|
On January 05 2005 14:41 ProudCappi wrote:
First of all, the game is not unbalanced at the highest levels. If it was, there wouldn't be a zvz final.
Because one tournament is a representation of balance.
Regardless of that, you can't ignore the semi-pros, and even us. You especially can't compare them with money-map players. You may as well compare them to UMS players. Starcraft is starcraft, and money/ums isn't
Zerg is raping at the semi-pro level. What would your changes do to that?
The fact that zergs are dominating the semi-pro leagues in korea means what? We know from watching the top terrans that there is a way to win much more often than not.
The fact that zerg is a raping at a level that is below what people are capable of...... hmm...
btw: Whoever like zvz is madly pro-zerg
I know nonzerg players who enjoy zvz. Then again, I also know zerg players who can't stand it.
|
So, you want to imbalance the game for everyone else to fix a dubious imbalance at the highest level? Since when is this a good idea!?
About that dubious imbalance: there is none. It isn't just one tourney, you saw the other post. I have a feeling that you can't beat terrans, so you want to change the game using the yellow vs. boxer series to justify it.
|
On January 05 2005 16:23 ProudCappi wrote:
So, you want to imbalance the game for everyone else to fix a dubious imbalance at the highest level? Since when is this a good idea!?
I'd rather the game be balanced than giving certain players an advantage?
About that dubious imbalance: there is none. It isn't just one tourney, you saw the other post.
Oh my bad, two tournies?
I have a feeling that you can't beat terrans, so you want to change the game using the yellow vs. boxer series to justify it.
zvt is one of my top 2 matchups, and I consider myself a safe player for the most part. I personally haven't lost to a bunker rush since I stopped blindly powering drones. It must be said though, that I'm not playing against top tier players.
|
On January 05 2005 16:32 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2005 16:23 ProudCappi wrote:
So, you want to imbalance the game for everyone else to fix a dubious imbalance at the highest level? Since when is this a good idea!? I'd rather the game be balanced than giving certain players an advantage? Show nested quote +About that dubious imbalance: there is none. It isn't just one tourney, you saw the other post. Oh my bad, two tournies? Show nested quote +I have a feeling that you can't beat terrans, so you want to change the game using the yellow vs. boxer series to justify it. zvt is one of my top 2 matchups, and I consider myself a safe player for the most part. I personally haven't lost to a bunker rush since I stopped blindly powering drones. It must be said though, that I'm not playing against top tier players.
Who is to say that the very top teir is representative of the game? It consists of like 100 people.
And stop thinking about it in number of tourneys, think about what is currently happenning. For the past few months, top teir zergs have been really strong.
|
On January 05 2005 16:39 ProudCappi wrote:
Who is to say that the very top teir is representative of the game? It consists of like 100 people.
100 people who play the game to it's fullest.
And stop thinking about it in number of tourneys, think about what is currently happenning. For the past few months, top teir zergs have been really strong.
This trend will need to continue for months and months for me to change my mind!
|
On January 05 2005 16:53 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2005 16:39 ProudCappi wrote:
Who is to say that the very top teir is representative of the game? It consists of like 100 people. 100 people who play the game to it's fullest. Show nested quote +And stop thinking about it in number of tourneys, think about what is currently happenning. For the past few months, top teir zergs have been really strong. This trend will need to continue for months and months for me to change my mind!
Now you're being lame.
I can't beleive you are willing to screw the game for everyone so the 100 players who "play the game to it's fullest" will have more balance. And how long will the strong-zerg trend need to continue? I personally can't wait till it's over.
|
On January 05 2005 17:01 ProudCappi wrote:
Now you're being lame.
I can't beleive you are willing to screw the game for everyone so the 100 players who "play the game to it's fullest" will have more balance.
Why don't we just balance the game for bghers!
And how long will the strong-zerg trend need to continue? I personally can't wait till it's over.
Omg, 3 tourney wins within a few months!!! This is triple what zerg has had in the past 3-4 years. personally, I am very excited. You must realize, I WANT them to show me that I'm wrong.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On January 05 2005 16:14 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2005 14:41 ProudCappi wrote:
First of all, the game is not unbalanced at the highest levels. If it was, there wouldn't be a zvz final. Because one tournament is a representation of balance. Show nested quote +Regardless of that, you can't ignore the semi-pros, and even us. You especially can't compare them with money-map players. You may as well compare them to UMS players. Starcraft is starcraft, and money/ums isn't
Zerg is raping at the semi-pro level. What would your changes do to that? The fact that zergs are dominating the semi-pro leagues in korea means what? We know from watching the top terrans that there is a way to win much more often than not. The fact that zerg is a raping at a level that is below what people are capable of...... hmm... I know nonzerg players who enjoy zvz. Then again, I also know zerg players who can't stand it.
Actually, the 'top terrans' are like 5 really gifted persons ;p
Then there's scarcely a terran until REAAAAAAAAAALLY far down (pgr21 rankings that is).
I mean, there's nada, oov, boxer, xellos and sync.
What other really good terrans are there? DDanGG is mad good, so is goodfriend, not quite at their level though. Then there's like themarine.
Cloud.
Yeah.
Fearsome!! Okay, he's not bad at all, in fact he's VERY good but he isn't exactly top 5 level ;o
|
On January 05 2005 17:04 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2005 17:01 ProudCappi wrote:
Now you're being lame.
I can't beleive you are willing to screw the game for everyone so the 100 players who "play the game to it's fullest" will have more balance. Why don't we just balance the game for bghers! Show nested quote +And how long will the strong-zerg trend need to continue? I personally can't wait till it's over. Omg, 3 tourney wins within a few months!!! This is triple what zerg has had in the past 3-4 years. personally, I am very excited. You must realize, I WANT them to show me that I'm wrong.
Because BGH and UMS maps aren't starcraft. TL.net level and semi-pro level is, AS IS pro level. Zerg is raping at the below-pro levels, and is doing great at the pro levels. Look at the present instead of counting tourney wins.
|
On January 05 2005 17:52 ProudCappi wrote:
Because BGH and UMS maps aren't starcraft.
Fine, let's balance it for the pubbie lt players! Have you played pubbies lately? --;
Zerg is raping at the below-pro levels, and is doing great at the pro levels. Look at the present instead of counting tourney wins.
I'm sorry, but a small period of prosperity will not change my mind. I want some long-term equality with the other races.
|
mm dunno if my post was posted earlier. didnt have anytime at that time tho =O. Here is my input:
I dont think SCV should be decreased to 45, that is way too low. I have however never understood why they would need as much sa 60!? I think 50 would actually be a lot more fair...
And for those who are whining about the fact that reaver drops and storm drops, mutalisk harass etc will be way more effective: yes this is exactly what I was aiming for also. Why should they not be? As it is now, terran and zerg both have a very easy time stopping a reaver drop unless they absolutly didnt see it coming or just plain out suck. Both these reasons justify SCV health = 60 as much as "I think probes should have 60 hp cause I dont like lurker shooting them...".
SCV at 50 would mean that they die from one less shot by dragoons than before. I see no problems with this... Of course, you will have to play a little bit safer if you encounter a strong PvT rusher but unless you are very tired or the P is lots better than you, you will not ´lose your supply will you? And if you do, was this not because you missclicked and the tank went into the goons range and died? Plz tell me...
The "SCV will die too hard vs harass!!!" thing is not an issue, I hope everybody can agree on this...
Also, I agree that bunkers build too fast.
I can't believe nobody here has mentioned this yet but let's just look at PvZ for a moment.
These are two counter-fast exp builds a toss can go (that is, not all just two "standard"):
1. Two gate rush. Easy to pull of and with good micro you are able to beat inferior zerg players, do some damage to equal zerg players (as well as losing your zealots or allowing him to mass drone for awhile, that is he will benefit/lose from this strat as you do = balanced) and you will probably be outplayed early game by superior players.
This strategy is balanced if the map is balanced.
2. The Gateway/Forge + cannon build. This strategy is a bit risky (hope you are beginning to see my point soon). If everything works out for you (as p) your cannons will be almost finished when the worried z players hatchery pops up and he sees your pylon etc. The drones will come but your zealot will fend them off and cannons arrive just in time for the lings. Z has officially lost this game.
However, this strat will absolutly NOT work all the time and it will not even be close to working three times in a row. It all depends on wether or not the Z player scouts your base fast enough or gets that hunch. Ideally, he will have an overlord nearby or a drone or w-ever and discover your pylon fast enough. Or say he doesnt. There still is a chance to win if you have a bit early pool, if you attack with everything and overpower the zealot+probe before cannons are up.
These are two balanced early game rushes PvZ, agreed? There is no change needed!
Now Imagine if the cannons build time was decreased, or even worse, if the zealot build time was decreased. This would make the strats unbalanced in favour for toss. You would win almost every game vs an equally good player simply because there is nothing he can do, but do another build. That doesnt justify the fact that the two gate rush and the cannon build now are way too good early game vs fast exp, does it?
And now to the point of this whole blablabla post:
What needs to be changed needs to be changed very little. The bunker rush should not be made useless, it should be a viable choice in TvZ BUT you should not be able to overpower a superior zerg player just because you know "the boxer build"! It needs to be balanced in a manor that it comes of like the two gate rush build PvZ, that the better player wins or at least comes out on top.
Many argue that this is not the case at the moment, and I cant disagree because I have owned better Z players with my Terran and my Terran SUCKS...
Oh, and PvZ ultra/ling is imbalanced --;;
|
and that is why I agree to scv = 50 hp and bunker time increased, I'm not sure how much, but one should let some tests determine this !_!
|
On January 05 2005 17:54 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2005 17:52 ProudCappi wrote:
Because BGH and UMS maps aren't starcraft. Fine, let's balance it for the pubbie lt players! Have you played pubbies lately? --; Show nested quote + Zerg is raping at the below-pro levels, and is doing great at the pro levels. Look at the present instead of counting tourney wins. I'm sorry, but a small period of prosperity will not change my mind. I want some long-term equality with the other races.
1. The game is probably super zerg in pubbie games, I don't really know. I do know that we shouldn't balance for one particular segment, we should try and make the game as fair as possible.
2. Okay then, how long is long enough for this zerg dominance?
|
On January 05 2005 18:00 ProudCappi wrote:
2. Okay then, how long is long enough for this zerg dominance?
I want them to perform as well as the other races FOREVER excluding periods where obviously imbalanced maps are used. 
|
On January 05 2005 18:02 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2005 18:00 ProudCappi wrote:
2. Okay then, how long is long enough for this zerg dominance? I want them to perform as well as the other races FOREVER excluding periods where obviously imbalanced maps are used.
Pro-terran maps have been used lately...
|
On January 05 2005 18:04 ProudCappi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2005 18:02 Mindcrime wrote:On January 05 2005 18:00 ProudCappi wrote:
2. Okay then, how long is long enough for this zerg dominance? I want them to perform as well as the other races FOREVER excluding periods where obviously imbalanced maps are used. Pro-terran maps have been used lately...
Lately, the maps as a whole have been pretty good for zerg. Look at kt-ktf. Luna, Arizona and Nostalgia, and requiem. They're all pretty good. Namja and Nostalgia have been in quite a few leagues recently, and I know most zergs like (love even) those maps.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
ProudCappi and mindcrime
You guys are arguing semantics here. Get back to the point.
|
On January 05 2005 18:33 Tien wrote:
ProudCappi and mindcrime
You guys are arguing semantics here. Get back to the point.
I believe that slower building bunk would be just dandy. good enough?
|
Yes! We got a fucking zerg player who sucks and cant beat terran coming over there whinning the fuck outta everything mindcrime shut up please maybe if you were good you wouldnt have to complain
|
On January 05 2005 18:33 Tien wrote:
ProudCappi and mindcrime
You guys are arguing semantics here. Get back to the point.
He thinks the game is imba but it's really the maps, as any trend would show.
He also ignores the semi-pro scene's extreme zerg dominance, which would be magnified if zerg is changed.
I don't know how to argue with someone who wants a 150 min pool >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
