|
All in all, I really feel Starcraft 2 needs a year or so!
Pretty interested in what you guys think about this line of reasoning
1. You don't know what changes are all being made so you can't say it's minor
2. A year? Are you kidding me? In a year we'll all be thinking about Heart of the Swarm for god's sake.
3. It doesn't take nearly that long to spot problems if you're intelligent. Relying on revolutions in the meta game is cute, because it pretends like a game can be balanced without being balanced
|
this thread should be thrown in a garbage can
how could it be more obvious that zerg is underpowered
|
12:34 in the video...When you see it you will shit bricks
|
Now I know this is not the same type of game or anything but if anyone played Age of Conan you can see how terribly terribly damaging it can be to let things go unpatched and say that they are fine.
The class Tempest of Seth as they were called could take on a 4 to 5 man group and come out with half their hp left.
I get the feeling this is how most zerg feel at the moment.
That's why I think there should be some form of patching.
|
My take is that balance this early in the life of a game is about more than just which race is overpowered, it is also about gameplay balance.
Maybe the ZvT imbalance is completely overblown, lets assume for a moment that ZvT is perfectly balanced the way it is. I would still argue that a patch is needed, because the reaper opening is overpowered. There is simply no reason to do anything but the reaper opening if you are Terran, except to trick a zerg who is expecting reapers. Everything a zerg does revolves around the expectation of reapers. This is not good for a competitive game.
Especially note that this is an early game balance issue, where balance is so much trickier and more important. Sure, zergs can do a lot of creative stuff in the midgame, but most TvZ's i have seen end up in a crippled zerg on the same number of bases as terran. That is a different issue than PvZ in BW where P's were losing in the midgame.
|
Wait a moment, i just reliased, that they patching in the middle of GSL
|
On September 21 2010 06:05 Toxigen wrote: I never see anybody rush to void rays anymore.
Are you serious? I dunno about 1v1 but above 2player games it's still all the rage. I think i even saw it in GSL recently...
|
On September 21 2010 06:16 bulge wrote:
i think its summarized nicely by the fact that 2 stimmed + shielded marines (100min) are stronger than 1 hydra (100min 50 gas), can move faster, and 100 marines beats 50 hydras just the same.
this is asinine. you can't just make blanket statements of "wow, this unit is so much better this unit" in a vacuum and expect them to have any validity or pertinence to balance issues.
|
Haha not really relevant to anything but I lost to the op in this thread in altitude cos i cancelled my core at the last second. I had no idea how the match would have been but I definitely shot myself in the leg. I lol'd anyways
|
On September 21 2010 06:29 Darksoldierr wrote:
Wait a moment, i just reliased, that they patching in the middle of GSL
It will always be the middle of GSL, now if they had a LAN version they could potentially use an old patch, but GSL doesn't end, one season leads right into the next.
|
On September 21 2010 06:27 imperator-xy wrote:
this thread should be thrown in a garbage can
how could it be more obvious that zerg is underpowered
For the sake of free debate it's ok I guess but eh, not everyone can tell how stupid some things are in the game :/
|
of course it takes time to discover new things but since everybody already has seen evolution in bw it does not take that long. they should not patch everytime someone cries because of losing and as it seems blizzard does not do so...thats good
but currently there is a certain trend where terrans are way above all the others. it started around iem(i assume that) and since then many tournaments are ending in tvt finals and so on
|
On September 21 2010 06:05 Toxigen wrote: I never see anybody rush to void rays anymore.
IdrA would like a word with you
|
i think it was on weapon of choice that someone said balancing is 95% math 5% feedback
not saying people shouldn't discuss their opinions on balancing but really when it comes down to it, its mostly math
|
On September 21 2010 06:32 radar14 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 06:16 bulge wrote:
i think its summarized nicely by the fact that 2 stimmed + shielded marines (100min) are stronger than 1 hydra (100min 50 gas), can move faster, and 100 marines beats 50 hydras just the same. this is asinine. you can't just make blanket statements of "wow, this unit is so much better this unit" in a vacuum and expect them to have any validity or pertinence to balance issues.
Certainly, but this is one case where the more context you add the worse Hydras are.  Then again they do okay in ZvP, it's just ZvT where Roach/Hydra comps get steamrolled.
|
ITT: Zerg players flame the OP because they're obviously better players than us T and P and they know every imbalance in the game.
Good read OP.
|
Pretty much completely disagree. In fact Blizzard really should be patching more frequently, in my opinion. Not patching a game that has obvious balance issues simply leads to loss of interest in the game. Starcraft 2 actually has an incredible amount of leeway in this regard since, essentially, there is a ready-made professional level of play with players who are literally dedicating their lives to the game. These people have a lot invested in the game so it's not easy to just drop it -- But if Starcraft 2 didn't have this built-in safety net it wouldn't be nearly the same.
Compare this to other games that don't have Starcraft's cachet -- A game that's imbalanced out of the gate, with one character / faction / strategy / playstyle which has substantially greater chance of success than another? Either it will simply be abandoned due to loss of interest, won't develop a competitive community due to the glaring problems, or its competitive community will rely on arbitrary rulesets (Street Fighter 2 example: No Akuma) to balance the game. Left 4 Dead is a good example of a game which had great potential, but the developer's resistance to actually addressing the problems of the game resulted in hemorrhaging players constantly. Today it's got a negligible competitive community that relies totally on custom rules to make the game worth playing.
|
Hyrule19196 Posts
In the first couple years of BW, there were many game breaking patches.
Please stop whining, OP.
|
. Left 4 Dead is a good example of a game which had great potential, but the developer's resistance to actually addressing the problems of the game resulted in hemorrhaging players constantly. Today it's got a negligible competitive community that relies totally on custom rules to make the game worth playing.
L4D was never made to be professional level competitive. It's a co-op zombie shooter for christsake.
And thousands of people still constantly play it.
|
On September 21 2010 06:55 Bags wrote:Show nested quote +. Left 4 Dead is a good example of a game which had great potential, but the developer's resistance to actually addressing the problems of the game resulted in hemorrhaging players constantly. Today it's got a negligible competitive community that relies totally on custom rules to make the game worth playing. L4D was never made to be professional level competitive. It's a co-op zombie shooter for christsake.
What he's saying is true though. Tons of people love it, it has HUGE potential, and Valve sorta didn't care about the competitive scene much.
I'm still sad there's not a pro Team Fortress 2 scene... that plays it like its TF2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
