds than usual. in that time, he could split his bio better, kite bio better, dodge stalker shots with hot pick-ups.
None of this makes sense - if the game speed is slowed down players would be able to do a few more actions during battles but then they would just hit a new skill-ceiling.
and since all players would be able to squeek in more actions it would do absolutely zero difference to the importance of micro.
|
On October 13 2018 04:05 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 23:40 SHODAN wrote:On October 12 2018 21:59 Charoisaur wrote:On October 12 2018 21:54 SHODAN wrote:
there's only so many actions Maru can do during a battle. and yet nobody else can come close to the number actions he does in a battle which gives him an advantage, first, you completely missed my point. second, there is nothing special about Maru's APM (~300-330). it's what he does with his actions that set him apart from the rest. my point is this: Maru has reached the micro skill ceiling. we are never going to see next-level splits or next level marine shuffling on the current game speed. there is only so much fine unit movements a human can do when the game is this fast. if the game was slowed down 5%, Maru would be even more godlike than he already is, because of his superior micro mechanics. here's an example of an imaginary game: Zest somehow survives Maru's early and mid-game aggression. Zest defends with robo units and is slightly ahead of Maru in terms of army quality. Maru has lots of MMM, but no high-tech units like liberators / ghosts. Zest has colossus, disruptors, storm, etc etc. on the current game speed, Maru is 100% dead. slow the game down 5%, maybe... just maybe there would be enough delay between all those splash attacks that Maru could out-micro Zest. the battle would last a few more seconds than usual. in that time, he could split his bio better, kite bio better, dodge stalker shots with hot pick-ups. None of this makes sense - if the game speed is slowed down players would be able to do a few more actions during battles but then they would just hit a new skill-ceiling. and since all players would be able to squeek in more actions it would do absolutely zero difference to the importance of micro.
game slowed down = importance of micro increased for all players = no difference to the importance of micro??? THAT makes no sense. if players are able to squeeze more actions during battles, that means there is more opportunities for a player to outskill their opponent. if the dps + splash comes so hard and fast, there is less opportunity for the superior player to outskill their opponent. slowing down the game would make battles less cut-throat, help tame the lucky elements of sc2, and make sure the best player always wins.
maybe it would make the game more fun to play and spectate... maybe it would make micro more complex and interesting like wc3. but yeah, again, I guess you missed the point I was making
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
