i have followed it closely but at this point you are nitpicking... and that one game is just one game. these changes would make hive play more possible overall.
No offense to the OP, but making suggestions about what a potential balance patch should look like necessitates a very high amount of understanding for the gameplay, the unit interactions and such. Also stating that ZvZ is unfun, where you don't play it competitive is a stretch.
The vast majority of Zerg players thinks that ZvZ is an interesting matchup and probably an even bigger majority of players thinks that there's no reason for any balance changes. Please consider how long the game has been played on the highest level (korean professional scene) and the game balance has been fine all these years.
On June 19 2017 21:06 kenf4444 wrote: i have followed it closely but at this point you are nitpicking... and that one game is just one game. these changes would make hive play more possible overall.
i guess such is the internet.
No, this is not nitpicking, this is a televised match of Broodwar involving hive play. As many people have pointed out, unless you play on the highest level, you can do whatever you want in a game of broodwar. You also don't realize that some of us love ZvZ as is. Because it is such a drastic contrast to the other matchups you get to play as Zerg.
You suggest changes to something people have been in love for, for over a decade, because you think, you might also be in love with it then. So from my standpoint, I feel like you want to take something away from me and I don't understand why you instead not just go and find something that you don't need to change to like?
hmm, cele that is a good final? point to be made, but still as foxxan has explained it is worth a consideration for testing for an extended version of sc:bw. People can still play the original and blizz should allow them that choice. As it opens up zvz in a big way.
@kenf4444 You REALLY CAN play hydra style in zvz at some maps and it will work fine. Amateur level of course. If you just dont know how - that doen't mean its impossible.
On June 19 2017 21:24 kenf4444 wrote: hmm, cele that is a good final? point to be made, but still as foxxan has explained it is worth a consideration for testing for an extended version of sc:bw. People can still play the original and blizz should allow them that choice. As it opens up zvz in a big way.
Is there any possibility to this?
You keep throwing around these matter-of-fact statements like "it opens up ZvZ in a big way" like they are self-evident. You have yet to provide any proof for this of your own; you keep falling back on one post made by a different person who played a different mini version of a different game. I can't believe you had the gall to say "sucks repeating myself" or something along those lines, implying that you are doing so because we simply don't get what you are saying and need it to be repeated like to a child. Hint: the opposite is true. Sometimes when everyone more skilled and knowledgeable is telling you that your idea is bad, its not them being stalwarts or closed-minded, its your idea being bad.
Your self-admitted ignorance on the topic is glaring. Hive tech ZvZ was fairly common for a decent stretch of time, and some Zergs like great seemed to be actively pushing to reach that point and succeeded on a relatively consistent basis.
As others have said, you can make a custom UMS and fund some top foreign players to play a tournament on it and then you can get feedback. But you won't, becsuse it is easier to put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la," than it is to actually do somethung. Until then, your theory holds no water. Blizzard shouldn't change the playing experience for the whole population for every low level player that has half-baked ideas about the game.
Also, had to lol at "ive been playing since the game came out" to "scourge do splash damage and poof mutalisks but I haven't played in 19 years so..."
On June 19 2017 21:24 kenf4444 wrote: hmm, cele that is a good final? point to be made, but still as foxxan has explained it is worth a consideration for testing for an extended version of sc:bw people can still play the original and blizz should allow them that choice. As it opens up zvz in a big way.
dividing up this game with a very small player base is not a great idea in general i feel. And ZvZ is not a restrictive matchup. While unit compositions are very limited to ling/muta in most games and hive tech is so seldom reached in high level games, players think the matchup is rewarding as all the unit interactions are intense and reward better micro abilities. Just open a game with a muta micro map and try it some. You'll notice it's hard and perhaps get an idea of how demanding this muta on muta + scourge fights are for both players.
To me, this is clearly a notion that stems from a pure spectators PoV. When you only see the MU on stream, it can appear bland and limited. It's always the same units, fights can be very fast and there seems to be an "RPS situation regarding build orders (Even tho that notion is fundamentally flawed in the first place).
Blizzard has clearly said that they intend to preserve BW in SC:R 100% as is gameplay wise with the possible exception of hotkey rebinds.And most if not all veterans wouldn't give SC:R a second look if otherwise.It would be silly to create two gameplay modes in order to test things. I mean if there's big interest for your suggestion or other suggestions of this kind, people are free and will probably create UMS maps to test those changes.
thank u cele for your kind and informative non-backlash response. i posted the 19 years thing as a general response, i do not have to explain my entire fabulous starcraft career.
On June 19 2017 21:46 kenf4444 wrote: thank u cele for your kind and informative non-backlash response. i posted the 19 years thing as a general response, i do not have to explain my entire fabulous starcraft career.
that would be a good idea starfruit.
you kinda don't have to and kinda have to. Of course everybody is welcome to have a discussion on these forums. But, not judging you personally just in general, for many the situation is like this:
If somebody comes in here to make post an idea on how the game in it's core should be changed and if that idea seems obscure to the majority of veterans and especially to high level players posting in this thread + Show Spoiler +
for instance; i saw a post by Bakuryu that was not very supportive to your idea, as well as vOddy
then the need arises to get an idea of the background of Person A proposing the change. Because no offence, if somebody has little to no competitive background in this game, it's like someone saying: " I think chess is fundamentally flawed. I watched this game of Carlsen vs Anand and from my PoV, the Bishops should move in a different way and be able to strike down two pawns in the same turn. I have been playing some Chess with my granddad on the kitchen table and im not entirely sure how the en-passant works". Person A in this scenario may ofc express their ideas but they aren't treated as very convincing by competitive players.
Im bringing this as an extreme example and im not suggesting that's you in the analogy. Im trying to highlight the necessity for the other people here to understand your gaming background to make correct assumptions about the validity of your argument and the notions that got you that idea in the first place.