|
United States24735 Posts
On September 24 2010 06:00 SCC-Faust wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 05:03 skindzer wrote:Only "pros" can say if theres imbalance or NOT Really? REALLY? Do you think they asked Lee Jae Dong to balance the game? In the begginning theres pretty much only math to balance the game and then THERES A FUCKING BETA WHEN EVERYONE CAN PLAY. Most pros dont have any clue about balance btw. Lim Yo Hwan (dont know who he is? GTFO) said that to balance PvZ on bw Dragoons needed 1+ range. I can't agree with this enough. People who say "you're not diamond, balance doesn't affect you" are just clearly retarded. I've seen mods say this and then everyone starts repeating it mindlessly and sounding totally dumb.
What are you trying to get at here? I don't think your claim is that the people who say/believe this actually have a mental disability.
There's a large element of truth to it. The effects of imbalance have much less of an influence on outcomes between evenly skilled players in bronze->plat than they do in diamond. Obviously imbalance isn't automatically irrelevant to less-skilled players... I don't think anyone was really making that claim. If sc2 was so imbalanced that tanks had 5000 hp, 45 armor, and did 500 splash damage, even at the lower levels it would be incredibly unfair.
Most of the complaints about balance by sub-diamond players are not legit... hence being told "you're not in diamond, balance doesn't affect you." Of course some of the complaints are aligned with the ones of the top players which may be much more reasonable/correct.
|
On September 24 2010 06:04 Artifice wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 06:00 SCC-Faust wrote:On September 24 2010 05:03 skindzer wrote:Only "pros" can say if theres imbalance or NOT Really? REALLY? Do you think they asked Lee Jae Dong to balance the game? In the begginning theres pretty much only math to balance the game and then THERES A FUCKING BETA WHEN EVERYONE CAN PLAY. Most pros dont have any clue about balance btw. Lim Yo Hwan (dont know who he is? GTFO) said that to balance PvZ on bw Dragoons needed 1+ range. I can't agree with this enough. People who say "you're not diamond, balance doesn't affect you" are just clearly retarded. I've seen mods say this and then everyone starts repeating it mindlessly and sounding totally dumb. It isn't that it doesn't affect the game, it's that if you didn't play like shit you'd win the games you're losing without a balance change.
Exactly. In fact, because of the massive variations in strengths and weaknesses at lower levels, it's often really hard for a player to tell what's imbalance and what's just their compounded mistakes.
At higher levels, where players are playing slightly closer to 'optimum', it's far easier to see what units are a bit on the OP side of things, because they will be being used far more effectively and against more skilled opponents.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 24 2010 06:09 MamiyaOtaru wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 06:04 Artifice wrote:On September 24 2010 06:00 SCC-Faust wrote:On September 24 2010 05:03 skindzer wrote:Only "pros" can say if theres imbalance or NOT Really? REALLY? Do you think they asked Lee Jae Dong to balance the game? In the begginning theres pretty much only math to balance the game and then THERES A FUCKING BETA WHEN EVERYONE CAN PLAY. Most pros dont have any clue about balance btw. Lim Yo Hwan (dont know who he is? GTFO) said that to balance PvZ on bw Dragoons needed 1+ range. I can't agree with this enough. People who say "you're not diamond, balance doesn't affect you" are just clearly retarded. I've seen mods say this and then everyone starts repeating it mindlessly and sounding totally dumb. It isn't that it doesn't affect the game, it's that if you didn't play like shit you'd win the games you're losing without a balance change. but my opponent can get away with playing like shit, or at least to a greater degree than I can. I don't think we should be able to dismiss balance concerns by saying "play better". You could say the same damn thing to people playing other races then we're back at square one. Yes there is room for improvement in my play, but why is it OK to point that out as a way to help my non mirror matchups when the other race can be told the same thing?
Let's look at Starcraft 1. Terran was easily the most demanding race to play. It was mechanically demanding, more so than any other race. Each of the matchups TvT/TvZ/TvP required a different set of skills and talent so much so that you'd get players like FBH who were amazing TvT/TvZ but terrible TvP. You make minor mistakes as a Terran player, and the Protoss or Zerg player destroys you - e.g. bio vs lurkers, poor tank positioning vs protoss.
How is this any different to the situation we have now except now Terran is the easy race, Zerg is the hard race, and Protoss is somewhere in between. Instead of lurkers shredding bio, you now have that protoss have to be on their toes every second of the game else they will be slaughter by stimmed bioball. I can't speak for the difficulties that zerg have, because I don't play zerg, but I know they exist - but I think you get the idea.
|
On September 24 2010 06:08 Plexa wrote:
It doesn't mean you can't make comments about balanced based on observations from top level play. Citing example of your own play, for example, is a poor way to demonstrate imbalance. Morrow was 100% right when he said 90% of your whining Zerg players should just quit whining and skill up because that's where the issues with their play are. Doesn't mean the game isn't imbalanced, doesn't mean they can't comment on balance - but the last thing they should be doing is blaming their losses on imbalances.
I could agree with that if you said I shouldn't blame it solely on imbalance. Obviously I screw up all over the place. Again though, my opponents do too. And if imbalance exists at higher levels it is naive to say it doesn't exist at lower levels (possibly even magnified), and if that is so, my opponents are screwing up even more than me. That being (possibly) the case, telling me to reduce my errors is less than satisfactory. If I already make fewer errors than opponents, why is it acceptable to say I should make even less? That would obviously be a benefit, but the same goes for the opponents.
And of course my time would be better spent getting better than complaining about perceived imba. On the other hand it might be spent even better yet by switching away from Zerg.
*EDIT*
I will certainly not dispute that imbalances could be different or totally reversed at different levels (see Protoss easy race in BW like you mention). I don't think it highly likely to be the case here though. Obviously it is super hard to measure thanks to AMM so it's only theorycrafting but I do feel safe in saying I think it a stretch that Zerg might actually be the easymode race at lower levels in SC2 
At any rate it remains less than satisfactory to me to see imbalance in the only place we can really see it (at the top) and be told "oh it probably doesn't exist at your level" when I haven't seen anything convincing to tell me that is so. Of course I have to take that because there is no way to measure whether or not it is true. But I don't think that should mean I should look at the situation at top and deny that it has anything to do with me either
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I will certainly not dispute that imbalances could be different or totally reversed at different levels (see Protoss easy race in BW like you mention). I don't think it highly likely to be the case here though. Obviously it is super hard to measure thanks to AMM so it's only theorycrafting but I do feel safe in saying I think it a stretch that Zerg might actually be the easymode race at lower levels in SC2
At any rate it remains less than satisfactory to me to see imbalance in the only place we can really see it (at the top) and be told "oh it probably doesn't exist at your level" when I haven't seen anything convincing to tell me that is so. Protoss being the easy race is directly related to the fact that they are mechanically the least demanding off all the races in BW. By comparison, it is clear that Zerg are the most demanding in SC2. Things like this just make talking about imbalance completely silly. If imbalances exist they exist at the highest level and that's where the game should be balanced. At the lower levels it is always a case of worse mechanics, game sense or game play. Those are the cold hard facts whether you like it or not.
|
On September 24 2010 05:17 jtype wrote:
It's not just about the size of the map, but the terrain features and the spacing and flow of the map.
That's what she said.
...ok, now that I got that gem out...
While I agree that there is a problem, I'm not necessarily sold on all the ideas you mention, OP. The idea that the game can't be balanced with numerical tweaks and map balance mainly. I'm not saying I wholeheartedly disagree, I'm just saying I don't think it's necessarily impossible.
I think good maps and a couple changes (below) would actually go a long way.
1. Change marauder damage to 10 + 5. This would help the expo-killing problem, and honestly, the marauder is the best unit in the game right now and just needs to be toned down a bit.
2. I think mules might just be too good. Either that or zerg's "macro mechanic" needs something more. As is, a mule is like having +6 SCVs (much better actually, since they don't take up supply and can dual-mine a patch with SCVs). Watching replays, I often have 9 or 10 more workers, but less income by far, because they have 3 OCs. Today, I even watched a game on youtube wherein LZGamer went reaper harass into double CC, simply using the 3rd OC for supply/mule/SCV production. And thinking about it, it's pretty good. For 550 mins, you get a depot, a constant mule (like 6 SCVs), faster SCV production, and have a building ready to float as soon as you want to expo. I guess I'm not sure exactly what the problem is or how to fix it here, but I think there's something wrong.
...then again, the massive number of options Terran has, combined with the fact that many of them have to be dealt with differently, and the fact that zerg can't effectively scout early, and the fact that Terran faces little to no threat with proper scouting and behind a wall, kind of support your "inherent design flaw" hypothesis.
I dunno. I don't want to think about this anymore. It's so frustrating trying to figure out what would fix this game, knowing that even IF we figured it out, there's nothing we can do about it.
Now I'm depressed. 
|
On September 24 2010 06:08 Murderotica wrote:
Maybe you should come back to bw? n_n
Are you crazy? Iccup right now is like playing Doom on NIGHTMARE.
|
On September 24 2010 06:13 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 06:09 MamiyaOtaru wrote:On September 24 2010 06:04 Artifice wrote:On September 24 2010 06:00 SCC-Faust wrote:On September 24 2010 05:03 skindzer wrote:Only "pros" can say if theres imbalance or NOT Really? REALLY? Do you think they asked Lee Jae Dong to balance the game? In the begginning theres pretty much only math to balance the game and then THERES A FUCKING BETA WHEN EVERYONE CAN PLAY. Most pros dont have any clue about balance btw. Lim Yo Hwan (dont know who he is? GTFO) said that to balance PvZ on bw Dragoons needed 1+ range. I can't agree with this enough. People who say "you're not diamond, balance doesn't affect you" are just clearly retarded. I've seen mods say this and then everyone starts repeating it mindlessly and sounding totally dumb. It isn't that it doesn't affect the game, it's that if you didn't play like shit you'd win the games you're losing without a balance change. but my opponent can get away with playing like shit, or at least to a greater degree than I can. I don't think we should be able to dismiss balance concerns by saying "play better". You could say the same damn thing to people playing other races then we're back at square one. Yes there is room for improvement in my play, but why is it OK to point that out as a way to help my non mirror matchups when the other race can be told the same thing? Let's look at Starcraft 1. Terran was easily the most demanding race to play. It was mechanically demanding, more so than any other race. Each of the matchups TvT/TvZ/TvP required a different set of skills and talent so much so that you'd get players like FBH who were amazing TvT/TvZ but terrible TvP. You make minor mistakes as a Terran player, and the Protoss or Zerg player destroys you - e.g. bio vs lurkers, poor tank positioning vs protoss. How is this any different to the situation we have now except now Terran is the easy race, Zerg is the hard race, and Protoss is somewhere in between. Instead of lurkers shredding bio, as a protoss you have to be on your toes every second of the game else you will be slaughter by stimmed bioball. I can't speak for the difficulties that zerg have, because I don't play zerg, but I know they exist - but I think you get the idea.
I played terran in brood war in zerg in sc2. The major difference is there isn't anyone to model my play after (kick ass pros like nada) so when the top level players start shouting imba, I get discouraged. Not a balance problem but it does really affect my mindset.
Second, terran has a ton of options that require hugely different reactions. 5 rax marine all-in and 2 port banshee are so different. This list of stuff they can do in tvz is soo long. Terran vs Protoss was pretty limited to mass gateway and shuttle play (reaver, DT, bulldog).
As you can see I'm not even talking about late game because if it gets to that point I don't have a problem playing zvp or zvt. People I play got their rank from 1 base shit so 90% can't even macro properly.
|
@Plexa (For all of his posts in this topic): I seriously don't think that SC2 is as intense as brood war, like you said. Terran is far the easiest race with no skill requirements other than being capable to 1a. There is no way to break Terran wall especially when there are sieged tanks, lolturrets and auto-repair.
A Terran can beat a Zerg with Thor-Hellion, even if they say before the game that they are going Thor-Hellion. A Terran doesn't need flanks and such things, but a Zerg can rarely win combats against Terran without flanking. A Zerg has to break Terran wall, because intercepting Terran's timing push 1a is way more difficult.
A Terran gains more scans with each expansion, but Zerg gains no significant things with each expansion.
The game has 2 proper races and Zerg. Imo it would be better with 3 proper races.
|
On September 24 2010 06:18 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +I will certainly not dispute that imbalances could be different or totally reversed at different levels (see Protoss easy race in BW like you mention). I don't think it highly likely to be the case here though. Obviously it is super hard to measure thanks to AMM so it's only theorycrafting but I do feel safe in saying I think it a stretch that Zerg might actually be the easymode race at lower levels in SC2
At any rate it remains less than satisfactory to me to see imbalance in the only place we can really see it (at the top) and be told "oh it probably doesn't exist at your level" when I haven't seen anything convincing to tell me that is so. Protoss being the easy race is directly related to the fact that they are mechanically the least demanding off all the races in BW. By comparison, it is clear that Zerg are the most demanding in SC2. Things like this just make talking about imbalance completely silly. If imbalances exist they exist at the highest level and that's where the game should be balanced. At the lower levels it is always a case of worse mechanics, game sense or game play. Those are the cold hard facts whether you like it or not.
I know I suck
Still, at lower levels "worse mechanics, game sense or game play" impact both sides. Those things aren't solely my problems. They don't preclude the very idea that imbalance exists at a level other than the very top. It's like saying I as Human shouldn't complain about Orc imba in Warcraft 2 because I could just get better. It's still there, and at some point getting better won't overcome Heal vs Bloodlust. If I get better as Z, I will eventually run into a situation where getting better won't fix it. Hearing "You suck. Get better and then you can worry about imbalance" doesn't offer a bright hope: that imba that supposedly doesn't exist for me now will exist once I get better? Great! I'll get right on that!
Now if you are saying it is useless to talk about since the game should be balanced for the top, well yeah sure. But that's not the same as "it may be imba at top, but not at your level". Talking about it may be functionally useless (so don't look for me to start any threads about it) but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
To clarify, my posts have not been made with the aim of getting Blizzard to balance around me. I've just been taking issue with the idea that imbalance doesn't affect me. There is nothing for me to do about it but QQ, or improve until I am good enough that it can no longer be escaped (see FruitSeller). But I don't enjoy being told it doesn't exist. I find it untruthful. "No one cares" or "your concerns are irrelevant to good players / the pro scene" would be a lot easier for me to swallow. That seems to be pretty much what you are saying now, but it isn't what I initially responded to.
|
On September 24 2010 05:50 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +the game is balanced for the average player. (even some top diamond) Its only in the pro scene where imbalance is really seen This is wrong on so many levesl i dont even know where to start. It kind of cracks my head. Actually, it is. The AMM system is designed to make people go 50% so it is "balanced" at all levels in that sense. Obviously, that can't happen at the pro end of the spectrum since you only have good players, but still! Ultimately, it doesn't make sense to talk about balance when players are making glaring gameplay mistakes.
Uh, how would that make it balanced? (extragating mode inc) A diamond level player playing as zerg having to be matched up with low gold lvl players to get 50% winrate. While the zerg gets a 50% winrate, it does NOT mean it is balanced.
|
United States24735 Posts
On September 24 2010 06:33 Metalwing wrote:
@Plexa (For all of his posts in this topic): I seriously don't think that SC2 is as intense as brood war, like you said. Terran is far the easiest race with no skill requirements other than being capable to 1a.
I do a lot more than that as terran in sc2 and still get rolled pretty often. I'm not arguing that everything is 100% balanced but your extreme stance is ridiculous.
There is no way to break Terran wall especially when there are sieged tanks, lolturrets and auto-repair. A terran walling in his main doesn't need to be attacked since he's on one base. If he is scouting your carefully and 100% devoting his time to walling in then it's difficult to bust in... but still not even impossible... also depends on map a lot.
A Terran can beat a Zerg with Thor-Hellion, even if they say before the game that they are going Thor-Hellion.
No they can't, unless the zerg sucks. I actually basically did that earlier and lost.
A Terran doesn't need flanks and such things, but a Zerg can rarely win combats against Terran without flanking.
Uh, that is part of the nature of how zvt is supposed to be just like in sc1. Terran doesn't flank and zerg does because of the types of units in the composition. It isn't a sign that t>z just like it wasn't a sign of that in sc1.
A Zerg has to break Terran wall, because intercepting Terran's timing push 1a is way more difficult. Complete oversimplification. Zerg does not have to break the terran's wall for 99% of the play that terran can do... not saying bust is NEVER logical though.
A Terran gains more scans with each expansion, but Zerg gains no significant things with each expansion.
Zerg gains larva with each expansion which is huge.
The game has 2 proper races and Zerg. Imo it would be better with 3 proper races.
Not making a point.
Overall you are just making ridiculous complaints which probably frustrates the zergs who are trying to be reasonable about this more than the terrans.
|
On September 24 2010 06:51 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +A Terran gains more scans with each expansion, but Zerg gains no significant things with each expansion. Zerg gains larva with each expansion which is huge.
I agree with much of what you've been saying, and in large with what Plexa has said in terms of the idea of "stop complaining and learn to play". What I've quoted, though, I felt worth addressing.
Zerg surely gains no larva, there is no doubting that. Its simple, undebatable fact, expanding means more larva.
However, Zerg has an extra resource in the game. Rather than just dealing with minerals, gas, and supply, we have another expendable resource, which is larva. The advantages of larva allow us to pump out a ridiculous amount of units at any given time, without needing 4 barracks with reactors or what have you. However, a Zergs' 4-barracks-equivalent are combined in to a singular building, and put in to the front lines (ala, the expansions)
What zerg gains by expanding is extra income, like any race. Extra larva is nice and all, but it's a liability, especially given another races' units being able to largely out-range and out-position you (a lost temple siege tank on the cliff, for example) to the point where our 4-barracks-equivalent is under fire. If we lose our expansion, we simply lose our ability to outproduce. Where a Terran can build 20 barracks within the safety of their main, we must build ours on the front lines. Under some (not all) circumstances, a Terran's expansions are safer, as well- either thanks to siege tanks, thors (in terms of muta defense) or even just being able to float off. Sure, it stings- they lose income, maybe wasted a mule or two, but you still have your 20 barracks.
Yes, zerg gains larva with each expansion, and yes, that is huge. To delve deeper in to the question, though, at what cost does that extra larva come?
As I said earlier, I agree with the learn-to-play aspect of TvZ, and I try my best to practice it and get better. You can't debunk a man's statements of balance though (such as "terran gains more from expansions than zerg") by saying we get more larva, is all i'm sayin.
|
United States24735 Posts
On September 24 2010 08:33 Nokarot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 06:51 micronesia wrote:A Terran gains more scans with each expansion, but Zerg gains no significant things with each expansion. Zerg gains larva with each expansion which is huge. I agree with much of what you've been saying, and in large with what Plexa has said in terms of the idea of "stop complaining and learn to play". What I've quoted, though, I felt worth addressing. Zerg surely gains no larva, there is no doubting that. Its simple, undebatable fact, expanding means more larva. However, Zerg has an extra resource in the game. Rather than just dealing with minerals, gas, and supply, we have another expendable resource, which is larva. The advantages of larva allow us to pump out a ridiculous amount of units at any given time, without needing 4 barracks with reactors or what have you. However, a Zergs' 4-barracks-equivalent are combined in to a singular building, and put in to the front lines (ala, the expansions) What zerg gains by expanding is extra income, like any race. Extra larva is nice and all, but it's a liability, especially given another races' units being able to largely out-range and out-position you (a lost temple siege tank on the cliff, for example) to the point where our 4-barracks-equivalent is under fire. If we lose our expansion, we simply lose our ability to outproduce. Where a Terran can build 20 barracks within the safety of their main, we must build ours on the front lines. Under some (not all) circumstances, a Terran's expansions are safer, as well- either thanks to siege tanks, thors (in terms of muta defense) or even just being able to float off. Sure, it stings- they lose income, maybe wasted a mule or two, but you still have your 20 barracks. Yes, zerg gains larva with each expansion, and yes, that is huge. To delve deeper in to the question, though, at what cost does that extra larva come? As I said earlier, I agree with the learn-to-play aspect of TvZ, and I try my best to practice it and get better. You can't debunk a man's statements of balance though (such as "terran gains more from expansions than zerg") by saying we get more larva, is all i'm sayin.
What each race gains from expanding doesn't have to be equal in overall benefits. It fits into the bigger picture... and obviously that's the goal of this discussion... to try to figure out how everything fits into the big picture.
|
I agree. Every race plays different and is meant to be different. However, liability of a required building (aside from 1base aggression), in the bigger picture, is shaping this game. It will be a rare occasion when we have the epic, 40+ minute long macro games, when an undeniably necessary expansion becomes a liability more than a racial benefit.
The future of the game depends on equal amounts of justice for certain things (albeit in different treatments, because each race should be different.) In response to just what I initially quoted in my last post, though, I don't feel that equal justice has been served in regards to the overall penalties and benefits of a Terrans expansion versus a Zergs.
Most people jump the gun and complain about marauders or tanks or reapers or this and that and the other thing- have never seen any Zergs complain about their fast expanding. Maybe it's just me, then.
|
On September 24 2010 05:50 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +the game is balanced for the average player. (even some top diamond) Its only in the pro scene where imbalance is really seen This is wrong on so many levesl i dont even know where to start. It kind of cracks my head. Actually, it is. The AMM system is designed to make people go 50% so it is "balanced" at all levels in that sense. Obviously, that can't happen at the pro end of the spectrum since you only have good players, but still! Ultimately, it doesn't make sense to talk about balance when players are making glaring gameplay mistakes.
Even though I may have the same win % as most people I play I honestly think I can tell that I am the better player even when I lose. I feel against almost every terran I play that I truly outplayed them in many ways.
|
Vatican City State2594 Posts
On September 24 2010 06:26 skindzer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 06:08 Murderotica wrote:
Maybe you should come back to bw? n_n Are you crazy? Iccup right now is like playing Doom on NIGHTMARE.
Yes. Best time I've had gaming ever. I don't care about rank, I care about improving n_n; Competitive environment is best environment. I hear all this SC2 is ez ladder system talk and I cry tears of sadness and joy at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
