|
If, hypothetically, the game reaches a point where the most effective strategies are all in off of one or two base, is it blizzards place to rebalance the game to a point where it becomes effective to play a longer game?
I can see some arguments for both sides of this debate, so I'll go ahead and post them so we have a spot to kick this discussion off from.
Yes, blizzard has a responsibility to make the game enjoyable as a spectator sport and as a game.
- A game of all ins is not very entertaining to watch.
- It takes much less skill to just put all your eggs in one basket in the early game and pray you win. As a result the skill ceiling is lower, requiring less real skill to reach the "top".
- As the developers, blizzard is not only allowed, but should be required to move the game to a point where people can enjoy both watching and playing.
No, blizzard should keep their hands off the game and the players will work out the best way to win.
- Every time blizzard changes something they have the potential to "break" the current balance.
- These "all ins" are viable strategies. By lowering the number of potential viable strategies blizzard would make the game less entertaining to watch and play.
- A developers role is to make the game and only fix absolutely urgent things. The metagame changes frequently and if blizzard responds each time they upset the natural flow of learning that players went through with sc1.
What do you guys think? Personally I think that if the game does end up in a complete all in fest that blizzard should scale back the all ins by turning basic unit abilities into upgrades (ie. marines have 4 range with a +1 range upgrade) or by moving things around (ie. move warp gate tech to twilight council, but buff early protoss ground)
|
If certain all ins become so popular because they are near impossible to hold off, that is a balance issue that needs addressing.
|
imma bet this gets teh close hammer!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
How about the fact that all-in play makes 90% of their game unnecessary. As good designers, Blizzard should want their entire game to be viable.
Also, I thought this was some sort of post from Blizzard talking about plans to reduce the effectiveness of All-ins in general. How disappointing...
|
That kind of balance change would be more suitable for an expansion, rather than a patch.
It's not like the game is broken, just uninteresting.
|
Russian Federation899 Posts
i think blizzard should start doing normal maps or implement the rating system so the ladder map pool consists of the best custom maps and also bring back vultures and goliaths instead of crapllions and thordumbs ;D
|
I honestly see all-ins as a viable strategy, the only problem I see is that half the top 16 people in GSL have been doing nothing but all-ins and when they finally play good players they get demolished and the people knocked out earlier just look even worse than they actually are.
Could by fixed by making workers more vulnerable and reducing their damage. And even giving them low attack priority or making it so they clip through regular units instead of being meat shields.
|
I hope Blizzard is taking massive notes on how to improve their game by watching many many pro games and reading the community's and audience's reactions. Hopefully they are even watching BW progaming to improve their game, but I doubt they are doing anything I just mentioned.
|
Hopefully the map pool will change over time to be focused around maps with longer distances between the initial spawns.
|
I feel like Blizzard should make all the maps bigger, like the size of the 4on4 maps. If I'm thrown into a small 10 by 10 foot field to play soccer in, of course I will try to all-in because I barely have room to move around. If I'm placed in a bigger soccer field, I am more likely to try developed and procedural strategies.
So, yes, I think Blizzard should up the map sizes to clear up this issue.
|
On December 11 2010 06:43 Jermstuddog wrote:
How about the fact that all-in play makes 90% of their game unnecessary. As good designers, Blizzard should want their entire game to be viable.
Also, I thought this was some sort of post from Blizzard talking about plans to reduce the effectiveness of All-ins in general. How disappointing...
That's what the thread name makes it out to be....
I am probably saying this because I'm a zerg player but I would like to see changes in the game balance if every race has to do an all in, or one races all in is super strong....
If they "break" the balance of the game, they do have the PTR.
|
think bigger maps/ Nerf Mule/inject larve/chorno boost
User was warned for this post
|
Macro Mechanics mean that you can get maxed off of two base and I think it messes up the game and would only be fixed by bigger maps...maybe.
|
All-ins aren't really all bad. Playing a macro game is a privilege, not a right in my view (you can only play macro if you're good enough to fend off all-ins), so the only issue would be an all-in that's literally unstoppable. However, I'm pretty sure we're a long way from that kind of certainty...
EDIT: So yeah, I'd say give it time. Blizzard shouldn't roll over actual long-term balance just to appease short-term observer appeal...
|
But what kind of patch could they do to stop allins?
First off, an all in can come at any point in the game. Wether its 1 base, 2 base or 3 base. Send all your workers to attack with ur units
If its not workers, people could just do a timing attack, which SHOULD be dealt with by the opposing player, but as the game is now, people don't have the timings just yet. New strats come everyday.
Perhaps the maps could help, but i think the problem is beyond that. weve seen all ins including on shakuras plateau, arguably the largest map out there.
and no... do NOT make novice maps playable on ladder LOL
|
Maps make the game. This was true for BW and still holds true for SC2. All-ins would be pretty entertaining to watch if we didn't expect them every game. Boxer's awesome marine-scv rush was one of the first things I saw in pro BW and I still remember it for its awesomeness. But obviously seeing that every game gets boring pretty quick.
|
All-ins are viable strats, however if it eventually determined that they are almost always the most effective strategies then I believe it is Blizzard's place to rebalance things.
|
I don't think its a balance issue as much as it a map issue. Makes the maps bigger and makes all in's more riskier. Maps are so ridiculously small right now.
|
On December 11 2010 06:58 storm44 wrote:
I don't think its a balance issue as much as it a map issue. Makes the maps bigger and makes all in's more riskier. Maps are so ridiculously small right now.
Even on the bigger rush distance maps like Scrap, Xel, Blistering, and Shakuras the all ins are still incredibly strong and hardly watered down, I think it has a lot to do with the extra macro mechanics that weren't in Brood War more so then anything else.
|
First of all, all-ins have been (and will continue to be) part of EVERY strategy game. Big risks will sometimes yield big rewards, and both players need to accept their role within this mindset and play accordingly. The obsession with macro has led to an inordinate amount of hatred for any form aggressive play off one base, regardless of whether or not it's the best way to punish eco-hungry players. People equating expansions and mass unit production with skill are completely off base. The game has shown to be remarkably balanced in the early game with some small, map enabled discrepancies. Leave it be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
