|
On May 17 2017 13:16 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 13:04 neobowman wrote:On May 17 2017 12:49 Essbee wrote:On May 17 2017 04:22 neobowman wrote:On May 16 2017 20:27 Essbee wrote:
The game was considered to be balanced for almost 2 decades and now that the remaster has been announced, then MAGICALLY bw is supposedly not balanced and terran is super op.
Every single person I've seen saying that terran is op and bw is imbalanced are people who registered on TL post-2010.
If balance do happen, it's gonna kill the remaster and everyone is just going to go back to 1.16, and honestly, I wouldn't mind one bit. Hi. Though to be fair, I'm not saying Terran is OP, I'm saying Zerg has problems against Terran and Protoss has problems against Zerg. So I suppose you could be technically right. But people saying stuff like "BW balance is perfect, why are we discussing this?" are as bad as people yelling "Terran OP! Stupid game!" Check the stats. It's not balanced. The balance is very good, but there are clear problems. I've said before, if there was an easy way to solve the problems with maps, it probably would've been done already. Never said Bw balance is perfect, but I do say that it is more than fine. And like I've said many times already. Change the map pool by removing maps like circuit breaker and fs and use maps like chain reaction or pathfinder instead and you would see a big difference. "I've said before, if there was an easy way to solve the problems with maps, it probably would've been done already"That's the thing, there is a way to change the maps and make them unfavorable for terran, but for some reason they aren't doing it. Remember the savior era? Where every single zerg struggled to get a win against terrans because of the ridiculous map pool heavily favoring terrans but savior was the only one who managed to overcome all these obstacles by playing non-standard and figuring out ways to take advantage of terran weaknesses. He was smart and didn't let the map pool affect him. BUT imagine if the map pool would have been zerg favored instead? It would have changed everything and potentially made savior even more dominant. The maps make a big difference and we could certainly use more 2p or 3p maps that can potentially make terrans unfavored. Or with less cliffs. Or with shorter rush distances. Or with an easy to get 3rd gas for zerg. Again, if BW doesn't change, it'll still be great. I completely agree. But at the same time, that's not an argument against change. Go is a wonderful game that's still trying to find perfect balance with their rulings. I have no idea why you would pick Chain Reaction and Pathfinder of all maps. Not exactly the paragons of balance. Aight, work with me here for a sec. Let's assume that Terran has an advantage against Zerg. What if it was the other way around? But Flash is amazing so he still wins against Zerg. Flash is the only one who manages to overcome all these. He's smart and doesn't let the map pool affect him. But imagine if balance was in Terran's favour? He would've been even more dominant. See, this argument is silly. Savior's ZvT even at his prime was nowhere near as good as top Terrans against Zerg. And he didn't play non-standard, he created the new standard. The one that everyone plays today. And unless I'm missing something, it's been standard for a good 10 years now and no one's come up with any significant improvement on it. Refinement, yes, lot's of refinement. But nothing like Bisu's PvZ revolution (which eventually was solved btw) and most certainly nothing like the TvZ 5 rax into mech switch. These are all balance suggestions I'm well aware of. I made and analyzed maps for a good 3 years back when Kespa around. But I simply don't think there's a way to aid either ZvT or PvZ balance without screwing up the other matchups. Chain reaction and Pathfinder are not balanced but it doesn't matter since terran are supposedly overpowered. So by using maps that could potentially unfavor terrans, it could prove terrans are not as op as people seem to think. Balance is not my point at the moment. My point is that if you can make a race stronger than others just by changing the maps, then how the hell do you expect to achieve perfect balance by changing the units? It's never going to end and to be honest, trying to achieve "perfect" balance is silly and impossible. The game balance is "perfect" for what it is and if everyone is sick of seeing terrans overachieve (which is not so true), then just make the maps unfavored for terrans for a while and let people complain about races until they realize the never-ending outcry will never ever end. Even if you change the units, then maybe suddenly terrans are not as strong. But then you can just make a map that favors terran by a lot and yo uwould be back to the same problem. And what do you do after this? You nerf then again? You nerf them again until the maps can't help them anymore and realize the mistake you have been making all along and just go back to 1.16? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about flash vs zergs, I was specifically talking about maps, not the general matchup.
That's the thing though. You can't change the balance of the map to affect one matchup. It affects all matchups which is why changing maps is such an unappealing solution. I already said, I don't believe it's possible with our current mapping standards to have a map pool that is Z=>T P=>Z and T=P. If you could then I wouldn't have complaints.
I'm not asking for perfect balance I'm asking for acceptable balance. Something sub 53% over a year would be fine.
And if terrans are changing their standard strategies with 5 rax into mech, why can't other races adapt and also change? What's good about something that has been "standard for a good 10 years now" when the other races aren't using the same builds from 10 years ago? And maybe the standard is still good but maps like circuit breaker doesn't allow it to be good? Like, I am not a pro or anything but I've been following this game for long enough to know that every single race has something unfair to it that's how the game is balanced. Starting to nerf everything is just going to lead to a game that's going to get progressively worse (in term of balance and fun).
Hey hear that Korean Zergs? You just have to change your strategy! It was that easy all the fucking along. Hurray! Balance is solved!
You continue to repeat the rhetoric that balance changes will make the game worse but you fail to explain why. How will a +3 build time increase for meds make the game worse. Even if it does, then would a +2 build time do the same thing? A +1?
On May 17 2017 18:34 Magic Powers wrote:stuff
How many years of imbalance do we play through waiting for a revolution? The only times in the past 10 years where I can remember where a strategic overhaul reversed balance splits? I can think of Bisu's revolution and maybe Savior's ZvT implementation. How long has it been since then? 8 yearsish to put it generously. Half the games lifetime has passed without balance being improved. How long do we wait?
|
On May 16 2017 05:10 Bakuryu wrote:
whats the point of biggest range if your units die to manlots and zerglings?
The point is that the opponent can lose a good chunk of his army to only realize the battle with the maxed-out terran mech army is pointless to then lose some more when backing out of the fight. The point is that zerg must fight under swarm as much as possible which is not an easy task to do. The point is that they *might* die if the manlots/lings/ultras actually reach the tank line.
On May 16 2017 05:10 Bakuryu wrote:
whats the point of best defence if you cant attack because zerg uses swarm/lurker or protoss blocks ramp with stasis?
yes, you can attack - vessels deal with the lurkers if they managed to burrow under the dark swarm.
yes, you can scv drill and unblock the ramp.
besides tanks can outrange the lurker/dark swarm and kill the hatch/defiler or whatever in range.
On May 16 2017 05:10 Bakuryu wrote:
whats the point if you have the strongest 200/200 ball when zerg uses their mobility to attack undefended bases and protoss uses recall all over the map?
So what? Terran lifts the cc and zerg rarely can do anything about it. Some retreating scv kills with lings/ultras cant compare vs the vulture harrass. Going through a ton of mines is not considered undefended in my book as well. And admitting that terran actually takes undefended bases makes your argument even worse. Do you imagine a P or Z taking a completely undefended base 20-30 minutes into the game vs T and not be considered super bold and possibly a dead man walking right there? If terran does it vs zerg it's somewhat okay these days.
The point that terran has the strongest and longest ranged in-game (competitive level) limit of 200/200 still stands.
|
Terran does seem a little OP sometimes, but it would feel wrong to nerf them. Just seems like Seige Tanks, Vultures, and mines *should* be scarily deadly. Gives it an interesting feel in the late game when you know you can't attack the Terran army directly, so the other races have to find ways to fight indirectly.
One change I might like would be to give a maximum range on the comsat scan. Make it so it's still useful as a detector and for general scouting near your base, but Terrans can't just maphack their opponent's base whenever they feel like it and instantly discover their builds. That might open up a wider variety of strategies against Terran, forcing them to be a little more cautious in the mid game and slow down the mechanical push of death.
|
On May 18 2017 00:55 LRM)TechnicS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:10 Bakuryu wrote:
whats the point of biggest range if your units die to manlots and zerglings?
The point is that the opponent can lose a good chunk of his army to only realize the battle with the maxed-out terran mech army is pointless to then lose some more when backing out of the fight. The point is that zerg must fight under swarm as much as possible which is not an easy task to do. The point is that they *might* die if the manlots/lings/ultras actually reach the tank line. Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:10 Bakuryu wrote:
whats the point of best defence if you cant attack because zerg uses swarm/lurker or protoss blocks ramp with stasis?
yes, you can attack - vessels deal with the lurkers if they managed to burrow under the dark swarm. yes, you can scv drill and unblock the ramp. besides tanks can outrange the lurker/dark swarm and kill the hatch/defiler or whatever in range. Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:10 Bakuryu wrote:
whats the point if you have the strongest 200/200 ball when zerg uses their mobility to attack undefended bases and protoss uses recall all over the map?
So what? Terran lifts the cc and zerg rarely can do anything about it. Some retreating scv kills with lings/ultras cant compare vs the vulture harrass. Going through a ton of mines is not considered undefended in my book as well. And admitting that terran actually takes undefended bases makes your argument even worse. Do you imagine a P or Z taking a completely undefended base 20-30 minutes into the game vs T and not be considered super bold and possibly a dead man walking right there? If terran does it vs zerg it's somewhat okay these days. The point that terran has the strongest and longest ranged in-game (competitive level) limit of 200/200 still stands.
Didnt Terrans start running this mech build because playing late game bio vs Defilers is basically suicide? Atleast in the current map pool
|
It's bizarre to see people unironically suggesting balance patches to BW.
There are VOD showing pros dissolving everything on every match up.
|
On May 18 2017 00:16 neobowman wrote:
How many years of imbalance do we play through waiting for a revolution? The only times in the past 10 years where I can remember where a strategic overhaul reversed balance splits? I can think of Bisu's revolution and maybe Savior's ZvT implementation. How long has it been since then? 8 yearsish to put it generously. Half the games lifetime has passed without balance being improved. How long do we wait?
I doubt we can use the past 5-7 as an indicator for how fast the game is evolving at the highest level. I don't think I have to explain why I think that, it should be very obvious.
|
i was not dismissing the point. i was trying to show how other races also have "imba" stuff.
with undefended bases i meant bases which has very few units there (for example the 1-2 tank supply depot defence at early 3rd vs protoss), im sorry i didnt word it more clearly.
this feels like the 40th balance thread in the last 6 years, if i counted correctly its the 5th thread in this ongoing year and we are not even half way in.
i dont even know what you guys have to discuss anymore, everything has been said 10 times already.
what do you mean with imba/OP and how do you wanna solve it?
1) do you want T=Z=P in terms of 50% winrate for everybody? which games of which players over what time do you want to take into consideration?
a) all games of all pros like ogn did? but the meta and maps changed 100 times during that.
b) all post-kespa pros? but between the killer era and the current flash/last era we again had meta and map changes.
c) only looking at top ten of each months sponsor game? but the pros agreed that flash and last are on their own league skill wise, so how do you want to balance if some people are just better?
d) only looking at ASL/SSL/.../ tournament winners/top 4 finishers? so people with stage fright like larva are fucked, while people who specifically prepare like shine are at advantage.
e) only looking at specific players? we already concluded that flash and last are on their own league. also, jaedong plays a completely different style like larva or effort, so those 3 might have the same skill, but in completely different areas.
ok so you might just take 1)a) in order to summarize all progaming until now and conclude that the game is imba and you wanna fix it.
2) i want to fix it with maps.
well, how do you want to do it? we have progamers with different skill levels, distributed differently in micro/macro/game decision while playing different styles. also, some progamers are better at using map features to their advantage as other progamers. some zergs take faster 5th/6th base on fs, others are happy with their 2 hatch muta build. so in general you will have people with different skill sets facing off against each other. if you are really lucky, everybody will have some ways to play which will converge into same win chances and a close to 50% win rate for all.
but how close of a 50% win rate do you want so its not imba?
because there is only 1 way to efficiently get 50% for all which would be to make a map which only allows 1 build for each match up.
that way you balance everything around that 1 build, where people with different styles get streamlined into 1 build. all in all you kill variety in favor of perfect balance, which will result in lots and lots of matches which will be 99.99% the same, totally boring......
3)i want to fix it with balance patches
by now you should realize that we have players with different skill levels in different areas with different playstyles exceling in different locations (locations = offline tournaments vs spon games) on different maps.
but still you want to balance. so you reduce scv health or tank damage or whatever, wait time x, check statistics y or played on map z.... hm, still not 50%, time to balance some more......
but then you are like, nonono, terran has a too big of a comeback mechanic, also terran can quickly repair stuff and lift cc.
yes, terran can do that. the easiest way to comeback in general is by just having ranged units and since terran has the most ranged units, it has the most comeback potential. this isnt that much about damage alone, just the range itself. because the enemy with fewer range has to first take damage before even having a chance to deal damage.
combined with things like more micro potential and critical mass, range units just live longer in most cases.
if you want to remove that mechanic from terran, you have to give more units of other races a range attack or just give every unit tank range.
repairing stuff... if you want to reduce the repair rate or you make certain units not repairable (like, scv not able to repair scv) you have to do other adjustments because aggression will be way harder to defend.
removing lifting from cc or other buildings also makes aggression way harder to defend.
removing/tuning down both things will also make terran less "terran".
this brings me to my main argument.
which is also my TL;DR:
we have a game with 3 distinct races, each race with different unit harmony, different early-mid-lategame stages, expansion patterns and game styles. all possible on a variety of maps over the last 16 years. Do you really want to open the box of pandora that is balance patches?
|
Most people will agree that the game is not perfectly balanced. Nothing can ever be "perfect". But it is as close to it as we can get, and I agree with Bakuryu in that balance patches is not the solution. Once you change one thing, you can never go back (technically you can but I mean from a precedent perspective).
|
It's okay for the game to not have 50-50 winrates. It makes it more interesting when a race is favored in a matchup and loses, as long as those imbalances aren't reaching say 60-40 or in reality like 65-35 there's really nothing to complain about. Also these balances change over time as many have already mentioned. If every matchup was 50-50 we'd be complaining about hearthstone coinflips.
|
On May 18 2017 06:13 d(O.o)a wrote:
It's okay for the game to not have 50-50 winrates. It makes it more interesting when a race is favored in a matchup and loses, as long as those imbalances aren't reaching say 60-40 or in reality like 65-35 there's really nothing to complain about. Also these balances change over time as many have already mentioned. If every matchup was 50-50 we'd be complaining about hearthstone coinflips.
Id say 55-45 is pretty ideal 60-40 and esp 65-35 is reaching pretty absurb levels of imbalance i think
|
iCCup race stats
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MJmwXV4.png)
|
Those iccup stats are very interesting. I'm surprised to see Fighting Spirit look so balanced for tvz, when it seems pretty imbalanced in for the pros. Do they have any stats broken down by ladder rank?
|
If you're using stats just beware of the bellcurve.
The enlightened viewpoint is to treat every theoretical map pool as a different game. It's clear a good map for a race-locked individual league is one where the overall balance smooths out around 55/45 or better for each imbalanced matchup after a sufficiently large sample size, but a teamleague that demands deep teams might not benefit from restricting itself to maps that disfavor no race.
Whether the Brood War of today is a balanced game requires first that we rigidly define the map pool of today as well as the entire standard competitive format. No KESPA makes that hard.
|
On May 18 2017 03:43 Bakuryu wrote:
b) all post-kespa pros? but between the killer era and the current flash/last era we again had meta and map changes.
c) only looking at top ten of each months sponsor game? but the pros agreed that flash and last are on their own league skill wise, so how do you want to balance if some people are just better?
e) only looking at specific players? we already concluded that flash and last are on their own league. also, jaedong plays a completely different style like larva or effort, so those 3 might have the same skill, but in completely different areas.
so your argument is the balance is fine because two players who 'are in a league of their own' just happen to be terran? seriously?
don't you think playing terran might be the factor in why they look so godly??
|
I'd be interested to see the stats of TvP and TvZ currently if you completely removed Last's and Flash's games if that was posted somewhere and I missed it I apologize.
|
On May 17 2017 12:21 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 11:21 alexpnd wrote:On May 17 2017 11:03 neobowman wrote:On May 17 2017 09:11 ninazerg wrote:
I think tanks should be buffed to have 9999 health and fire a nuclear missile. Nina, come on. You're literally shitposting. This is the type of attitude I really dislike seeing. It's belittling the people who are proposing balance ideas. I'm fine if you disagree with balance changes but this is just as annoying as people yelling "Terran OP impossible to beat!" On May 17 2017 10:52 SeAy wrote:
If Blizzard is back and is willing to change things with patience, i will humbly propose small micro changes. Like SVC health reduced to 50 hp and Vulture to cost at least 25 gas. Thats it, leave it for a year of testing and see what happens.
Also, its a fact that Zerg on island maps has the slowest time to be able to get transport.
However considering Blizzard's attitude to SC in the past, its probable that no changes will be made in spite that i think small micro changes could actually improve the experience.
Even those changes seem extreme to me. SCV health is vital for alot of rushes and you can't change vultures cost (especially adding gas) without huge ramifications. As always I'm a proponent of really tiny changes like +3 seconds on medic build time or +5 health on corsairs. Better to change not enough than too much. The point is that balance discussions are ridiculous and usually extremely short sighted. Most terran complainers don't play terran, and don't know how hard it is to deal with things like 2 gate pressure, lurker drops, etc. There is a ton that is OP on other races and cannot be shrugged off for some poorly formed idea that terran OP. It's just idlers riding a hype train. BW has been played professionally for over 15 years without any balance changes and that's the way the majority want to keep it, why is that so hard to understand? And if you can't understand, understand why you get a lot of scoffing and mockery, 15 years, more than half your life most likely. Get a grip people. I don't think anyone denies the difficulty of playing Terran. But this isn't about us. Balance is irrelevant at lower levels. It's the top pro level we're talking about. We're not just counting up things we think are imbalanced. These are statistics. It's not imaginary. I understand that a lot of people want to keep it that way and I just don't think that's the correct position to take. You want it to stay the way it is because that's the way it's always been. That's not really an argument, just an explanation for a position. I understand it, but doesn't make the disdain for those who suggest otherwise any more right. Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 11:45 CobaltBlu wrote:
Please guys give up on the fantasy that you are going to make micro tweaks that lead to perfect balance between all the races.We are incredibly blessed to have a game with three asymmetrical races that hasn't had a balance patch in over 15 years has remained this competitive and viable over all the meta shifts and strategies discovered so far. After all this time player skill and then map balance are the most important factors when it comes to deciding who wins a match.
Brood war is unique in this way and I don't want to come into a situation where I'm reading balance patch notes every two weeks to fix stuff someone was whining about on the forums. Just leave the game balance alone. This is the type of "Good enough" type thinking that all this usually boils down to and I just don't agree with it. I'm thinking it's coming from dislike of how SC2 operated with monthly balance patches and I wouldn't want that either. But I don't think that's valid criticism of a small balance tweak after years of the same imbalance trends remaining. Literally every competitive game changes with the times. Chess, Go, literally every sport. No one disagrees that Starcraft is an amazing game. But just because it is, doesn't mean it can't be improved. If I told a professional athelete that they'd lose 5% of their matches, "Just because that's the way the game works", that would be inexcusable. That would be a top priority to fix. Yet when it's suggested in any Brood War thread, it's shot down because people are scared of change.
The whole premise of your stance is a joke, I'm sorry. "These are statistics." Have you ever taken a statistics course? These are numbers, this is data. This is not statistics.
Just as the OP in this thread is not real "research" or "statistics" either. Where is the statistical analysis? What alpha level did you use? You just made the layman error of looking at some data and coming to a conclusion with no analysis, one which likely just supports your preexisting bias.
In other news, I think siege tanks should have 9999 hp and shoot nuclear missiles.
On May 17 2017 13:05 NerO wrote:
Has anyone ever used the Dark Archon +50 energy? Replace it. Make HT faster for late game.
I have. Don't make stupid frivolous changes. Use Shuttles for your Templar like a real man.
On May 17 2017 16:19 Moopower wrote:
It's not mere whining, when statistics show terran has been dominating for most of broodwar and no one can deny that Protoss has the least titles by a large margin.
I also agree that the map pool should be more varied to be balanced among the races in each respective match up. If they would make vultures at least 85 minerals and 15 gas that would be fair. They are too dispensable, fast and agile, get 3 spider mines that could potentially take out a half control group of units or severely dmg them from 1 UNIT. This is why zerg have a tough time against Terran in mech builds that are trending. Zerg has to toss away lings and suicide to clear mines. Vulture harass is 90% of the harassment in TvP and are so cost efficient.
This would make ZvT more manageable, and PvT I'd say is the fairest match up imo. So vulture cost may hurt TvP match up but we could test it for some time to see how it affects the match up. If it affects the match up perhaps just make vultures 100 minerals.
Same goes to you as to neobowman above. Statistics is not what you're looking at. You're looking at raw data. Do some statistical analysis and then you can say that statistics probably show _____. Until then you're just taking an aggregate of nominal data that has a lot of confounding variables and trying to argue that they prove something.
Maybe someone didn't teach you science as a kid, but in order to prove something you need to do an experiment using the scientific method. To crunch data and speak about it intelligently, you need to do statistical analysis and then talk about things such as % of certainty and confidence interval, not "let's look at Terran titles and subtract Protoss titles, herp derp we just made maths prove my point."
This is beyond the fact that making Vultures a gas unit would be dumb, in my opinion. Terran already are so reliant on gas for their late-game army. That would be absolutely brutal for them. Say good-bye to FD and early map control that doesn't come at a ludicrous price. Say good-bye to the already difficult and unfavorable pure-mech TvZ.
On May 17 2017 15:05 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 14:42 arbiter_md wrote:
I still don't understand why they never even tried, and never seriously considered the use of specific maps for specific match-ups. A tournament could have a set of 3 maps for zvp, 3 for pvt and 3 for tvz plus 2 maps like cb/fs. I think this is the best way to improve the quality and reduce the balance whining.
It's certainly much easier to create a balanced map for a specific match-up, and much more creativity could be involved (island maps?) while giving good chances to both players. And it's not like we lack the choice of maps. I don't understand why the map pool is not more varied.
Map pool is not more varied, in my opinion, because of a multitude of factors:
1. If everyone only plays on FS and CB, then it will be difficult for pros to get good practice on other maps, and as a result the overall level of play/strategy may not be where it needs to be.
2. Pros are no longer in teams with structured practice schedules and dedicated practice partners, or with coaches who analyze maps and replays etc. These are all contributing factors to the lack of a desire to migrate from the mainstay maps.
3. Where are the pro map makers? They are probably 30+ years old working at a business or something. The few remaining map makers are either ignored or are irrelevant to the Korean scene; only recently has attention been given to some Korean map makers, which is a step in the right direction.
4. Favoring status quo. If one thing is made obvious by this thread, is that people in general do not want to change BW.
5. Afreeca is aware of all of the above and thus when it runs leagues, it has to do so in a way that is most likely to:
a. Please the most amount of fans, for revenue
b. Please the most of pros, for fans, for revenue
c. Create exciting games, for fans, for revenue
d. Not fuck with balance or status quo too hard
This is all IMO, but it seems to make sense. Won't pretend to know the inner workings of Afreeca with any level of certainty, unlike our statistician friends in the thread.
|
On May 18 2017 13:03 CUTtheCBC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2017 03:43 Bakuryu wrote:
b) all post-kespa pros? but between the killer era and the current flash/last era we again had meta and map changes.
c) only looking at top ten of each months sponsor game? but the pros agreed that flash and last are on their own league skill wise, so how do you want to balance if some people are just better?
e) only looking at specific players? we already concluded that flash and last are on their own league. also, jaedong plays a completely different style like larva or effort, so those 3 might have the same skill, but in completely different areas.
so your argument is the balance is fine because two players who 'are in a league of their own' just happen to be terran? seriously? don't you think playing terran might be the factor in why they look so godly??
Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard tbh.
Bisu looked like a god when he was on top, Jaedong, Savior
but wait they werent Terran
??? Sure you have Iloveoov(who also helped revolutionize macro) NaDa who was also super skilled, and Boxer winning because of Micro since Macro wasnt as large then. Flash was leagues above everyone else since he was basically a prodigy and still is at that
|
On May 18 2017 00:16 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 13:16 Essbee wrote:On May 17 2017 13:04 neobowman wrote:On May 17 2017 12:49 Essbee wrote:On May 17 2017 04:22 neobowman wrote:On May 16 2017 20:27 Essbee wrote:
The game was considered to be balanced for almost 2 decades and now that the remaster has been announced, then MAGICALLY bw is supposedly not balanced and terran is super op.
Every single person I've seen saying that terran is op and bw is imbalanced are people who registered on TL post-2010.
If balance do happen, it's gonna kill the remaster and everyone is just going to go back to 1.16, and honestly, I wouldn't mind one bit. Hi. Though to be fair, I'm not saying Terran is OP, I'm saying Zerg has problems against Terran and Protoss has problems against Zerg. So I suppose you could be technically right. But people saying stuff like "BW balance is perfect, why are we discussing this?" are as bad as people yelling "Terran OP! Stupid game!" Check the stats. It's not balanced. The balance is very good, but there are clear problems. I've said before, if there was an easy way to solve the problems with maps, it probably would've been done already. Never said Bw balance is perfect, but I do say that it is more than fine. And like I've said many times already. Change the map pool by removing maps like circuit breaker and fs and use maps like chain reaction or pathfinder instead and you would see a big difference. "I've said before, if there was an easy way to solve the problems with maps, it probably would've been done already"That's the thing, there is a way to change the maps and make them unfavorable for terran, but for some reason they aren't doing it. Remember the savior era? Where every single zerg struggled to get a win against terrans because of the ridiculous map pool heavily favoring terrans but savior was the only one who managed to overcome all these obstacles by playing non-standard and figuring out ways to take advantage of terran weaknesses. He was smart and didn't let the map pool affect him. BUT imagine if the map pool would have been zerg favored instead? It would have changed everything and potentially made savior even more dominant. The maps make a big difference and we could certainly use more 2p or 3p maps that can potentially make terrans unfavored. Or with less cliffs. Or with shorter rush distances. Or with an easy to get 3rd gas for zerg. Again, if BW doesn't change, it'll still be great. I completely agree. But at the same time, that's not an argument against change. Go is a wonderful game that's still trying to find perfect balance with their rulings. I have no idea why you would pick Chain Reaction and Pathfinder of all maps. Not exactly the paragons of balance. Aight, work with me here for a sec. Let's assume that Terran has an advantage against Zerg. What if it was the other way around? But Flash is amazing so he still wins against Zerg. Flash is the only one who manages to overcome all these. He's smart and doesn't let the map pool affect him. But imagine if balance was in Terran's favour? He would've been even more dominant. See, this argument is silly. Savior's ZvT even at his prime was nowhere near as good as top Terrans against Zerg. And he didn't play non-standard, he created the new standard. The one that everyone plays today. And unless I'm missing something, it's been standard for a good 10 years now and no one's come up with any significant improvement on it. Refinement, yes, lot's of refinement. But nothing like Bisu's PvZ revolution (which eventually was solved btw) and most certainly nothing like the TvZ 5 rax into mech switch. These are all balance suggestions I'm well aware of. I made and analyzed maps for a good 3 years back when Kespa around. But I simply don't think there's a way to aid either ZvT or PvZ balance without screwing up the other matchups. Chain reaction and Pathfinder are not balanced but it doesn't matter since terran are supposedly overpowered. So by using maps that could potentially unfavor terrans, it could prove terrans are not as op as people seem to think. Balance is not my point at the moment. My point is that if you can make a race stronger than others just by changing the maps, then how the hell do you expect to achieve perfect balance by changing the units? It's never going to end and to be honest, trying to achieve "perfect" balance is silly and impossible. The game balance is "perfect" for what it is and if everyone is sick of seeing terrans overachieve (which is not so true), then just make the maps unfavored for terrans for a while and let people complain about races until they realize the never-ending outcry will never ever end. Even if you change the units, then maybe suddenly terrans are not as strong. But then you can just make a map that favors terran by a lot and yo uwould be back to the same problem. And what do you do after this? You nerf then again? You nerf them again until the maps can't help them anymore and realize the mistake you have been making all along and just go back to 1.16? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about flash vs zergs, I was specifically talking about maps, not the general matchup. That's the thing though. You can't change the balance of the map to affect one matchup. It affects all matchups which is why changing maps is such an unappealing solution. I already said, I don't believe it's possible with our current mapping standards to have a map pool that is Z=>T P=>Z and T=P. If you could then I wouldn't have complaints. I'm not asking for perfect balance I'm asking for acceptable balance. Something sub 53% over a year would be fine. Show nested quote +
And if terrans are changing their standard strategies with 5 rax into mech, why can't other races adapt and also change? What's good about something that has been "standard for a good 10 years now" when the other races aren't using the same builds from 10 years ago? And maybe the standard is still good but maps like circuit breaker doesn't allow it to be good? Like, I am not a pro or anything but I've been following this game for long enough to know that every single race has something unfair to it that's how the game is balanced. Starting to nerf everything is just going to lead to a game that's going to get progressively worse (in term of balance and fun).
Hey hear that Korean Zergs? You just have to change your strategy! It was that easy all the fucking along. Hurray! Balance is solved! You continue to repeat the rhetoric that balance changes will make the game worse but you fail to explain why. How will a +3 build time increase for meds make the game worse. Even if it does, then would a +2 build time do the same thing? A +1? How many years of imbalance do we play through waiting for a revolution? The only times in the past 10 years where I can remember where a strategic overhaul reversed balance splits? I can think of Bisu's revolution and maybe Savior's ZvT implementation. How long has it been since then? 8 yearsish to put it generously. Half the games lifetime has passed without balance being improved. How long do we wait?
How you can affect matchups with only maps prove my point about balance. If the game wasn't balanced then no matter what the maps you would use there would always be a superior race, no matter what. But thankfully that's not the case with BW. And also, that's the nature of the game, you can't expect to have 100% of balance no matter what map you use, in that case you would have to remove all units that are map dependant (and that also make this game fun and amazing) like the siege tank, or carriers, or lurkers.
In a Bo5, you could have maps like Chain reaction, but also Camelot so it balances it out in the end. And on the map you are supposedly unfavored, you can come up with awesome strategies and take your opponent offguard (just like Shine) and that's what make BW special and amazing to watch, I don't want mathematical balance, the game is already balanced because all races are unfair, and that's "perfect".
"Hey hear that Korean Zergs? You just have to change your strategy! It was that easy all the fucking along. Hurray! Balance is solved!"
Well, I know that's obviously sarcasm, but have you watched Shine vs Mong, or Larva's stream? Everything I said has been happening, so yeah, korean zergs did try new things and it's working, and I find that fascinating. The game is constantly evolving and it could evolve even more if we had unconvential maps from time to time (like an island or semi-island map, or a farther natural, or a double gas third, or any other change really...).
And yeah, you are right, I did fail to explain why it would make the game worse, but I kind of explained it, just not clearly: If we start balancing the numbers and whatnot, it's going to affect everything in the game, but more importantly it's opening a door for blizzard and future balance patches and potentially ruin the game, it's a chain reaction (no pun intended). And as I've said, the game is perfectly balanced for what it is. It might seem abstract to say this, but if you have been following the game for long enough, you should know what I mean, and you should know that in proleague we saw many maps with almost no terrans being sent by their coach because they know that specific map is unfavored for terrans. If terran was op, this wouldn't happen, they would send terrans on any map, no matter what.
I don't know what else I can add, but we can just say we agree to disagree then.
|
|
|
On May 18 2017 01:28 arb wrote:
Didnt Terrans start running this mech build because playing late game bio vs Defilers is basically suicide? Atleast in the current map pool
Not exacly a suicide, but keeping SV ball alive in late game and microing stuff to not die to some ultra/defiler/ling/scourge combo with some occasional lurkers is hard and good luck with that if the Zerg is already entrenched and gas heavy. Firebats can fight off lings when the swarm is casted, but to do a shit against anything bigger than that, like swarmed lurkers, you must use deffensive matrix and even than results are pretty poor.
Mech is just easier and not worse (if not better) than bio at this point. It actually forces the Zerg to be carefull with his micro, becouse suiciding his ultra/lurker stack is much easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
