| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
If Blizzard nerfed blink, dts, chargelots and carriers the game would be much more enjoyable for me. But it would be in a worse state overall. What you personally dislike about the game is not same thing as what is wrong with the game overall. I do not think it is even possible to reach a consensus about what should be changed since everyone have their own opinion based on their weakest matchup and preferred play style. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
Hellion harassment can’t be countered. Hellions are too fast, and can kite. They can be zoned (which is not countering), and zerg has to wait for terran to mismicro. Ouch, that was extremely subjective, and made you lose me a bit. Both spines, roaches and mutas CAN be out very quickly if you want to hard counter them, but just making a bunch of queens to take no damage from them work fine as well. Calling for how army comp should be so much more important is also an enormous advantage for Zerg with how production is working. Also, how didn't you touch queens ad creep? | ||
|
Perttu
Chile1 Post
I love playing RTS in general, tried most of them, from casually to "competitely". I used to play alot of sc2, back in hots (during blink stalker era, and a few months after it), reaching low masters with terran, and now i just did my placements for lotv. I like to play aoe2 too, i played it almost every day after DE came out (great game), i got to top 500 but i got a little bit bored so i came to play some starcraft again. From my personal point of view, i do think the charm of sc2 is that sweet balance between micro/macro, where flashy terran movements, monster macro zerg play, extremily technical army control from protoss (at least back in hots comps with bstalkers/sentries/ht/collosi i dont know the standard toss comp nowdays) all have their spot within the game, because this is an assymetrical rts, where every race has their own identity, if you remove the adventage/ability to micro like a mad man your MMM or juggle immortals to win games, then this game would be pretty boring for me. What you want (and mostly described in your essay) is a RTS like age of empires 2, i think you would enjoy that game alot (thinking about the changes you proposed), the game has alot of simmetry, with a few discrepancies between civilizations. Aoe2 is WAY WAY more focused on macro (need to balance 4 ress) and strategy (lots of terrain advantages, thinking about unit comps etc), it's common to find low apm players in the top rankings (there is a pro that has below 200apm) and he is at least top20-30 in the world. Since aoe2 is a slower game, you dont instantly lose matches if you are out of position with your army (this is the most punishing thing that sc2 has from my POV, and what i really dislike about the game) since there are pretty few explosive fights where you lose everything in less than 10seconds (mangonel vs archers might be an exception). Adding to your ideal idea of tiers, that is exactly what Aoe2 does. Every unit is an upgrade from their previous tier, with more eHP/DPS locked behind tech. Problem with this is you lose ALOT of uniqueness to every unit, your same unit tier1 will do the same role as a tier2, etc, since they are just an upgrade from the previous one. If you think decreasing the adventage of micro will lead to a better experience in the game, it will most likely end up going all the way to the other spectrum where turtling games will take place over any other type of gameplay. Again, aoe2 is mostly about macro/strategy, and the meta of that game is just wall wall wall and boom behind it(expand), since it is pretty hard to win just microing your units (there are a few exceptions) when your units are slow or have alot of attack delay (for example, cavalry archers, are designed to be a raiding unit, rewarding the multitask/micro oriented player, but since their attack delay is horrible they are almost useless in most cases) that the correct play becomes just turtling and ecoing up, and games can become pretty long even if you are ahead since min5-10 from an early raid. The only thing i would change about sc2 is the speed, mostly in fights, so they dont get over in few seconds, but that's just my opinion, i mostly enjoy the current state of sc2 (at least from my experience with hots). To your post, i do think most of your changes are just change sc2 to aoe2 (in terms of gameplay if you have played it) which is not a good idea since the focus of both of those games are vastly different. I hope you have a nice day. (sorry if my english is not good enough in certain parts) | ||
|
aringadingding
478 Posts
First, you list stuff what you consider fun. And the reason for why you like it. Ok, a subjective start is not strange ofc. Then you mention "This applies to many aspects of the game. It may be so obvious, that it’s forgotten by most people" - why do you say this? It looks more like it a thing that you "think" rather than know. I mean, how have you acquired this information "from most people"? ... so again it is just something YOU like and value. Looking down further in the text a lot revolve around things that you like, and you seem to want these things not just to be your own opinion but more a generalizing aspect of sc2. "If I want to casually play the game with 60 apm, and “not micro”, I should still be able to win any game I play against a microing player (if I just play better in general)" is very strange statement for me. - Your statement would almost mean unit control should have no impact of the game. But then again, you clearly prefer macro way more than micro =) Well, I did not read the article to the end, but from most of what I read it feels like reading a text saying: This is what I like and dislike when I play sc2. I like macro more than micro, so i want more macro than micro. I am annoyed with some terran and toss unit so I want that fixed... etc. (ofc i am exaggerating a bit, but not by much). A lot of the reasoning is strange. At first glance it look well thought out, but when you start to read it is a mixed bag of opinions and facts which are not facts but rather things you think. Maybe it would have been better to just list your suggested balance changes or something like that. I dont know. This text seem like a lengthy balance whine-ish thing. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15995 Posts
Was disappointed when I realized you're actually serious. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
Edit: I first saw this on a Dwarf Fortress discussion, and it applies. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/UJXRpmL.jpeg) | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On October 08 2020 01:24 Slydie wrote: Ouch, that was extremely subjective, and made you lose me a bit. Both spines, roaches and mutas CAN be out very quickly if you want to hard counter them, but just making a bunch of queens to take no damage from them work fine as well. Calling for how army comp should be so much more important is also an enormous advantage for Zerg with how production is working. Also, how didn't you touch queens ad creep? Speedlings on creep are way faster, you can build a wall and place queens in it, you can build a FULL wall. Later in the game it doesn't matter that much, you can build spines and stuff. To add to yours post. Edit> To add salt into injury, Winter did 100 APM challenge into masters. he did it with like 95 % win rate. If you want to play with low APM you can get to masters. There was even a pro with like 120 APM(cannot remember name now). Sure, it wasn't a high level pro, but he was able to get to the top! Just think about that for a while. APM is useless unless you can put it into a good use. Most players on the ladder cannot do that once they're over 120. And I'm being way too generous  | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
Pros and people here saying "oh you could totally beat that, just get better" is the most useless advice. You are not better, and you will not get better noticeably for maybe months. But you know what? your opponent is also not better, youre suppoused to be close in skill. So If a strat is too strong, or a unit comp, or whatever in your respective league "get better" is not a valid answer. I also agree balance affects all leagues. However I found some flaws with what you were saying. You are saying macro can't overcome micro, but it literally can. The way to go from bronze to diamond is to get better macro. Micro can help but macro will trump it. But of course there comes a point where you will need both. Still, even with your examples if you have better macro you should be able to win. For example you mention hellions. If you have better macro you can create a wall with 2 evo chambers and 1 spine crawler. Since you have better macro you can afford those minerals right? Who cares if you already have two evos, build another two at your expantion. If it stops you from losing 20 drones by an harass it's worth it. Same with spores. 1 spore doesn't cover all the mineral line? Build two. There you will use your better macro to stop "better micro". What you're suggesting of increasing the range of spores would literally make units useless. Why would you make an oracle/lib/phoenix/banshee if 1 single spore counters it and kills it? Might as well delete those units. Or in the case of protoss for example. Your micro is not enough to manage storms, disruptors, feedback, FF? Just make 20 gateways and 10 colossus with your great macro. Or as zerg just make more units. Were you around when Stephano made his 200/200 roach strat at minute 10 in WoL? (game was slower back then son 200/200 was unheard of at that minute). He literally did what you are saying is impossible, he just made roaches, so even if you made the counter, the better "macro" and timming push made it super hard to defend because he had so many more units than you. One of the things zerg is good at is remaxing. So if you have good macro you should be able to remax and lose 2 armies. You need to fight away from your base though. With zerg try to defend in the lategame as little as possible. If they kill all your army at your natural of course you're going to lose. If they kill it at their natural though, by the time they arrive at your base you already remaxed. Also you literally suggested to nerf batteries, PF, bunkers, but buff zerg static defense...don't you think that's a little biased? Appreciate the effort. I think some of your ideas are in the right place, but other's are very biased. EDIT: Finally there are other ways to counter units. For examples, banshees and hellions: better scouting. Sure, they can kite and cloack and whatever, but if you know they are coming, and from where they are coming, you can set up a trap with a flank, or position your spores/queens. That, is strategy, and you talked a little bit about it, but I dissagree with your conclusion. Strategy can trump micro sometimes too! | ||
|
Beez
Canada18 Posts
| ||
|
DuckS
United States845 Posts
| ||
|
MarianoSC2
Slovakia1855 Posts
But hey, you can suggest to all the athletes in the world of sport to just not use their speed and the fact that they are better then you as an advantage, because you think its not fun. I am sure you will find a lot of support ! Hey Usain Bolt ! Please stop running (microing) so fast... I know I may be a 100kg slowpoke, but my sprint strategy is as good as yours, not to say I even have the same boots as you (macro) ! I should have equal chance to win, please go slower mate | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
I jitter between 3.2k mmr and 4.2k mmr THat's plat 1/dia3 - dia 1 range? Just wanting to be sure. Not about league shaming the OP. I play unranked and rank myself by the person I beat and I usually don't check the MMR numbers of my opponents(why would I) | ||
|
tigon_ridge
482 Posts
| ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
It seems you don't want to play stacraft 2, you want to play a made up game that is so radically different from starcraft 2 you need a post this long just to explain all the changes you want. There is nothing wrong with sc2 and if this game is not for you that is fine, you can either work on your micro and attention, be happy where you are or move on. | ||
|
Dedraterllaerau
113 Posts
God knows how many passionate posts I've started writing and half way through I think to myself why am I even writing no-one cares and it won't change a damn thing anyway. So learn from me my friend don't waste your time putting all this energy into posts like this, if you want to make a difference in sc2 you need to become a relevant person in the community so your voice matters more or you will have no effect on the decisions being made. Other then that I do disagree with most of the things you write in your post. | ||
|
tigon_ridge
482 Posts
On October 08 2020 09:12 Dedraterllaerau wrote: What's sad is you put so much effort in to that post and no-one will care, blizzard will never read it and you have wasted your time and energy for nothing. God knows how many passionate posts I've started writing and half way through I think to myself why am I even writing no-one cares and it won't change a damn thing anyway. So learn from me my friend don't waste your time putting all this energy into posts like this, if you want to make a difference in sc2 you need to become a relevant person in the community so your voice matters more or you will have no effect on the decisions being made. Other then that I do disagree with most of the things you write in your post. I gave his post a fair try, because I noticed the length of it, and thought that if somebody put that much effort into something, it's at least worth a skim. I think most people who replied thought the same. You can't reasonably expect others to take you seriously when your entire thesis is based solely on your bias, and not taking into consideration others' perspectives. If any of the pro casters, top streamers, or pros put out something this blatantly nonsensical, it would probably be treated even more harshly, and memed to death. Don't even get me started with how he titled his proposal "Everything wrong with SC2 and how to fix it." Someone nominate this guy for a nobel prize. He has single-handedly solved a complex RTS game that Bliz has been workin on for over a decade. | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
On October 08 2020 04:33 [Phantom] wrote: I agree with your asseement that "just get better" isnt a good thing to say. Pros and people here saying "oh you could totally beat that, just get better" is the most useless advice. You are not better, and you will not get better noticeably for maybe months. But you know what? your opponent is also not better, youre suppoused to be close in skill. So If a strat is too strong, or a unit comp, or whatever in your respective league "get better" is not a valid answer. I also agree balance affects all leagues. However I found some flaws with what you were saying. You are saying macro can't overcome micro, but it literally can. The way to go from bronze to diamond is to get better macro. Micro can help but macro will trump it. But of course there comes a point where you will need both. Still, even with your examples if you have better macro you should be able to win. For example you mention hellions. If you have better macro you can create a wall with 2 evo chambers and 1 spine crawler. Since you have better macro you can afford those minerals right? Who cares if you already have two evos, build another two at your expantion. If it stops you from losing 20 drones by an harass it's worth it. Same with spores. 1 spore doesn't cover all the mineral line? Build two. There you will use your better macro to stop "better micro". What you're suggesting of increasing the range of spores would literally make units useless. Why would you make an oracle/lib/phoenix/banshee if 1 single spore counters it and kills it? Might as well delete those units. Or in the case of protoss for example. Your micro is not enough to manage storms, disruptors, feedback, FF? Just make 20 gateways and 10 colossus with your great macro. Or as zerg just make more units. Were you around when Stephano made his 200/200 roach strat at minute 10 in WoL? (game was slower back then son 200/200 was unheard of at that minute). He literally did what you are saying is impossible, he just made roaches, so even if you made the counter, the better "macro" and timming push made it super hard to defend because he had so many more units than you. One of the things zerg is good at is remaxing. So if you have good macro you should be able to remax and lose 2 armies. You need to fight away from your base though. With zerg try to defend in the lategame as little as possible. If they kill all your army at your natural of course you're going to lose. If they kill it at their natural though, by the time they arrive at your base you already remaxed. Also you literally suggested to nerf batteries, PF, bunkers, but buff zerg static defense...don't you think that's a little biased? Appreciate the effort. I think some of your ideas are in the right place, but other's are very biased. EDIT: Finally there are other ways to counter units. For examples, banshees and hellions: better scouting. Sure, they can kite and cloack and whatever, but if you know they are coming, and from where they are coming, you can set up a trap with a flank, or position your spores/queens. That, is strategy, and you talked a little bit about it, but I dissagree with your conclusion. Strategy can trump micro sometimes too! I was going to reply to this post but what phantom said pretty much sums up the matter, although I disagree about the balance Point, I think balance effects all leagues but balance is also totally different in all leagues for instance at the pro level I think pvt is Protoss favored but at the low masters level I play at I think it’s the other way because Protoss players are not good enough with their execution,scouting,micro ect to hold terrans powerfull allins. As soon as toss get to a point that they can hold the allins most of the time the race becomes to strong because the collosi disruptor stalker army is extremely strong. Vs bio. Similar microcosms exist throughout the ranking system, Terrans who don’t have strong build orders,micro and reactions to allins stand no chance vs Protoss, Zerg in low leagues are disadvantaged because they can’t macro well enough to get good value from the race. Zerg in higher leagues typically struggle vs mech and sky toss but pro zergs can make these strays look non-viable ect. Other than that completely agree with phantom On a personal note I would add that a lot of us sc2 players like micro, it’s flashy, it’s fun to watch players like ByuN and Parting push the envelope of what’s possible to achieve with the same set of units joe smoe masters player uses, and it’s very satisfying to execute a fight well. Further good micro management is one of the key comeback mechanics in the game it lets the player who is behind use superior execution to get the same value out of their smaller force as their opponent and potentially recover. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
| ||
|
crbox
Canada1180 Posts
It's hard to analysis balance using this kind of incomplete math because some units (like the cracklings) are obviously super strong (their dps and HP/100minerals is great), but they are also counterable (actually you could argue not really but whatever), melee units that can also be super inefficient. It's up to the player to make them efficient by choosing good engages. I won't bash you though, I appreciate reading this casually on my Wednesday night. Great effort, thumbs up  | ||
|
Rail_sc2
Russian Federation205 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
OSC
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
|
|
|
EPT
