| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Athenau
569 Posts
My post had a variety of content in it, and you chose to quote the whole thing then only talk to my point that the conspiracy talk is cringe. So, if either of us is choosing the dumbest thing to talk about, it ain't me. And the conspiracy stuff is cringe. Why should I address the rest of your post? You presented no new arguments, and pretending that these latest miniscule number changes move the needle at all is a waste of time. | ||
|
Creager
Germany1884 Posts
On January 10 2023 02:58 SHODAN wrote: I watch the game too. it's why I offered a maxed protoss for example and not a maxed zerg. admittedly, it becomes a clumsy example when you start agonizing over the particulars that led up to that 60 supply deficit. maybe Maru is in a good position to basetrade, or what about this or that... yeah I get it. I'm primarily annoyed with the game speed. it's why the topic of my post was game speed. it's why I expressed dissatisfaction towards the game speed of SC2 and not something else, like macro. I wrote that game speed should be optimized on SC2's own terms, largely because no other RTS really has the macro emphasis that SC2 has. I don't mind that macro matters in SC2. I wish micro mattered more though. it sucks that SC2 left very little room for creative micro. everyone thought baneling land-mines would be this big scary thing, but SC2 is too fast to allow these smaller interactions to happen. Serral is too busy morphing 40 banelings at a time and crashing them into planetaries. Moon, the greatest (non-starcraft) RTS player to ever have lived, the 5th race, failed to even make a dent in SC2. the way he juggled units in WC3 was one of the most enthralling things I've ever witnessed in esports. units didn't die as quickly in WC3. being able to save one or two units at any point, including the lategame, created a snowball effect which Moon took full advantage of. how did SC2's design allow a force of nature to become so utterly unremarkable from one RTS to another? it made everything faster, clumped up and squishy, to the point where it's only worthwhile to focus on large clusters of units instead of trying to save individual units. maybe I can't see it because I've played and watched SC2 for too long, but I feel that if I had a way of viewing the game through the lens of a casual, regardless of who's playing, all I would be able to see on the screen is damage. damage and full retreat. it's been a long, long time since Billy the hero marine revealed himself in a pro sc2 match, but that's what you get from an RTS which is anti-micro by design Woah there, to make a statement that implies SC2 was designed as 'anti-micro' game is just such a bitter exaggeration on your part, even when directly comparing the game to WC3. I guess we can all agree that SC2 is quite punishing when you mess up in a crucial situation, sometimes one missclick can cost you the game within a second, but this does not at all equate to 'anti-micro', additionally game speed does not equate to DPS. While I can see where you're coming from I would also arrive at the conclusion that you personally just favor prolonged micro interactions over split-second micro decisions paired with importance of macro. IMHO SC2 is probably the RTS game with the most responsiveness regarding unit control and the only RTS/MOBA game matching this currently is Heroes of the Storm, since it utilizes the same engine, no other game I've played so far has such tight and direct unit control and for me personally this is the absolute gold standard. EDIT: Regarding the updated balance patch notes, I sure would have wished to see some additional number tweaking and also maybe even reverting some of the proposed changes, but I guess the door swings both ways when thinking some stuff is really non-impactful to the game, so it probably shouldn't matter to have the change vs. leaving things as is, I just guess that I'd personally prefer balance not to be touched unless a change is desperately needed. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1060 Posts
On January 12 2023 00:54 Creager wrote: Woah there, to make a statement that implies SC2 was designed as 'anti-micro' game is just such a bitter exaggeration on your part, even when directly comparing the game to WC3. I guess we can all agree that SC2 is quite punishing when you mess up in a crucial situation, sometimes one missclick can cost you the game within a second, but this does not at all equate to 'anti-micro', additionally game speed does not equate to DPS. While I can see where you're coming from I would also arrive at the conclusion that you personally just favor prolonged micro interactions over split-second micro decisions paired with importance of macro. IMHO SC2 is probably the RTS game with the most responsiveness regarding unit control and the only RTS/MOBA game matching this currently is Heroes of the Storm, since it utilizes the same engine, no other game I've played so far has such tight and direct unit control and for me personally this is the absolute gold standard. the SC2 engine is great. even after 12 years it is still top class yes, you're right, I do prefer more prolonged micro interactions. I stand by what I said. SC2's micro is intense, but it lacks depth; kinda like a cheap jump scare as opposed to a genuinely creepy horror sequence. all quick cuts and shaky cam. I don't know anyone who plays SC2 because they enjoy it as a micro battler. they play for the strategy, the macro and the terrible, terrible damage I think the creative development of SC2 micro reached its peak when Parting perfected blink stalkers and when terrans started reliably focus-firing banelings around the start of LotV. I haven't noticed SC2 micro developing in an exciting way beyond that. I believe that the extreme speed of SC2 is a large reason why professionals are limited in what they can do with their units. another reason is the very tight bunching of units, which I also believe reduces the depth of micro that is possible. SC2 will be highly responsive no matter what. doesn't mean you can't tweak the collision radius of units: the setting which controls how units clump into formation (e.g. the unnaturally smooth way marines pack together like a bunch of grapes and skim across the map like water). body blocking almost doesn't happen in SC2, or very rarely and unreliably, because small / medum-sized units are so damn fast / slippery instead of finding elegant sustain mechanics, Blizz instead decided to increase the starting worker count so that the early-game would zip by faster. still, there are large periods of time where literally nothing is happening. SC2's build-up towards the mid-game always comes with extended periods of downtime and that just feels weak to me. if you don't have the ability to sustain, the only other option is to harass with speedy units or sit back, which is what happens. the options for retreat and sustain are quite limited. builds revolve around a few sustain units like reapers, medivacs and warp prisms. you need these units to push, harass and scout. if there was a way to balance SC2 with a greater emphasis on sustain spells, cooldowns or racial boons, maybe this would increase the depth of micro and make players more willing to skirmish and engage. I think it would steer the game slightly away from deathballs, the punishing split-second micro decisions and the do-or-die engagement that are over in the blink of an eye. a single minor error in unit control shouldn't be enough to end the game. in SC2, retreating individual units is very difficult because of the wild variety of unit speeds. after a skirmish, it is so easy to clean up if you have a few faster units. WC3 was almost the complete opposite, where units only had slight differences in movement speed and could run away. you'd need mana, cooldowns, or a special item to actually finish off a retreating unit (boots of speed, slow, death coil, entangling roots, etc). I find it bizarre that SC2 had such a difficult time balancing a similar control spell like fungal growth. even now, it isn't used nearly as much as I would like. obviously you wouldn't want SC2 to have anywhere near that level of sustain, but just a little more I think would be good. protoss already have a powerful sustain mechanic with plasma shields and recall. some funny ideas off the top of my head: - change Strategic Recall to single target + instant cast, but dramatically reduce the cooldown and reduce the energy cost to 25 (kinda like staff of preservation) - replace Calldown: Extra Supplies with Orbital Defense Matrix: castable anywhere on the map and effects units in a 1.25 radius I'd like to see a very minor overall reduction in game speed (somewhere between Fast and Faster, but closer to Faster). the balance team have been constantly tweaking the AOE radiuses. the problem isn't the AOE, it's the clumping. the elegant solution is to increase the collision radius of smaller units like marines and zerglings so that they don't become so tightly packed. I don't say increase the hitboxes or anything, just the range at which these small units collide together. "movement radius" I believe it's called. apparently there is second property that separately controls collision with buildings called "inner movement radius" | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10292 Posts
On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote: The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/HbZ4584.png) Whoa this is amazing!!! Happy to see this direction!!! Hydra speed buff toned down a little, Abduct nerf toned down a little (?!), but disruptor AOE nerf also very slightly toned down, nice! Raven build time buff toned down a little... but Auto Turret nerf not toned down RIP. And same with Ghost nerf being toned down! ALSO A CYCLONE BUFF!!! Let's go!!! It might seem small as it's just 0,5 units, but that's a difference between a 1 unit buffer and 1.5 buffer when fighting units with 6 range. That's a 50% increase!! You might get that Lock On without getting hit, for example. But... like others said, the design issues are still not addressed. The patch still primarily favors zerg, and tips the balance of certain units and lategame power of races in ways that don't seem to address any actual existing issue, or at least not into the right direction. Patch still just changes things for seemingly inconsistent reasons/design philosophy. The Raven rework is still especially terrible. As a mech player, I'm happy with the +0.5 range, even though I also don't think that's really the right thing to buff. Buffing range at all on a unit like that is pretty dangerous since the unit is already volatile. Also, it's terrible that you can't choose to target Interceptors now that units automatically target Carriers if they're in range. So much for options/strategy. You don't always want to target Carriers. The interceptor change is a stupid change. If they want to nerf Carriers then nerf them, don't take away micro options. (But if you want to nerf them, you can't also buff Zerg lategame at the same time). Also, you can tell more than ever that the balance team has no idea what it's doing. It's changing numbers in such unparticular ways, and not for any specific number that makes particular sense. Their number balancing sucks especially when it comes to the Raven, especially the Auto Turret. Blizzard was way more intentional with the exact numbers they buffed/nerfed things to back then. On January 09 2023 21:15 CicadaSC wrote: is it too late to add units? zerg needs a flying cloaked unit like the othe two races I can't tell if this is a joke, but if it is, that's a good one xD | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10292 Posts
On January 12 2023 07:43 Athenau wrote: So I misread the Cyclone change, they buffed the auto-cast range, not the actual lock-on range (which is still 7). I'm not really sure what this even does, if I had to guess I'd say that Cyclones will now start scanning for a lock-on target at range 7.5, so they'll start moving to lock-on a little earlier when you a-move, but that's it. Really seems like a nothingburger, but maybe Cyclone enjoyers can comment further. Ooh, I remember an issue with lock on is that cyclones would move closer than 7 units before it actually locks on, if they were out of lock on range at first. I mentioned it earlier in the thread as something that should get fixed if we're buffing Hydras and Ultras and fixing "QOL" stuff. I don't remember if it was ever fixed in the past. Perhaps this change is to try to make it so that the cyclone will lock on around 7 units now as intended thanks to scanning for it a little earlier now!! Now I hope that they'll buff Zealot/Adept collision with buildings by like 0.05 units radius or something so that pros don't lose to zergling runbys if their unit is a couple pixels off. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1060 Posts
On January 12 2023 22:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Ooh, I remember an issue with lock on is that cyclones would move closer than 7 units before it actually locks on, if they were out of lock on range at first. I mentioned it earlier in the thread as something that should get fixed if we're buffing Hydras and Ultras and fixing "QOL" stuff. I don't remember if it was ever fixed in the past. Perhaps this change is to try to make it so that the cyclone will lock on around 7 units now as intended thanks to scanning for it a little earlier now!! when LotV was released, there was a bug with cyclone auto-cast activation range that went undiagnosed for almost 2 freaking years. the bugged cyclone moved to 5 range when auto-cast was active, even though the manual-cast activation range was 7. less than 2 months after it was hotfixed, Blizz went ahead and completely revamped the cyclone in the November 2016 patch. this was the A-move Tornado Blaster version: no lock-on vs. ground, dramatically nerfed lock-on damage vs air, auto-cast removed. remember when cyclones couldn't even kill a liberator in 1 volley? yep.... | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3326 Posts
I don't know how the 0.5 range affects the Lock-On, but I think another way you could buff the Cyclone minorly, is to buff its standard weapon damage to that of the Lock-On. So buffing its damage from 18->20 and then when the upgrade is done, buffing that 20->30. Mb we can nerf the Swarm Host, so that each wave costs 5 minerals. It's tough to say that Swarm Hosts are OP, because they don't see play every game, but its power lies in shutting down strategic diversity. It stomps Mech and defensive Protoss styles. You could argue that the herO style of Protoss is actually buffed in this patch, because early defences of Zerg are slightly hampered pre-Hydralisk. But at the same time, Protoss defensive styles are just abbysmal now. So is the herO style really stronger, if the patch "forces" every Protoss to play this style? Quickly the only Zerg goal becomes just to defend the few early attacks, simplifying the game plan and thereby buffing Zerg EVEN vs. the herO style. Making each wave cost 5 minerals, would also have huge psychological impact, because the units won't be "free." | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
Why not just apply a more heavy handed nerf to creep at this point? Ultralisks and Hydralisks both being better should be more then enough compensation to justify a real, substantial nerf to creep. It should recede faster, and spread slower. Not CD adjustments which clearly do nothing, the creep itself needs to go away quicker when cleared and spread slower when planted. There is alot of good ideas regarding Queen energy and creep or only planting 1 tumor per Queen or stuff like that but I think the change should be simple, but tangible. Making Transfuse unusable off of creep was a big nerf but it's done great things for the ZvP match up, I really want to believe that a nerf to creep will help the health of ZvT. Queens will still retain all of their defensive power, but they don't need to be able to exert so much map control. If they wanted to nerf the actual Queen itself and tame it's defensive power, I would be game for that as well, but that's alot more complex then making creep worse because alot of Zerg's early game hinges on Queens being strong defensive tools. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On January 13 2023 00:59 ejozl wrote: You can definitely take a look at gateway unit sizes vs. their warp-in sizes. Very often lings make it past the Warp-in and when the unit is done warpin in, it is only then that it succesfully blocks the lings. I don't know how the 0.5 range affects the Lock-On, but I think another way you could buff the Cyclone minorly, is to buff its standard weapon damage to that of the Lock-On. So buffing its damage from 18->20 and then when the upgrade is done, buffing that 20->30. Mb we can nerf the Swarm Host, so that each wave costs 5 minerals. It's tough to say that Swarm Hosts are OP, because they don't see play every game, but its power lies in shutting down strategic diversity. It stomps Mech and defensive Protoss styles. You could argue that the herO style of Protoss is actually buffed in this patch, because early defences of Zerg are slightly hampered pre-Hydralisk. But at the same time, Protoss defensive styles are just abbysmal now. So is the herO style really stronger, if the patch "forces" every Protoss to play this style? Quickly the only Zerg goal becomes just to defend the few early attacks, simplifying the game plan and thereby buffing Zerg EVEN vs. the herO style. Making each wave cost 5 minerals, would also have huge psychological impact, because the units won't be "free." The swarmhost shuts down hard immobile turtle styles. This is good. If the units sole role in the meta from here on out is to make sure 3-4 base turtling on mass tanks into ghost-thor is not viable, then it's doing great. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10292 Posts
On January 13 2023 01:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: The swarmhost shuts down hard immobile turtle styles. This is good. If the units sole role in the meta from here on out is to make sure 3-4 base turtling on mass tanks into ghost-thor is not viable, then it's doing great. Isn't that like saying, it's OK if Terran/Protoss has a unit that hard shuts down Zerg turtle macro styles, where they play passively and react and defend attacks? And build up a strong Queen/Viper/Infestor/BL/Spore army lategame? It's OK if 1 side plays more defensively, as long as there is enough to encourage the other player to engage with them in a fun way. It's only bad when the turtle player gets to turtle and the aggressor feels it's too scary or punishing to engage, and instead feels safer turtling in response. Then there's little interaction. For example, Terran has enough reason to engage vs Zerg, and it makes the MU exciting with Zerg trying to defend the Terran, and the Terran trying to control the Zerg from spiraling out of control (until recent meta where players like Maru prefer to turtle vs Zerg and not even try to engage). One problem with current mech and why there is a lack of incentive to engage, is because Mech itself is not even that strong lategame, and thus Zerg doesn't feel an urgency to engage or wittle them down, unless maybe it's a map where it's very easy to split lategame and the Terran can outlast the Zerg. Watching Maru styles of turtle Terran is still fun because it WAS strong lategame, and thus Zerg was encouraged to engage and try to starve out the Terran before they're able to mine half the map and win through efficiency. You shouldn't be able to counter an entire style + unit composition with 1 unit. You should have to use a combination of units to do that, and there shouldn't be a hard counter to a particular style of play in general. I think it's fine and healthy to have a variety of styles, even a turtle style, for players who naturally gravitate towards that playstyle cus it fits their personality, as long as certain styles doesn't happen frequently and aren't too popular. The only issue becomes when the game discourages either side from engaging and both sides prefer to just turtle up to the lategame, in which case both sides are at fault. Some of the most exciting games to watch are when 1 side is the aggressor and 1 side is the defender, which is why TvZ has been the most popular MU to spectate for all of SC2. (Terran used to be the aggressor but in modern LotV, Terran has become more of the defender). | ||
|
NotoriousSCV
27 Posts
On January 10 2023 02:58 SHODAN wrote: I watch the game too. it's why I offered a maxed protoss for example and not a maxed zerg. admittedly, it becomes a clumsy example when you start agonizing over the particulars that led up to that 60 supply deficit. maybe Maru is in a good position to basetrade, or what about this or that... yeah I get it. I'm primarily annoyed with the game speed. it's why the topic of my post was game speed. it's why I expressed dissatisfaction towards the game speed of SC2 and not something else, like macro. I wrote that game speed should be optimized on SC2's own terms, largely because no other RTS really has the macro emphasis that SC2 has. I don't mind that macro matters in SC2. I wish micro mattered more though. it sucks that SC2 left very little room for creative micro. everyone thought baneling land-mines would be this big scary thing, but SC2 is too fast to allow these smaller interactions to happen. Serral is too busy morphing 40 banelings at a time and crashing them into planetaries. Moon, the greatest (non-starcraft) RTS player to ever have lived, the 5th race, failed to even make a dent in SC2. the way he juggled units in WC3 was one of the most enthralling things I've ever witnessed in esports. units didn't die as quickly in WC3. being able to save one or two units at any point, including the lategame, created a snowball effect which Moon took full advantage of. how did SC2's design allow a force of nature to become so utterly unremarkable from one RTS to another? it made everything faster, clumped up and squishy, to the point where it's only worthwhile to focus on large clusters of units instead of trying to save individual units. maybe I can't see it because I've played and watched SC2 for too long, but I feel that if I had a way of viewing the game through the lens of a casual, regardless of who's playing, all I would be able to see on the screen is damage. damage and full retreat. it's been a long, long time since Billy the hero marine revealed himself in a pro sc2 match, but that's what you get from an RTS which is anti-micro by design Great posts SHODAN I totally agree with you. I mainly watch BW but something that isn't mentioned as much by casters is unit retention, which is a big part of certain stages of some matchups. Should be more rewarding to keep units alive. SC2 is way too fast for my liking too. Don't like the collision either. The macro is not interesting yet takes up too much gametime. Should be more spellcast focused. I never saw WC3 pro games but it sounds interesting. | ||
|
`dunedain
653 Posts
I've been gone for a couple of years but wanting to get back into the game. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10292 Posts
On January 15 2023 17:42 `dunedain wrote: Anyone know what happened to the strategy section? I've been gone for a couple of years but wanting to get back into the game. It's still there, there's just no threads posted in recently unfortunately, most threads are dead | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On January 15 2023 17:42 `dunedain wrote: Anyone know what happened to the strategy section? I've been gone for a couple of years but wanting to get back into the game. Yea those threads are just relics from a bygone era at this point, sad but true. On a positive note though, whatever race you play there is an absolute shit ton of great Youtube videos detailing all types of builds, strategy, game theory, everything and anything. "Print is dead" - Egon | ||
|
`dunedain
653 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15867 Posts
On January 16 2023 01:26 Beelzebub1 wrote: Yea those threads are just relics from a bygone era at this point, sad but true. On a positive note though, whatever race you play there is an absolute shit ton of great Youtube videos detailing all types of builds, strategy, game theory, everything and anything. "Print is dead" - Egon Yeah, thing is that on Youtube you get money for providing guides and on TL you don't. | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
However, I do think that the tweaks should be a bit bigger. The Viper could try some other things, like being dragged towards their abduct target a little bit instead of being paralysed for a short time. The smaller ultra could get some reduced health, the smaller Purification Nova could get a small damage over time before the final explosion to help vs masses of Zerglings and Marines, reducing the number of swipes a Zealot needs to finish them off. The continuous changes are also helping with delaying the official release of the patch. The patch should not be released before the yearly final at Katowice. If that ever was a possibility it should not be gone. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
Or maybe like a tether. So the unit would be stunned and linked to the viper so you can move the viper back and drag the unit with you. Something like Dehaka if you guys are familiar with heroes of the storm. Feedback/emp would not cancel it. You'd need to cast it before abduct is casted. To stop it you'd need to kill the viper or after a few seconds the ability would end and if the unit wasn't killed it would be let free This would be a great change because abduct would no longer be a free insta kill and would allow for more counterplay but at the same time you could move the enemy unit much further away from the rest of the army or reposition the viper to protect it while it abducts units. And you can play with the numbers a lot, you can change the duration of the link, you can play with the range or health of the viper. Imo, much better change than adding an imperceptible delay (Ragnarok words, not mine) to the cast of abduct. _____ Adding damage over time to disruptor nova would go a long way to help balance it and make it less binary and easier to balance. Although I guess then it would compete more with storm. | ||
|
Vision_
844 Posts
On January 18 2023 02:23 [Phantom] wrote: What if the viper instead of just instantly pulling the enemy unit to it, made it so the unit would move at its movement speed towards the viper position? My opinion about viper and his spell : it s just a Waouh effect..." If i was a developper and i must chose between an infestator and a viper, i would keep the infestator.. Obviously there is an overlap between function of these spells. And parasite neural is another example of fun spell under used despite his cool design, the spell is used by pros in end game when players are lazy and less aware. Then if players need microbial shroud i would like to see a kind of infested terrans back and neural parasite transferred to vipers (supply cost increase from 3 to 4). Infested terran spell could be replaced by kind of locust spell, with a really long range, they could be cast near tanks, to harass workers lines or structures (with locust a little bit more mobile - common sense). Locust hatch out when they hit ground, i think it s cool. Then i thought about the question of T1 hydralisks. It could be interessant if Zerg wasn t allowed to build all the three type of units until he reach the Lair technology, i.e only allow zergling/hydra, zergling/roach or roach/hydra. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 3690UpATreeSC  174Dewaltoss  147ZZZero.O 144firebathero 128Terrorterran 36Sexy 20IntoTheRainbow 8League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby7218 FrodaN2648 elazer683 B2W.Neo451 Dendi375 summit1g251 RotterdaM229 Trikslyr93 Skadoodle89 rubinoeu5 Organizations Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Spirit vs SHIN
Clem vs SKillous
herO vs TBD
TBD vs GuMiho
AI Arena 2025 Tournament
Replay Cast
Clem vs Zoun
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
