"Starcraft 2 is awful compared to broodwar, blizzard should really fix this dying game with big changes"
"ROFL Remove macro mechanics is worst idea ever, KEEP THE GAME AS IT IS OR IM OUT."
please, youre just embarrasing.
Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
weikor
Austria580 Posts
"Starcraft 2 is awful compared to broodwar, blizzard should really fix this dying game with big changes" "ROFL Remove macro mechanics is worst idea ever, KEEP THE GAME AS IT IS OR IM OUT." please, youre just embarrasing. | ||
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On August 05 2015 23:40 Gullis wrote: Making macro mechanics easier (less punishing) would make the game more focused on micro which could be a good thing. I think they should remain in some form but less punishing and be more of a "you did something good here is a reward" type of thing, of course on pro level this will still mean you have to do them. However, currently, I don't think the unit interactions in the game is solid enough for it to work out as intended. I fear that it will be just turbovacs, mutas and warp prisms flying around sperm jerking apm while you dance back and fourth with your units without any real strategic choices to do, other than I need unit x to counter unit y. I don't know.. maybe I am rambling but I feel like removing macro mechanics at this point would decrease strategic options, especially in conjunction with the new economy. Players will find ways around it. Maybe using ravagers against tank drops, ling splitting vs disruptors... Remember that we've got a long way to go with balance as well, Blizz has definitely told us they want to change things that they haven't changed, and there might be more on the table (like what we find for them as well) | ||
Linear
60 Posts
On August 05 2015 23:42 weikor wrote: Its always funny to hear the same people. "Starcraft 2 is awful compared to broodwar, blizzard should really fix this dying game with big changes" "ROFL Remove macro mechanics is worst idea ever, KEEP THE GAME AS IT IS OR IM OUT." please, youre just embarrasing. 2 sides to the coin, all of us saying that we dislike this change don't understand how anyone can't see how this is bad for the game. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people in favor of removing the macro mechanics are below a masters level. I'm yet to have heard a pro player agree with these changes. | ||
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On August 05 2015 23:48 Linear wrote: Show nested quote + On August 05 2015 23:42 weikor wrote: Its always funny to hear the same people. "Starcraft 2 is awful compared to broodwar, blizzard should really fix this dying game with big changes" "ROFL Remove macro mechanics is worst idea ever, KEEP THE GAME AS IT IS OR IM OUT." please, youre just embarrasing. 2 sides to the coin, all of us saying that we dislike this change don't understand how anyone can't see how this is bad for the game. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people in favor of removing the macro mechanics are below a masters level. I'm yet to have heard a pro player agree with these changes. The majority of people who play Starcraft are also below masters level. Also, an actual analysis with the macro-removed mod: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/491742-new-macro-good | ||
nTzzzz
France30 Posts
On August 05 2015 21:50 Linear wrote: Show nested quote + On August 05 2015 21:31 sh1RoKen wrote: On August 05 2015 20:56 Linear wrote: On August 05 2015 20:44 sh1RoKen wrote: On August 05 2015 20:04 Linear wrote: On August 05 2015 19:10 sh1RoKen wrote: On August 05 2015 18:55 Linear wrote: On August 05 2015 18:13 Yiome wrote: On August 05 2015 17:45 sh1RoKen wrote: No casual players -> no viewers -> no sponsors -> no money -> no tournaments -> no progamers -> no starcraft. More casual players -> more viewers -> more sponsors -> more money -> more tournaments -> more progamers -> more starcraft. That is the MOBA recipe for being a successful competitive game and they (MOBAs) are beating the shit out of starcraft right now. More and more people can afford living being a MOBA progamer all over the world (not in just one country). And they are developing 10 times faster than starcraft in order to become a worldwide sport. Meanwhile "thi bast geme evar" or "altimate brein campetition" is dying in convulsions. Top-level starcraft events have less viewers than above average MOBA player's streams with no comments. And for those who "Will be playing hardcore starcraft no matter what because they are to smart for MOBA". Stop lying to yourself and look at warcraft 3 competitive scene. What? You can't? Why? Because there is no such thing? Well, that is exactly how "hardcore starcraft only for geniuses" will look like in 2 years. Can't agree more. Sometimes I do feel the elitism is what poisoning this game. it seems that too many people just don't care about low-level(below diamond as OP stated) players despite they made up over half of active players on ladder. A game has to be balanced around the top, making fundamental changes that aid lower levels players to artificially attain a higher skill level hinders the higher league players ability to differentiate themselves. This is the problem with removing barriers of skill level is that you're just weakening the visibility of skill level, something which goes against their goals for Legacy. Mule is the exception, there's no efficiency drop and it stacks there's no form of punishment for not dropping it (besides not getting the 270 minerals earlier) I wouldn't be adverse to changing the mule to allow better players to demonstrate better mechanics. There will be no top without lower level players. Because there will be no viewers without lower level players. Because there will be no sponsors without lower level players. Because there will be no money without lower level players. Because there will be no tournaments without lower level players. Because there will be no sense training hard for 12 hours a day for free without lower level players. Don't you guys really see that? It is a more casual starcraft or no starcraft at all! I know that you are not happy about that. Me neither. But please just try to understand the big picture!!! This is a silly argument, viewer numbers are stable and the game is doing very well for itself. WCS system injects $198,500 per WCS EU/NA and the same for the GSL x6. So that's $1,191,000 then add in the finals which is $237,500, so a nice total just from blizzard of $1,428,500. Very impressive numbers. For 2010. TI5 prize pool is bigger than all StarCraft 2 tournaments since the release of the game together. When there is no tournaments running, Starcraft has less viewers than minecraft or World of Tanks. Minecraft, Carl! WCS wasn't even around in 2010, the numbers are from the current prizes in 2015 feel free to work it out. TI5 prize pool isn't fair to compare to SC2 since the money invested into the tournament is crowd funded, anyway why does the amount of money on offer even matter, do people play the game because if they became number #1 in the world they're rich? I've noticed SC2 actually have more stream watchers recently, with people like Demuslim/Naniwa and other popular players streaming more regularly the viewership is climbing back up, as Incontrol has said many times before why do we need to be the biggest and best? SC2 is sustainable has a core viewerbase/playerbase that's not going anywhere why are we worried? That was sarcasm. 1.5m in a year is just not "doing very well" nowadays. If you don't want Starcraft to be the biggest and best, there is no point discussing anymore. We just want the opposite things. P.S. There is no such thing as sustainable core which is not going anywhere. If you don't develop, you degrade and die. http://www.esportsearnings.com/games Look at this link, we're 3rd in tournament earnings the ones above SC2 rely on micro transactions to increase their prizepool. I would love SC2 to be the biggest and the best, but catering to a perceived casual audience at the detriment of gameplay when we already have a strong community and tournament scene is a moronic direction to take. Broodwar has had no gameplay input (besides mapmakers) pretty much since it's inception, it's still got a solid viewerbase/playerbase even though it has a direct successor. + Show Spoiler + On a side note, whenever someone says "That was sarcasm" it invariable wasn't. Man, why do you think Blizzard keeps injecting so much money into WCS despite the declining viewercount? Could it be because they want to sustain a strong competitive scene at least until the final installment of SC2 and expect a return on investment through LOTV sales? What do you think happens once they're done selling LOTV copies and viewership stays at an abysmal level? Do you think they'll keep throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the window ad vitam eternam? Macro boosters do not benefit gameplay, they are is detrimental to it. They add nothing to the game and are so punishing you have to spend most of your attention on them instead of scouting, thinking, adapting and microing. It is making SC2 less strategic, less fun and more mechanical. Right now the game is 90% mechanics and 10% strategy. Now if you want the game to be an APM competition, that's fine but I don't understand why anyone would think that is a good thing. @ OP: thanks for the solid post. | ||
Bojas
Netherlands2397 Posts
On August 05 2015 23:53 nTzzzz wrote: Show nested quote + On August 05 2015 21:50 Linear wrote: On August 05 2015 21:31 sh1RoKen wrote: On August 05 2015 20:56 Linear wrote: On August 05 2015 20:44 sh1RoKen wrote: On August 05 2015 20:04 Linear wrote: On August 05 2015 19:10 sh1RoKen wrote: On August 05 2015 18:55 Linear wrote: On August 05 2015 18:13 Yiome wrote: On August 05 2015 17:45 sh1RoKen wrote: No casual players -> no viewers -> no sponsors -> no money -> no tournaments -> no progamers -> no starcraft. More casual players -> more viewers -> more sponsors -> more money -> more tournaments -> more progamers -> more starcraft. That is the MOBA recipe for being a successful competitive game and they (MOBAs) are beating the shit out of starcraft right now. More and more people can afford living being a MOBA progamer all over the world (not in just one country). And they are developing 10 times faster than starcraft in order to become a worldwide sport. Meanwhile "thi bast geme evar" or "altimate brein campetition" is dying in convulsions. Top-level starcraft events have less viewers than above average MOBA player's streams with no comments. And for those who "Will be playing hardcore starcraft no matter what because they are to smart for MOBA". Stop lying to yourself and look at warcraft 3 competitive scene. What? You can't? Why? Because there is no such thing? Well, that is exactly how "hardcore starcraft only for geniuses" will look like in 2 years. Can't agree more. Sometimes I do feel the elitism is what poisoning this game. it seems that too many people just don't care about low-level(below diamond as OP stated) players despite they made up over half of active players on ladder. A game has to be balanced around the top, making fundamental changes that aid lower levels players to artificially attain a higher skill level hinders the higher league players ability to differentiate themselves. This is the problem with removing barriers of skill level is that you're just weakening the visibility of skill level, something which goes against their goals for Legacy. Mule is the exception, there's no efficiency drop and it stacks there's no form of punishment for not dropping it (besides not getting the 270 minerals earlier) I wouldn't be adverse to changing the mule to allow better players to demonstrate better mechanics. There will be no top without lower level players. Because there will be no viewers without lower level players. Because there will be no sponsors without lower level players. Because there will be no money without lower level players. Because there will be no tournaments without lower level players. Because there will be no sense training hard for 12 hours a day for free without lower level players. Don't you guys really see that? It is a more casual starcraft or no starcraft at all! I know that you are not happy about that. Me neither. But please just try to understand the big picture!!! This is a silly argument, viewer numbers are stable and the game is doing very well for itself. WCS system injects $198,500 per WCS EU/NA and the same for the GSL x6. So that's $1,191,000 then add in the finals which is $237,500, so a nice total just from blizzard of $1,428,500. Very impressive numbers. For 2010. TI5 prize pool is bigger than all StarCraft 2 tournaments since the release of the game together. When there is no tournaments running, Starcraft has less viewers than minecraft or World of Tanks. Minecraft, Carl! WCS wasn't even around in 2010, the numbers are from the current prizes in 2015 feel free to work it out. TI5 prize pool isn't fair to compare to SC2 since the money invested into the tournament is crowd funded, anyway why does the amount of money on offer even matter, do people play the game because if they became number #1 in the world they're rich? I've noticed SC2 actually have more stream watchers recently, with people like Demuslim/Naniwa and other popular players streaming more regularly the viewership is climbing back up, as Incontrol has said many times before why do we need to be the biggest and best? SC2 is sustainable has a core viewerbase/playerbase that's not going anywhere why are we worried? That was sarcasm. 1.5m in a year is just not "doing very well" nowadays. If you don't want Starcraft to be the biggest and best, there is no point discussing anymore. We just want the opposite things. P.S. There is no such thing as sustainable core which is not going anywhere. If you don't develop, you degrade and die. http://www.esportsearnings.com/games Look at this link, we're 3rd in tournament earnings the ones above SC2 rely on micro transactions to increase their prizepool. I would love SC2 to be the biggest and the best, but catering to a perceived casual audience at the detriment of gameplay when we already have a strong community and tournament scene is a moronic direction to take. Broodwar has had no gameplay input (besides mapmakers) pretty much since it's inception, it's still got a solid viewerbase/playerbase even though it has a direct successor. + Show Spoiler + On a side note, whenever someone says "That was sarcasm" it invariable wasn't. Man, why do you think Blizzard keeps injecting so much money into WCS despite the declining viewercount? Could it be because they want to sustain a strong competitive scene at least until the final installment of SC2 and expect a return on investment through LOTV sales? What do you think happens once they're done selling LOTV copies and viewership stays at an abysmal level? Do you think they'll keep throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the window ad vitam eternam? Macro boosters do not benefit gameplay, they are is detrimental to it. They add nothing to the game and are so punishing you have to spend most of your attention on them instead of scouting, thinking, adapting and microing. It is making SC2 less strategic, less fun and more mechanical. Right now the game is 90% mechanics and 10% strategy. Now if you want the game to be an APM competition, that's fine but I don't understand why anyone would think that is a good thing. @ OP: thanks for the solid post. Should I start a thread to discuss strategic depth of SC2? You guys are making it sound like SC2 is like chess, but I think most high-level players agree that besides mechanics(macro and micro and multitasking) the game is a lot about coinflips and (lucky) positioning. | ||
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
iloveav
Poland1464 Posts
| ||
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
iloveav
Poland1464 Posts
On August 05 2015 23:42 weikor wrote: Its always funny to hear the same people. "Starcraft 2 is awful compared to broodwar, blizzard should really fix this dying game with big changes" "ROFL Remove macro mechanics is worst idea ever, KEEP THE GAME AS IT IS OR IM OUT." please, youre just embarrasing. Im guessing thats people like me. Well, its ok, everyone can have their game :D. | ||
TokO
Norway577 Posts
For every race, it artificially boosts a races capabilities in areas where they are strong, hence, forcing a nerf in the contribution of those strengths coming from units themselves. For example, Chronoboost makes it take a lot less time to produce a really potent deathball. At the same time, Protoss units are nerfed so that the deathball strength does not become out of hand. Zerg already has a really strong flexibility in larva selection. Inject amplifies this strength strongly. At the same time, Zerg units are nerfed so that their remax capabilities do not become overpowered. Same thing with Terran and economic flexibility. In return for being able to enjoy much greater freedom in terms of when to take their expands, and then be able to rapidly mine with mules, they have the least flexibility in production and the most fragile units when their opponents decide to take a defined engagement. Once Blizzard decide they want to 'mend' the imposed weaknesses of each of the races they do so with really wonky and extreme units such as the SH, WM and Disruptor. Imo, scale back/remove macroboosters, scale back extreme units such as those mentioned above, buff core units, bigger blinding cloud, storm, stronger siege tanks, stronger immortals, hell, why doesn't Terran have irradiate anymore? We don't need an adept that makes zealots feel like a slow fatass with toothpicks. | ||
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On August 06 2015 00:08 TokO wrote: Removing macro mechanics would slow down the game progress and add more strategic depth in terms of how to invest your resources imo. Having such powerful macroboosters makes acquiring them a must and actually lowers your choices. For every race, it artificially boosts a races capabilities in areas where they are strong, hence, forcing a nerf in the contribution of those strengths coming from units themselves. For example, Chronoboost makes it take a lot less time to produce a really potent deathball. At the same time, Protoss units are nerfed so that the deathball strength does not become out of hand. Zerg already has a really strong flexibility in larva selection. Inject amplifies this strength strongly. At the same time, Zerg units are nerfed so that their remax capabilities do not become overpowered. Same thing with Terran and economic flexibility. In return for being able to enjoy much greater freedom in terms of when to take their expands, and then be able to rapidly mine with mules, they have the least flexibility in production and the most fragile units when their opponents decide to take a defined engagement. Once Blizzard decide they want to 'mend' the imposed weaknesses of each of the races they do so with really wonky and extreme units such as the SH, WM and Disruptor. Imo, scale back/remove macroboosters, scale back extreme units such as those mentioned above, buff core units, bigger blinding cloud, storm, stronger siege tanks, stronger immortals, hell, why doesn't Terran have irradiate anymore? We don't need an adept that makes zealots feel like a slow fatass with toothpicks. You bring up a good point with Zerg - it's partially the reason that two of the biggest massable units have 2 supply. With a bit of stats tinkering and weaker remaxes, 1 supply roach (and 2/3 supply ravager) might just be feasible. Regarding Irradiate - Zerg has it now! | ||
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
| ||
Linear
60 Posts
On August 05 2015 23:53 nTzzzz wrote: Show nested quote + On August 05 2015 21:50 Linear wrote: On August 05 2015 21:31 sh1RoKen wrote: On August 05 2015 20:56 Linear wrote: On August 05 2015 20:44 sh1RoKen wrote: On August 05 2015 20:04 Linear wrote: On August 05 2015 19:10 sh1RoKen wrote: On August 05 2015 18:55 Linear wrote: On August 05 2015 18:13 Yiome wrote: On August 05 2015 17:45 sh1RoKen wrote: No casual players -> no viewers -> no sponsors -> no money -> no tournaments -> no progamers -> no starcraft. More casual players -> more viewers -> more sponsors -> more money -> more tournaments -> more progamers -> more starcraft. That is the MOBA recipe for being a successful competitive game and they (MOBAs) are beating the shit out of starcraft right now. More and more people can afford living being a MOBA progamer all over the world (not in just one country). And they are developing 10 times faster than starcraft in order to become a worldwide sport. Meanwhile "thi bast geme evar" or "altimate brein campetition" is dying in convulsions. Top-level starcraft events have less viewers than above average MOBA player's streams with no comments. And for those who "Will be playing hardcore starcraft no matter what because they are to smart for MOBA". Stop lying to yourself and look at warcraft 3 competitive scene. What? You can't? Why? Because there is no such thing? Well, that is exactly how "hardcore starcraft only for geniuses" will look like in 2 years. Can't agree more. Sometimes I do feel the elitism is what poisoning this game. it seems that too many people just don't care about low-level(below diamond as OP stated) players despite they made up over half of active players on ladder. A game has to be balanced around the top, making fundamental changes that aid lower levels players to artificially attain a higher skill level hinders the higher league players ability to differentiate themselves. This is the problem with removing barriers of skill level is that you're just weakening the visibility of skill level, something which goes against their goals for Legacy. Mule is the exception, there's no efficiency drop and it stacks there's no form of punishment for not dropping it (besides not getting the 270 minerals earlier) I wouldn't be adverse to changing the mule to allow better players to demonstrate better mechanics. There will be no top without lower level players. Because there will be no viewers without lower level players. Because there will be no sponsors without lower level players. Because there will be no money without lower level players. Because there will be no tournaments without lower level players. Because there will be no sense training hard for 12 hours a day for free without lower level players. Don't you guys really see that? It is a more casual starcraft or no starcraft at all! I know that you are not happy about that. Me neither. But please just try to understand the big picture!!! This is a silly argument, viewer numbers are stable and the game is doing very well for itself. WCS system injects $198,500 per WCS EU/NA and the same for the GSL x6. So that's $1,191,000 then add in the finals which is $237,500, so a nice total just from blizzard of $1,428,500. Very impressive numbers. For 2010. TI5 prize pool is bigger than all StarCraft 2 tournaments since the release of the game together. When there is no tournaments running, Starcraft has less viewers than minecraft or World of Tanks. Minecraft, Carl! WCS wasn't even around in 2010, the numbers are from the current prizes in 2015 feel free to work it out. TI5 prize pool isn't fair to compare to SC2 since the money invested into the tournament is crowd funded, anyway why does the amount of money on offer even matter, do people play the game because if they became number #1 in the world they're rich? I've noticed SC2 actually have more stream watchers recently, with people like Demuslim/Naniwa and other popular players streaming more regularly the viewership is climbing back up, as Incontrol has said many times before why do we need to be the biggest and best? SC2 is sustainable has a core viewerbase/playerbase that's not going anywhere why are we worried? That was sarcasm. 1.5m in a year is just not "doing very well" nowadays. If you don't want Starcraft to be the biggest and best, there is no point discussing anymore. We just want the opposite things. P.S. There is no such thing as sustainable core which is not going anywhere. If you don't develop, you degrade and die. http://www.esportsearnings.com/games Look at this link, we're 3rd in tournament earnings the ones above SC2 rely on micro transactions to increase their prizepool. I would love SC2 to be the biggest and the best, but catering to a perceived casual audience at the detriment of gameplay when we already have a strong community and tournament scene is a moronic direction to take. Broodwar has had no gameplay input (besides mapmakers) pretty much since it's inception, it's still got a solid viewerbase/playerbase even though it has a direct successor. + Show Spoiler + On a side note, whenever someone says "That was sarcasm" it invariable wasn't. Man, why do you think Blizzard keeps injecting so much money into WCS despite the declining viewercount? Could it be because they want to sustain a strong competitive scene at least until the final installment of SC2 and expect a return on investment through LOTV sales? What do you think happens once they're done selling LOTV copies and viewership stays at an abysmal level? Do you think they'll keep throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the window ad vitam eternam? Macro boosters do not benefit gameplay, they are is detrimental to it. They add nothing to the game and are so punishing you have to spend most of your attention on them instead of scouting, thinking, adapting and microing. It is making SC2 less strategic, less fun and more mechanical. Right now the game is 90% mechanics and 10% strategy. Now if you want the game to be an APM competition, that's fine but I don't understand why anyone would think that is a good thing. @ OP: thanks for the solid post. Tournament viewer count has remained stable for many years now, the only viewer count that has changed are the streamers, and with more personalities streaming more regularly (Demuslim/Naniwa) the viewercount has increased, even smaller personalities like LowkoTV have jumped up in viewers in recent times. I advocate macro mechanics, not macro boosters, I'm fine with them being scaled down or adapted (in the case of the mule) I just don't advocate making them non-existent or automatic. | ||
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On August 06 2015 00:10 Vanadiel wrote: Everyone keeps talking about sc2 being a dead game, but yesterday morning I had pro league, this morning I had GSL , tomorrow is starleague, this week until sunday I have IEM. If that's a dead game, then it's fine by me, I have SC2 content almost everyday. SC2 won't die until at the very least SC3 comes out. And even then it'll have its players. We're not leaving anytime soon. | ||
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
On August 06 2015 00:10 Vanadiel wrote: Everyone keeps talking about sc2 being a dead game, but yesterday morning I had pro league, this morning I had GSL , tomorrow is starleague, this week until sunday I have IEM. If that's a dead game, then it's fine by me, I have SC2 content almost everyday. Yeah it's great but even Code S games still have strategic blunders... hmm players must be spending much more time practicing mechanics and not so much refining dynamic strategy and decision making... | ||
TokO
Norway577 Posts
On August 06 2015 00:10 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 06 2015 00:08 TokO wrote: Removing macro mechanics would slow down the game progress and add more strategic depth in terms of how to invest your resources imo. Having such powerful macroboosters makes acquiring them a must and actually lowers your choices. For every race, it artificially boosts a races capabilities in areas where they are strong, hence, forcing a nerf in the contribution of those strengths coming from units themselves. For example, Chronoboost makes it take a lot less time to produce a really potent deathball. At the same time, Protoss units are nerfed so that the deathball strength does not become out of hand. Zerg already has a really strong flexibility in larva selection. Inject amplifies this strength strongly. At the same time, Zerg units are nerfed so that their remax capabilities do not become overpowered. Same thing with Terran and economic flexibility. In return for being able to enjoy much greater freedom in terms of when to take their expands, and then be able to rapidly mine with mules, they have the least flexibility in production and the most fragile units when their opponents decide to take a defined engagement. Once Blizzard decide they want to 'mend' the imposed weaknesses of each of the races they do so with really wonky and extreme units such as the SH, WM and Disruptor. Imo, scale back/remove macroboosters, scale back extreme units such as those mentioned above, buff core units, bigger blinding cloud, storm, stronger siege tanks, stronger immortals, hell, why doesn't Terran have irradiate anymore? We don't need an adept that makes zealots feel like a slow fatass with toothpicks. You bring up a good point with Zerg - it's partially the reason that two of the biggest massable units have 2 supply. With a bit of stats tinkering and weaker remaxes, 1 supply roach (and 2/3 supply ravager) might just be feasible. Regarding Irradiate - Zerg has it now! Definitely a lot of bad things went on with Zerg in SC2 from SC1. I think the point I'm trying to make with respect to macro boosters isn't that it's a problem that zerg has good remax. The remax is good, and should be strong. But I don't want to see it be possible because of inject, because inject is simply a context-free energy-based mechanic, which means that the zerg had to do it and that there was no strategic choice in whether not to. What would be much cooler was seeing the difference between a zerg who built a lot of extra hatcheries, gambling on a critical remax, versus the zerg who sustained themselves on a lower hatchery count relying on unit control and casters. Because there would always be the investment choice. EDIT: Yeah, I just think it's stupid that when Irradiate was such a critical and iconic component of BW TvZ and then they lose it in SC2. | ||
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On August 06 2015 00:29 TokO wrote: Show nested quote + On August 06 2015 00:10 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 06 2015 00:08 TokO wrote: Removing macro mechanics would slow down the game progress and add more strategic depth in terms of how to invest your resources imo. Having such powerful macroboosters makes acquiring them a must and actually lowers your choices. For every race, it artificially boosts a races capabilities in areas where they are strong, hence, forcing a nerf in the contribution of those strengths coming from units themselves. For example, Chronoboost makes it take a lot less time to produce a really potent deathball. At the same time, Protoss units are nerfed so that the deathball strength does not become out of hand. Zerg already has a really strong flexibility in larva selection. Inject amplifies this strength strongly. At the same time, Zerg units are nerfed so that their remax capabilities do not become overpowered. Same thing with Terran and economic flexibility. In return for being able to enjoy much greater freedom in terms of when to take their expands, and then be able to rapidly mine with mules, they have the least flexibility in production and the most fragile units when their opponents decide to take a defined engagement. Once Blizzard decide they want to 'mend' the imposed weaknesses of each of the races they do so with really wonky and extreme units such as the SH, WM and Disruptor. Imo, scale back/remove macroboosters, scale back extreme units such as those mentioned above, buff core units, bigger blinding cloud, storm, stronger siege tanks, stronger immortals, hell, why doesn't Terran have irradiate anymore? We don't need an adept that makes zealots feel like a slow fatass with toothpicks. You bring up a good point with Zerg - it's partially the reason that two of the biggest massable units have 2 supply. With a bit of stats tinkering and weaker remaxes, 1 supply roach (and 2/3 supply ravager) might just be feasible. Regarding Irradiate - Zerg has it now! Definitely a lot of bad things went on with Zerg in SC2 from SC1. I think the point I'm trying to make with respect to macro boosters isn't that it's a problem that zerg has good remax. The remax is good, and should be strong. But I don't want to see it be possible because of inject, because inject is simply a context-free energy-based mechanic, which means that the zerg had to do it and that there was no strategic choice in whether not to. What would be much cooler was seeing the difference between a zerg who built a lot of extra hatcheries, gambling on a critical remax, versus the zerg who sustained themselves on a lower hatchery count relying on unit control and casters. Because there would always be the investment choice. That's what I had in mind. Like especially as a Protoss when you're maxed you don't trade too well against another maxed race, especially PvT. So you take the losing fight but have 20 warp gates behind it so you're virtually fighting at 240/200 instead of 200/200. So we could see the same with Zerg. Instead of holding at 19 larva per hatch, we could see macro hatches go down at the nat/more expansions for gas, and then have 50+ larva ready to go. EDIT: And yeah I feel you. I miss the old Mind Control too, Neural Parasite doesn't do it any sort of justice whatsoever. | ||
StasisField
United States1062 Posts
On August 05 2015 17:45 sh1RoKen wrote: No casual players -> no viewers -> no sponsors -> no money -> no tournaments -> no progamers -> no starcraft. More casual players -> more viewers -> more sponsors -> more money -> more tournaments -> more progamers -> more starcraft. If this were even remotely true, CoD would be the biggest Esport in the world. It's not as simple as "easier game = more $$$ and viewers" and it never has been. Quit trying simplify the problem by simplifying the answer. The problem is a big mixture of a lot of things, like not being free to play and being part of a genre that isn't trending at the moment to name a couple. It is not a simple issue. If it was, Blizzard would have made the simple fix by now. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19035 Posts
| ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Clem vs Rogue
Reynor vs ClemLIVE!
Reynor vs Classic
Dark vs ReBellioN
herO vs TBD
PiGStarcraft755
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • gosughost_ 30 StarCraft: Brood War• practicex 24 • Kozan • LaughNgamez Trovo • Poblha • aXEnki • Migwel • intothetv • Gussbus • Laughngamez YouTube • IndyKCrew Dota 2 League of Legends |
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
GSL Code S
Maru vs TY
Creator vs SHIN
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
Online Event
ESL Pro Tour
[ Show More ] Hatchery Cup
BSL
ESL Pro Tour
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
ESL Pro Tour
|
|