Filter Profile Blog Joined November 2010 Canada 604 Posts #1 The most frustrating way to lose a game of Starcraft is when you feel frustrated that you did not get a chance to really play your game. It's one thing to lose to a cheese like a big roach bust, it's totally different to watch your workers get crushed because you weren't paying attention for a few seconds. Both are frustrating ways to go down but nothing makes you want to stop playing more than losing to something that you know you can defend. Even worse is when you lose to something you know how to defend, but weren't able to properly scout.



I know giant deathballs of games past are god awful and that skirmishes are where the game really excels, but have we gone way too far in the other direction? Nearly every unit in the game is fantastic at killing workers, and even worse many of them require very specific things to prevent that from happening. Things like Medivac boost make TvT an absolute nightmare with games rarely ever ending because of a direct engagement. To make matters even worse a lot of this harassment comes with very little commitment from the attacking player.



To go all old man, get off my lawn on the subject... back in my day we used drops to try and get out opponent out of position not swoop in and kill the guy. There was a time when Terran was seen as the race that HAD to harass to claim victory, without slowing down the Zerg or Protoss the Terran would most often lose the big late game engagements. Times have changed, but it seems like this is the aspect of Terran Blizzard has latched onto and tried to pass off to the other races as well. This has created a massive problem, at least in my eyes, for Legacy of the Void in that the game is so focused on harassment that a direct engagement is very rarely even required to win and a lot of the time not even a close contest as one player is usually so far behind by that point they don't stand a chance anymore.



The bottom line is it's not fun to lose to things that can change the game faster than a bolt of lighting can strike the earth. With that being said, lets look at the units each race has that have the potential to do game ending harassment damage with very little commitment. (That means Marines with stim, Colossus drops, muta's etc don't count.) We're looking mainly for units that you need to be both aware are coming, and prepare specifically to defend against to stay alive.



Terran

1) Hellions / Hellbats

2) Widow Mines

3) Tank Drops

4) Liberators

5) Banshee's



Protoss

1) Adepts

2) Blink Stalkers

3) Oracles

4) Dark Templar



Zerg

1) Roaches/Ravagers rushes



Looking at these lists, one thing is very clear. Without being able to both scout what is coming, and to be able to make use of that information you're going to lose. This is an insane list of stuff to have to watch out for in the early/midgame and it does not take into account units working together or specific strategies either. Simply put if your opponent makes these units without your knowledge, or you don't have time to prepare a defense against them the games going to end very quickly.



The problem here is that your basic early game units can not defend against any of this stuff and you need to be fully prepared to lower the damage taken, not even completely avoid it. These leads to a very much not fun game experience for most players while at the same time causing almost every game to be a race to harass your opponent to death, rather than a fight for map control and a battle of two players micro.



The other issue is the speed of reaction you need to survive most of this stuff. Many of the attacks can do game ending levels of damage either within a few seconds of being visible to you (widow mines, oracles) or you're left completely helpless as you watch everything burn (Adepts, roach/ravager rushes) and both of these make you feel like complete shit after you lose.



Zerg is a bit of a special case as well, while they have limited options they're by far the most powerful if they hit you while you're unprepared. The nature of the larva mechanic means you could scout nothing at all and suddenly ending up with 20+ roaches barreling down on you. They also have by far the best ability to secure bases beyond the 3rd and the best ways to deny their opponents from keeping up.



Conclusion

Not every game should be a big macrofest, but the number of frustrating losses is incredibly high in LoTV and even HoTS no matter what race you play. Scouting should allow you to easily stop whatever's coming your way, but in a game of imperfect information you should never be screwed for missing something with your scouting. The bottom line is the best way to play LoTV is taking risks and flipping coins. This is even more true with the ladder being a best of 1 format as it's both impossible to play safely and extremely punishing if your opponent cuts a few corners and plays greedy.



Maybe I'm alone, but the bad far outweighs the good with this type of philosophy. Sure there might be some cool made for TV moments but those will soon start to feel like reruns and outstay their welcome. The highs of winning a hard fought game in Starcraft are absolutely incredible, and you know what? when I lose to an opponent in one of those games who just plays better than me I still feel pretty damn good. When I win because of my build though I don't feel too high, and when I lose to something I couldn't defend with the tools at hand I want to stop playing the game. Live hard, live free.

Bohemond Profile Joined May 2012 United States 163 Posts #2 Amen, brother.



Post this on Reddit and Bnet, maybe?

[PkF] Wire Profile Joined March 2013 France 22019 Posts #3 You're not alone, I agree. Attacks that are fairly low investments but can deal game ending damage (oracles and widow mines being the most obvious) are not fun to watch, nor fun to play against.



"Action" should be built around pressure, not harass.

Little-Chimp Profile Joined February 2008 Canada 938 Posts #4 I don't see how banshees, dark templars, blink stalkers, and roach ravager rushes aren't "big commitments". I think those are fine. The rest, ESPECIALLY widow mines and oracles, I agree with.

Gullis Profile Joined April 2012 Sweden 740 Posts #5 Good post

The "fun" in game like starcrafts comes from when your army get to interact with your opponents army, preferable out on the map. When all the options you are mentioning have game ending potential you often win or lose games without doing any meaningful interactions at all.



Blizzard has the mindset "harrasment good! exciting for viewers!!" without thinking if it is fun to play against. I would rather eat than see my children starve.

RoomOfMush Profile Joined March 2015 1296 Posts #6 This is not news. I always hated this aspect about SC2 and I know plenty of others who said the same thing over and over.

In my opinion harassment should be something that can give you an edge but it should never end the game. Maybe picking off one or two workers here and there but thats it.



What I liked in BW were cloaked Wraith. They were a very interesting harassment tool because their little pew pew lasers hardly did any damage. Still, the cloaking made them hard to defend against if they caught you unprepared. But even then, it took them a very long time to actually kill anything.



It feels to me like it was mostly Protoss that was good at uber harassment in BW. Reaver drops, Storm drops, DT's. These units could end the game. But terran and zerg didnt have harassment like this. There was always a counter to the harassment and the damage was always manageable.

RoomOfMush Profile Joined March 2015 1296 Posts #7 On September 23 2015 04:33 Gullis wrote:

Blizzard has the mindset "harrasment good! exciting for viewers!!" without thinking if it is fun to play against.

I dont think thats very exiting as a viewer either. I want big battles. I want long lasting battles. I want carnage, explosions, lazzors and blood.

A game that ends because of harassment is a waste of my time. I dont think thats very exiting as a viewer either. I want big battles. I want long lasting battles. I want carnage, explosions, lazzors and blood.A game that ends because of harassment is a waste of my time.

WaylanderSC2_ Profile Joined September 2015 24 Posts #8 Yea, Banshees can end the game faster than a bolt of lightning can strike the Earth,



LOL!

Gullis Profile Joined April 2012 Sweden 740 Posts Last Edited: 2015-09-22 20:00:24 #9

he talks a lot about what you are talking (but in hots)



ps. someone else pointed this out a while back but I don't remember who



+ Show Spoiler +



at 2.24 In day9's starbow launch special he talks about timings in bw/starbow vs sc2 and I feel like if you read "between lines"he talks a lot about what you are talking (but in hots)ps. someone else pointed this out a while back but I don't remember whoat 2.24 I would rather eat than see my children starve.

purakushi Profile Joined August 2012 United States 3259 Posts Last Edited: 2015-09-22 20:11:44 #10 Yeah, SC2 has way too little of army unit versus army unit interactions and too much of "just going after as many workers before my units die". LotV exacerbates this issue.



Day9 in the Starbow video posted above mentions this well. June 2010 - August 2017: waiting for the return of Starcraft

andrewlt Profile Joined August 2009 United States 6872 Posts #11 Oracles and hellions are the worst for me. These units suck at killing anything other than workers. Hellions are not even good at killing marines and zerglings, even though they do bonus damage against them. Players should have to harass with multi-purpose units, not have units specifically designed for harassment that can't do anything else.

DinoMight Profile Blog Joined June 2012 United States 3331 Posts #12 "Harassment" is not the same as a game ending allin.



Harassment chips away at your opponent's economy to get yourself ahead. A rushed widow mine drop or Oracle designed to just try and do game ending damage from the beginning of the game is not fun at all.



I'd be okay with Oracles doing less damage and having more range for better micro potential.. so you can poke in around turrets etc. And honestly fuck widow mines. Terrible unit.



I agree that "build a turret or lose" kind of sucks as a viewer and a player. Sure, there are ways of scouting and knowing if you should have a turret etc. but I feel like the punishment for making that small mistake of not building it is too much.



Also, I think it's stupid to have a unit whose purpose is "win the game if they don't build turrets."



TLDR; harassment and rushing to game ending economic damage are not the same and I'd be okay with a buff to the former and a nerf to the latter. "Wtf I come back and find myself in camp DinoMight all of a sudden, feels weird man." -Wombat_NI

DinoMight Profile Blog Joined June 2012 United States 3331 Posts Last Edited: 2015-09-22 20:31:23 #13 On September 23 2015 05:24 andrewlt wrote:

Oracles and hellions are the worst for me. These units suck at killing anything other than workers. Hellions are not even good at killing marines and zerglings, even though they do bonus damage against them. Players should have to harass with multi-purpose units, not have units specifically designed for harassment that can't do anything else.



Amen dude Hellions are basically only good at killing workers as they run away from you and small numbers of Zerglings in the early game. Fucking stupid. Amen dude Hellions are basically only good at killing workers as they run away from you and small numbers of Zerglings in the early game. Fucking stupid. "Wtf I come back and find myself in camp DinoMight all of a sudden, feels weird man." -Wombat_NI

Valon Profile Joined June 2011 United States 329 Posts #14 I agree with that. It bothered me that the reason they said they didn't like messing with worker saturation was because harassment wouldn't be able to kill tons of workers. So there conclusion was if you can't wipe out mineral lines with harassment it's not good for the game. That is terrible reasoning. In WOL there was different kidns of harass that could do damage, but you were able to recover if you were semi prepared for it. Now we have things like oracles and widow mines that can take out a mineral like in 2 seconds. That's not fun to play against. The weird push they have in legacy to give everything harassment potention (Tanks, liberators, banshee's with faster speed, battlecruisers, faster medivac boost. oracles, adepts, dts, warp prism long range pick up, 2 second warp ins from WP, invincible nydas, swarm hosts, etc) it's kind of annoying that they are putting so much emphasis on that. It's not fun to play with. Having a warp prism come out with range pick up as zerg means you kind of have to go spire to shut it down. Harassment is fine, but they are trying to make the spectator wow factor a higher priority than the player having fun and feeling cool when they pull off a slick move.

[PkF] Wire Profile Joined March 2013 France 22019 Posts Last Edited: 2015-09-22 20:38:14 #15 On September 23 2015 05:27 DinoMight wrote:

"Harassment" is not the same as a game ending allin.



Harassment chips away at your opponent's economy to get yourself ahead. A rushed widow mine drop or Oracle designed to just try and do game ending damage from the beginning of the game is not fun at all.



I'd be okay with Oracles doing less damage and having more range for better micro potential.. so you can poke in around turrets etc. And honestly fuck widow mines. Terrible unit.



I agree that "build a turret or lose" kind of sucks as a viewer and a player. Sure, there are ways of scouting and knowing if you should have a turret etc. but I feel like the punishment for making that small mistake of not building it is too much.



Also, I think it's stupid to have a unit whose purpose is "win the game if they don't build turrets."



TLDR; harassment and rushing to game ending economic damage are not the same and I'd be okay with a buff to the former and a nerf to the latter.

oracles are far more terrible units than mines. If you pull away from mines you should never lose too much, while if you're tricked and an oracle shows up and you're not perfectly prepared, game is over. I don't see any reason to defend that. oracles are far more terrible units than mines. If you pull away from mines you should never lose too much, while if you're tricked and an oracle shows up and you're not perfectly prepared, game is over. I don't see any reason to defend that.

Axxis Profile Joined May 2010 United States 132 Posts #16 I think you make valid points about the direction the game is going in but to me things aren't as bad as you make them seem. Given a decent sample size, the strongest correlates to winning games of starcraft have always been upper multitasking skill and multitasking priority. Not to say there aren't any other, just that these are the strongest. I don't feel we're pushing the game in the wrong direction by adding diverse options of harassment and by adding multiple ways to get to that harassment option.



It will, however, make the game much harder overall. It will also piss off below average players who think they should be able to 1 rax expand into widowmine drops every matchup while defending harassment with no fear of all-ins either.



On a side note, stim and marines are about as much of commitment as speedlings. Unless of course the zerg makes very many then they are way behind in larva. I don't think I've saw many games end prematurely from blink 'harrassment' or roach 'harrassment'. What we obtain too cheaply; we esteem too lightly. It is in dearness only that gives everything it's value.

Ctone23 Profile Blog Joined December 2012 United States 1819 Posts Last Edited: 2015-09-22 20:56:21 #17

Filter are you making a general statement or do you have any suggestions? I'd wager to bet some of the suggestions so far in the thread are a tad biased. On September 23 2015 05:27 DinoMight wrote:

I'd be okay with Oracles doing less damage and having more range for better micro potential.. so you can poke in around turrets etc. And honestly fuck widow mines. Terrible unit.



As a terran i'm really enjoying the beta, and even the quick losses (quite frankly all losses suck) are less annoying to me, because of how short they usually are. More time for me to check the replay and see if I can pick up some things to scout for next time.



As a terran i'm really enjoying the beta, and even the quick losses (quite frankly all losses suck) are less annoying to me, because of how short they usually are. More time for me to check the replay and see if I can pick up some things to scout for next time. Gauntlet Esports

xTJx Profile Joined May 2014 Brazil 419 Posts #18 Welcome to life as a Zerg player. Been watching my drones die to helions and my hatcheries fall to sudden warp prisms and 5 zealots warp ins for years, and there aren't any photon overchargers or walls to save us, not even 1 or 2 spines will do the job.



The best feeling is when your opponent goes mech, and you know that he can just harass with helions while a few siege tanks will keep you from doing anything offensive on the ground. Unpenetrable defense and a worker killing unit that only costs minerals, best combination ever. No prejudices, i hate everyone equally.

CheddarToss Profile Joined September 2015 534 Posts #19 On September 23 2015 05:37 [PkF] Wire wrote:

Show nested quote +

On September 23 2015 05:27 DinoMight wrote:

"Harassment" is not the same as a game ending allin.



Harassment chips away at your opponent's economy to get yourself ahead. A rushed widow mine drop or Oracle designed to just try and do game ending damage from the beginning of the game is not fun at all.



I'd be okay with Oracles doing less damage and having more range for better micro potential.. so you can poke in around turrets etc. And honestly fuck widow mines. Terrible unit.



I agree that "build a turret or lose" kind of sucks as a viewer and a player. Sure, there are ways of scouting and knowing if you should have a turret etc. but I feel like the punishment for making that small mistake of not building it is too much.



Also, I think it's stupid to have a unit whose purpose is "win the game if they don't build turrets."



TLDR; harassment and rushing to game ending economic damage are not the same and I'd be okay with a buff to the former and a nerf to the latter.

oracles are far more terrible units than mines. If you pull away from mines you should never lose too much, while if you're tricked and an oracle shows up and you're not perfectly prepared, game is over. I don't see any reason to defend that. oracles are far more terrible units than mines. If you pull away from mines you should never lose too much, while if you're tricked and an oracle shows up and you're not perfectly prepared, game is over. I don't see any reason to defend that.

It's the same really. If you don't have a turret/cannon/spore and the Oracle shows up while your army is far away, it's gg. However it's no different with widow mines. You can pull your workers, but if you don't have detection set up already, you will lose so much mining time that it's effectively gg even if you didn't lose a single worker. It's the same really. If you don't have a turret/cannon/spore and the Oracle shows up while your army is far away, it's gg. However it's no different with widow mines. You can pull your workers, but if you don't have detection set up already, you will lose so much mining time that it's effectively gg even if you didn't lose a single worker.

Filter Profile Blog Joined November 2010 Canada 604 Posts #20 On September 23 2015 04:50 WaylanderSC2_ wrote:

Yea, Banshees can end the game faster than a bolt of lightning can strike the Earth,



LOL!



I included banshee's because they used to be the best harass unit in the game, just to show how crazy things have become as players figured the game out and units were added. I included banshee's because they used to be the best harass unit in the game, just to show how crazy things have become as players figured the game out and units were added. Live hard, live free.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next All