|
On October 14 2018 14:25 DarthSidious_BR wrote:
i think the topic has some key issue: i always been around the website, not much of posting, but this... i truly believe within the fact that broodwars(and warcraft III aoe2 also) is only what he IS (they) because of the game-paced also. sc2 its almost timming and macroing, and i think the speed applied to the game is insane, i mean, like someone post here said that within 12minutes we have 6 bases been controling and the battles lasts 6 seconds? wtf? which space i would have to micro and enjoy the whole battle, like boxer did in 2002 and hauted the whole esports generation?
If you're losing a game in 6 seconds it's your own fault.
It means you either didn't see a blind side attack coming, or you overcommitted your entire army into a slaughter.
SC2 as it is right now is played best with many skirmishes and many battles occuring all over the map. It's a low level way to play to just have 2 armies meet in the middle and be decisively over at that point, very few pro games end like that.
|
On October 14 2018 14:47 Vindicare605 wrote:
I'm not saying that I agree nor do I disagree with the idea that the game is too fast right now, but I'm just pointing out that LoTV is a lot more successful in both balance and overall enjoyment of gameplay than HoTS was BECAUSE the game got sped up, BECAUSE the bases mine out so much faster.
Oh, I do like the fact that bases mine out faster. I would also like if expanding more with fewer worker per base gave you an edge (I was proposing some mods to achieve just that in the past).
But in LotV this is not the only change. You also tech up faster, get your army faster, etc...
I would prefer if the overall income and unit speed (maybe also dps) was toned down just a bit.
I would like to see more positional play and more low and mid-tier skirmishes. I would like to see teching up to be a bigger decision, with a bigger impact and a bigger risk involved.
|
play your games in fast speed as opposed to faster.
you'll see very quickly players--unless they are training to become the very best--adapt themselves to play at the slower speed, rather than to increase the effectiveness of their skills on faster.
in other words, they become lazy and take the relative ease for granted.
you should know that in all walks of life, people are like this.
a slower speed allows for multitasking with lesser skill rather than to directly expand upon it.
believe it or not if you trained enough you could control the hellion runby with reaper, and the banshee harass, while adding 2 rax and expo+depots+workers+engi bays, all to the degree that you wish and without missing an essential beat.
because most people will never do this, it's assumed the strategy or overall maneuver is overall bad (until proven otherwise in televised games) or the game is too fast to allow you to do it adeptly.
when does the player take direct responsibility for something like that? because it's easier than you think.
no skill is obtained by stumbling into it. you could organically achieve something close by keeping an open mind and practicing the motions, but until you work at it, why is it the game's flaw and not your own?
why is it not worth your time to change how you essentially play, for the better?
because all it takes is an integer switch to completely alter your view on something, or to make it more enjoyable, more easy for you?
maybe the game is much harder than it needs to be and focuses less on the nature of strategy than you would like.
but the game is fast and you can also play fast.
there are so many opportunities where you make mistakes and easily make up for them by focusing on the strategy aspect of the game. so many of these situations occur during a game and you probably don't even notice or give that credit.
a huge problem with starcraft communities at the beginning was that they were so focused on discussing the nitty gritty of why balance is so bad currently, instead of figuring out how to play it out.
in other words, complaining more than just playing and understanding that a few little opinions voiced on a forum isn't going to change a single thing with how you'll play tomorrow.
when all it really came down to--and the only thing you can truly depend on happening--is using your head. practice.
|
On October 14 2018 19:11 nanaoei wrote:
play your games in fast speed as opposed to faster.
you'll see very quickly players--unless they are training to become the very best--adapt themselves to play at the slower speed, rather than to increase the effectiveness of their skills on faster.
in other words, they become lazy and take the relative ease for granted.
you should know that in all walks of life, people are like this.
a slower speed allows for multitasking with lesser skill rather than to directly expand upon it.
believe it or not if you trained enough you could control the hellion runby with reaper, and the banshee harass, while adding 2 rax and expo+depots+workers+engi bays, all to the degree that you wish and without missing an essential beat.
because most people will never do this, it's assumed the strategy or overall maneuver is overall bad (until proven otherwise in televised games) or the game is too fast to allow you to do it adeptly.
when does the player take direct responsibility for something like that? because it's easier than you think.
no skill is obtained by stumbling into it. you could organically achieve something close by keeping an open mind and practicing the motions, but until you work at it, why is it the game's flaw and not your own?
why is it not worth your time to change how you essentially play, for the better?
because all it takes is an integer switch to completely alter your view on something, or to make it more enjoyable, more easy for you?
maybe the game is much harder than it needs to be and focuses less on the nature of strategy than you would like.
but the game is fast and you can also play fast.
there are so many opportunities where you make mistakes and easily make up for them by focusing on the strategy aspect of the game. so many of these situations occur during a game and you probably don't even notice or give that credit.
a huge problem with starcraft communities at the beginning was that they were so focused on discussing the nitty gritty of why balance is so bad currently, instead of figuring out how to play it out.
in other words, complaining more than just playing and understanding that a few little opinions voiced on a forum isn't going to change a single thing with how you'll play tomorrow.
when all it really came down to--and the only thing you can truly depend on happening--is using your head. practice.
While a lot of what you are saying is reasonable, it isn't quite true.
Any player that make a living of playing well will not get lazy. The professionals will not lower their APM because the speed of the game slows down. You said this as well.
Average Joe would initially enjoy the slower speed, but will also aim to win. This will also keep the APM of average Joe up. This is opposed to what you said.
The only players that will play lazily are the ones who find joy in the game without the need to win. I believe they are a minority. They will ahppily accept the lower game speed. This agrees with what you said.
The vast majority of the players will still keep their APM and play quickly with the reduced game speed.
Regarding your other point, the possibility to improve, I can say that I am physically inhibited from playing faster. My body is unable to use movements that are distinct enough while being faster. I have tried improving for about 15 years, playing different games. The only improvement is my understanding and what my priorities are.
This limitation has nothing to do with me using my off hand, since I'm ambidextrious. I have no neurological issues. I am an average human.
I am playing in platinum league, the "above average league", and I often face diamond players. I would very much like to be able to do more multitasking, but the game is too fast for me. If the game were to be slower on ladder, I would find more joy in playing the ladder. I assume that I am not alone in this.
|
On October 14 2018 20:30 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2018 19:11 nanaoei wrote:
play your games in fast speed as opposed to faster.
you'll see very quickly players--unless they are training to become the very best--adapt themselves to play at the slower speed, rather than to increase the effectiveness of their skills on faster.
in other words, they become lazy and take the relative ease for granted.
you should know that in all walks of life, people are like this.
a slower speed allows for multitasking with lesser skill rather than to directly expand upon it.
believe it or not if you trained enough you could control the hellion runby with reaper, and the banshee harass, while adding 2 rax and expo+depots+workers+engi bays, all to the degree that you wish and without missing an essential beat.
because most people will never do this, it's assumed the strategy or overall maneuver is overall bad (until proven otherwise in televised games) or the game is too fast to allow you to do it adeptly.
when does the player take direct responsibility for something like that? because it's easier than you think.
no skill is obtained by stumbling into it. you could organically achieve something close by keeping an open mind and practicing the motions, but until you work at it, why is it the game's flaw and not your own?
why is it not worth your time to change how you essentially play, for the better?
because all it takes is an integer switch to completely alter your view on something, or to make it more enjoyable, more easy for you?
maybe the game is much harder than it needs to be and focuses less on the nature of strategy than you would like.
but the game is fast and you can also play fast.
there are so many opportunities where you make mistakes and easily make up for them by focusing on the strategy aspect of the game. so many of these situations occur during a game and you probably don't even notice or give that credit.
a huge problem with starcraft communities at the beginning was that they were so focused on discussing the nitty gritty of why balance is so bad currently, instead of figuring out how to play it out.
in other words, complaining more than just playing and understanding that a few little opinions voiced on a forum isn't going to change a single thing with how you'll play tomorrow.
when all it really came down to--and the only thing you can truly depend on happening--is using your head. practice. While a lot of what you are saying is reasonable, it isn't quite true. Any player that make a living of playing well will not get lazy. The professionals will not lower their APM because the speed of the game slows down. You said this as well. Average Joe would initially enjoy the slower speed, but will also aim to win. This will also keep the APM of average Joe up. This is opposed to what you said. The only players that will play lazily are the ones who find joy in the game without the need to win. I believe they are a minority. They will ahppily accept the lower game speed. This agrees with what you said. The vast majority of the players will still keep their APM and play quickly with the reduced game speed. Regarding your other point, the possibility to improve, I can say that I am physically inhibited from playing faster. My body is unable to use movements that are distinct enough while being faster. I have tried improving for about 15 years, playing different games. The only improvement is my understanding and what my priorities are. This limitation has nothing to do with me using my off hand, since I'm ambidextrious. I have no neurological issues. I am an average human. I am playing in platinum league, the "above average league", and I often face diamond players. I would very much like to be able to do more multitasking, but the game is too fast for me. If the game were to be slower on ladder, I would find more joy in playing the ladder. I assume that I am not alone in this.
I'm almost certain that if you really wanted to you could bring up your apm, from the time I started playing this game at 90 apm I have improved to playing around 220 apm in the past from playing more and focusing more on it I've gotten as high as 245. It's not really a question of can you get faster but if you have the time to comit to becoming faster. I started playing the game when I was a highschool student and could spend time in my summer breack grinding out games, now that I'm much older and have had things like college and work I can't commit the same kind of time any more but I still am able to squeeze out improvement in my play by watching replays seeing at what points in my games my multitasking faltered and pushing myself to play better at those specific times. Improvement is not beyond any one it just a question of how much you can or will put into the game to get that improvement.
I dropped the game awhile back and only started playing agian about 2 months ago during that time I brought my apm up from 180 to 220 from practice and replay analysis. I believe any one could do the same if they want to put in the work.
|
On October 14 2018 00:03 virpi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2018 12:35 Fedorabro69 wrote:
The game is definitely too fast for me. I just can't enjoy it at the pace it currently goes and that's why I never even bothered with LoTV. I enjoy slower gameplay that allows for more strategic thinking and less reliance on muscle memory. As it is, starcraft 2 is barely watchable without a third party observing the match. Even mid-tier Players jump their screens around and change ui menus so rapidly that it's borderline seizure inducing. Different people enjoy different things. Personally, I really love playing and watching LOTV. It is a very deep strategic game, but of course you need the ability to execute a lot of commands in a short span of time. Watching high level BW is even more seizure inducing than SC2, because players have to be even faster to keep up.
Oh don't get me wrong. I think that the fast pace of the game is great for spectating. I just can't stand playing it this way. It's way too fast for me. I did consider trying to make a custom map geared towards slow paced gameplay but balancing things is a lot harder than it looks. A lot of things would have to be re-designed or tweaked to make the concept into an actually fun, playable game. I never got around to it.
|
The change in the starting worker count made the beginning extremely uncomfortable to play.
I do not play regularly enough any more to know the maps by heart. I feel like I have no time to even look around the map before my attention is required to not bork the beginning. The later stages of the game are fine in speed. This hasn't changed much in a long time. I played broodwar, and both previous iterations of SC2. I have played like 50 games total of LotV simply due to the worker change.
The enjoyment of starcraft, in particular, was that you start from virtually nothing, and built up to very high degrees of complexity in decision making and execution. Now you start with a fire under your ass, with no time to consider anything. It feels like there is virtually no early to mid game at all. You get a cannon rush or a 12 pool now and then, but they are much more manageable with less scouting. Scouting seems to mainly be for what the brief midgame will be. But still, there seems to be much less variance over time of what is sucessful (that is probably just me).
This is the 3rd? total rebalance, and they have done virtually nothing with the economy. Just farted around with whether or not the mineral stacks are the same size to force more expansion, or to slightly mediate it. It is simply not enjoyable to me.
|
On October 15 2018 03:46 Kaz1 wrote:
The change in the starting worker count made the beginning extremely uncomfortable to play.
I do not play regularly enough any more to know the maps by heart. I feel like I have no time to even look around the map before my attention is required to not bork the beginning. The later stages of the game are fine in speed. This hasn't changed much in a long time. I played broodwar, and both previous iterations of SC2. I have played like 50 games total of LotV simply due to the worker change.
The enjoyment of starcraft, in particular, was that you start from virtually nothing, and built up to very high degrees of complexity in decision making and execution. Now you start with a fire under your ass, with no time to consider anything. It feels like there is virtually no early to mid game at all. You get a cannon rush or a 12 pool now and then, but they are much more manageable with less scouting. Scouting seems to mainly be for what the brief midgame will be. But still, there seems to be much less variance over time of what is sucessful (that is probably just me).
This is the 3rd? total rebalance, and they have done virtually nothing with the economy. Just farted around with whether or not the mineral stacks are the same size to force more expansion, or to slightly mediate it. It is simply not enjoyable to me.
It's at least not my experience that games are to samey with little variety when i get on ladder i see a huge range of builds being used. Allot more than several periods back in hots. I see a huge variety in proxy builds out of terran and them playing both mech and bio in tvt and tvz. I see protoss experimenting with allot of different mid game compositions in tvp and pvp and different opening builds in pvz. I guess zerg tends to have a little less variation but I think allot of that has to do with the queen being such a catch all unit that most macro games tend to leave zerg with a similar kind of setup just more or less developed depending on what kind of dmg there opponent did. Still I see alot of variety in zerg cheese, and alot of variety in zvz right now. I do also see some zergs going for mutas instead of hydra in tvz and even a few experimenting with lurkers.
At least in low masters right now the game has a good deal of variety where alot of different styles of play are seeing at least moderate use. Its nothing like eras of the game where we saw match ups that all looked the same, like tvp blink era, bl infestor era, mmm vs ling bane era (although I loved this era any way due to the mechanical skill required out of both terran and zerg.) I do think that zerg might feel a bit samey but zerg has other things about the way they play that at least for me keep them interesting despite low build diversity, primarily how every game is a bit different because you are the reactionary player and your play is dictated by what your opponent does.
|
I'm not really sure if I understand or agree with what OP means by too fast.
It sounds like they're saying that early game transitions to midgame, and then to lategame too quickly? (Each phase is shorter than it used to be?)
I would disagree with that if true. Early game is bigger than ever, minus the arbitrary -90 seconds removed at the beginning thanks to the worker change. Early game is a big deal and is very exciting and involves a lot of creativity and variety compared to back then. Thanks to the micro that you can do with early game units, there are a lot of ways it can turn out, and mid game is entered in very different ways compared to WoL/HotS style where you just macro up to 3 bases before fighting. There is also less ways to be BO countered and instant lose early game.
Mid game definitely CAN enter pretty quickly if nothing happens much early game and players decide to macro, but that's fine. We're not seeing that as the dominant way games are played, and when it does happen, it is fine to have some variance. If both players want to macro fast, they'll get to 3 bases fast.
Now, mid game is usually the rest of the game... unless if someone wins. Games end during early game or during early of mid game much more than back then, again thanks to all the stuff you can do early game now to get an advantage instead of just 10 minute no rush. I think players generally like the midgame anyway as it is a comfortable spot to be in, so it's fine to be the longest phase of a game (as long as no one loses before that I mean).
Now TRUE late game happens very rarely. Several bases, armies are easily at max with enough mining to get a bank, transitioning to very high tier units. I think this is actually great, lategame should be intense and rare.
The pacing of the game is almost perfect IMO. Many games end early game or mid game, very few games reach late game.
|
On October 15 2018 03:46 Kaz1 wrote:
The change in the starting worker count made the beginning extremely uncomfortable to play.
I do not play regularly enough any more to know the maps by heart. I feel like I have no time to even look around the map before my attention is required to not bork the beginning. The later stages of the game are fine in speed. This hasn't changed much in a long time. I played broodwar, and both previous iterations of SC2. I have played like 50 games total of LotV simply due to the worker change.
The enjoyment of starcraft, in particular, was that you start from virtually nothing, and built up to very high degrees of complexity in decision making and execution. Now you start with a fire under your ass, with no time to consider anything. It feels like there is virtually no early to mid game at all. You get a cannon rush or a 12 pool now and then, but they are much more manageable with less scouting. Scouting seems to mainly be for what the brief midgame will be. But still, there seems to be much less variance over time of what is sucessful (that is probably just me).
This is the 3rd? total rebalance, and they have done virtually nothing with the economy. Just farted around with whether or not the mineral stacks are the same size to force more expansion, or to slightly mediate it. It is simply not enjoyable to me.
This was a problem for me when getting back to sc2 again some months ago, but honestly it's enough to quickly look at the maps offline before starting the game to avoid the issue.
In my personal experience, game speed and pace are just right as they are in lotv, I prefer to have the game getting to its core more rapidly without having to go through the same first 1-2-3min every time (personal preference ofc).
|
Although I would like it more if we would start with 6 workers again, the game is pretty enjoyable to watch for me, way more than in the last ~5 years. I think they did a very good job with the flow of the game. Still I would like there to be a longer transition into late game.
Aside from that, what has always been my biggest "regret" with SC2: Any tournament has a huge amount of maps and games played. And despite that there are a lot of nuances to strategy, most games are over pretty fast and look very similar to each other.
What I am trying to say: To this very day, I easily remember 30 different BroodWar games very distinctively, because they were unique, crazy or just amazing. And these games have been played a decade ago.
SC2 games on the other hand are just not very memorable to me... there is game after game after game, with little to no breaks in between and most do not last very long (despite reaching late game). If I tried really hard, I would probably remember 5 SC2 games as vividly as I do BroodWar games.
BroodWar had less maps, less games, and much deeper preparation for certain occasions. In SC2, players have to prepare a Bo7 with 7 different maps, when their last Bo5/Bo7 was maybe 5 days earlier.
I do not expect that most people share my point of view, but this is how I always felt about the two games and what I missed most about SC2, despite really liking the game.
This has, in my mind, also to do with speed (and frequency).
|
The reason why the game is fast is because of macro mechanics. In BW the Zerg player would sit on ~30-35 drones for a long time vs. Protoss and Terran because he simply doesn't have that many bases and needs to make units.
In AoE2 you can't both tech and make workers from the same hall. Teching is extremely expensive and it's hard to hold off a strong tier 2 pressure if you're trying to fast tech to tier 3. Games are often won at tier 2 by a strong flush.
In SC2 everyone just jumps up to 65+ workers immediately and gets units and techs and everything all at the same time.
|
I think the game is too fast:
Used to be GM/high masters player in WoL and HotS and stopped playing with LotV. Recently we had "oldschool" tournament where we played mainly LotV and some WoL/HotS. I hopped onto ladder for a week or two got back into mid-high-ish master. The game didn't feel too fast then - all the choices and scouting I didn't do I just disregarded as I'm way too bad to understand right now so why bother.
In the tournament when I had the opportunity to compare game to game from WoL or HotS to LotV the pace seemed insanely fast. But in a way where all the decisons and scouting I could do in WoL/HotS is basically not relevant in LotV.
In the older expansions stuff like how much gas opponent mined, what exact timing is this building, faking out gases, how much immortals does immortal allin have all that mattered. All that you had TIME to think about and scout that properly and react properly.
Now the game feels so fast you just zoomzoom trough everything because you just get so much shit so fast it ultimately (to certain degree) doesn't matter what you scout or decide to do. All that matters is get as much stuff as possible as soon as possible.
In older expansions I did know exact timings on so many things and what it ment. In the "new one" I feel like I know couple of general timings and thats all rest is just "zoom-zoom, macro up, dont stop"
|
I think the 12 worker start threw the game out of balance.
It gives you more money, but the building time is still the same.
So, unlike in HotS and WoL, if you focus on tech, you still have a surplus of money to spend in other areas. This makes the game less diversive. You just do everything fast, with the build/construction times being a bigger bottleneck than the money itself.
I wonder how the game would play if the cost of all buildings and research was increased by, say, 50%. I would expect more low-tier army fights with a meaningful tech choices rather than get-everything approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
