|
On April 04 2011 04:12 primebeef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:17 morimacil wrote:
Aye, its true. For example, if you have a war, and one side has sticks, and the other side has machine guns, then you can make the same claim, they are just tools, so no side has any inherent advantage.
machine guns have ammo, so eventually they run out
machine guns can miss due to human error
machine guns are slightly less effective when used in close range.
and so on. Even when comparing machine guns to sticks, you can make the argument that every tool is unique, and has its weaknesses.
Therefore, a war between a faction with machine guns, and another one armed with just sticks is completely balanced, because even machine guns are not OP when compared to sticks, after all, they will run out of bullets after having killed a couple hundred of people. not sure what to say about this... the side with the machine gun still has the advantage, and machine guns are more accurate at close range than at far, even with human error, the guy has a machine gun, sticks can break easily and you can still bash people's face with a machine gun, so if you were to fight a machine gun with a stick you will pretty much lose unless they run out of ammo and think that you can't use the gun itself as a blunt melee weapon.
Yeah, but its possible for the guys with the sticks to get a macro advantage, and thus have way more guys, and then fight guerrila tactics, splitting up the slow guys with machine guns, and jumping at them out of the bushes to kill them one at a time, run them out of ammo by sacrificing tons of guys, and running around hoping they will fire and miss, and so on.
I think the point thats being made here, is that machine guns clearly have weaknesses, as do sticks. Thus, it is balanced.
Plus, it is possible for guys with sticks to beat guys with machine guns, so that also means that machine guns are not overpowered compared to sticks.
No matter how many hoops you have to jump through, or how incredibly harder it is to kill guys with machine guns using guys with sticks, apparently, if its possible to do it, then its balanced, and machine guns are not overpowered compared to sticks.
And then we can also cite example, such as the Battle of Isandlwana where people with sticks defeated people with guns.
I think thats the points that are being argued here, no?
point1: it has a weakness, so that makes it balanced.
Clearly, machine guns have weaknesses, so even compared to sticks, they are balanced.
point2: If its possible to be defeated, no matter how hard it is to defeat, its balanced.
Clearly, people with sticks can defeat guys with machine guns. So in that reguard, machine guns vs sticks are also perfectly balanced.
I think the guys with sticks should just abuse their mobility some more. Maybe using nydus worms!
|
I wouldn't say that your argument disproves imbalance so much as it demonstrates that people focus far too much on the strengths of something when declaring imbalance, and don't bother spending enough time determining that particular "imbalance's" weaknesses and developing counters. Of course, your type of argument is where the "wait for the metagame" battlecry is heard, where players refuse to admit that ANYTHING is overpowered, and insist that the programmers of the game hid a magical counter to this not-imba mechanic somewhere in the game like some sort of Easter Egg that the community just has to find.
The fact that there are patches made to the game is evidence that there is imbalance in the game. If it weren't broken. Blizzard wouldn't have gone and fixed it. However, you are right in pointing out that 'imba' shouldn't be the first word out of our mouths every time we lose to something. Instead, we need to look at the entirety of the game, across every matchup, every player, and every skill level, with analysis so in-depth that it puts astrophysicists to shame, before we can confidently label something as overpowered or just simply not countered yet.
Ultimately, the failure of a player who calls 'imba' with every loss isn't that he can't defend against a certain mechanic, but that he can't be bothered to analyze the situation and adapt his play accordingly. We're already three game-changing major patches into the game, and that's after months of beta. If there were some aspect of the game that was so imbalanced as to break the game, it would have been found and fixed ages ago.
|
I was initially just going to pass by this post and pass it off as another "saying things are OP is dumb" thread. And I still think it is. But since I can see your clear effort in making this post I'm going to take it seriously and give you my honest opinion about what you have to say.
I'm honestly not seeing the significance of the word "tools." It seems to me like you have an emphasis on the word "tool," as if your point is to say "forcefield is a tool and therefore is no OP." Sure, both races can have tools. I feel like the only real valuable point that can be withdrawn from this is that there is a limit on the use of these "tools," but even then, the word "resources" would be much more appropriate and would get your point across much more clearly.
Onto another point, though, just the idea that the forcefield is one of many tools does not mean that it doesn't put protoss on a point of imbalance. Suppose there were two terran players and one of which was given forcefields. Would that be balanced? Of course not. Even though forcefield is one of many tools can't lead to any sort of conclusion regarding the balance between the two races, even though there is a limit on how the forcefield can be used.
Furthermore, you might say that since each race has different tools, but an equal number of tools, that the tools balance each other out. But that can't be true either. Suppose for race A all of the tools provided only allow players to move buildings, while for race B players are allowed to do all sorts of fancy things like Blink, Charge, MULE, etc...
It's not the fact that each race has their own tools or how many tools each race has or that each tool has a limit on its use that makes something balanced. It is the concept of the tool and what the tool allows the player to do. Forcefields very well may be imbalanced even though sentries require mana and that they require good placement.
When I write this post, I'm not saying that anything is imbalanced and I don't encourage saying that something is imbalanced in general. My only purpose in this post was to tell you what I thought about the argument you were trying to make.
|
I only think forcefields are OP since u can spam them and no real skill.... but im not a game designer for a reason. i think people need to play more instead of making OP threads etc
|
On April 04 2011 05:56 OPSavioR wrote:
I only think forcefields are OP since u can spam them and no real skill.... but im not a game designer for a reason. i think people need to play more instead of making OP threads etc
Yeah, we can spam it all over the place and STILL kill everything.. Yeah. "No real skill". Boy, you're in denial.
|
We saw how effective FF can be even against even a roach burrow+claws timing attack (Idra vs Kiwi series)
I won't mention any more than the GSL finals with MC... yeah...
Just saying, its just one of those things where if you're not 100% prepared for it and on top of your game, you'll lose outright, while the opponent can just think "eh i'll try it this game"
|
On April 04 2011 05:32 Trobot wrote:
I wouldn't say that your argument disproves imbalance so much as it demonstrates that people focus far too much on the strengths of something when declaring imbalance, and don't bother spending enough time determining that particular "imbalance's" weaknesses and developing counters. Of course, your type of argument is where the "wait for the metagame" battlecry is heard, where players refuse to admit that ANYTHING is overpowered, and insist that the programmers of the game hid a magical counter to this not-imba mechanic somewhere in the game like some sort of Easter Egg that the community just has to find.
The fact that there are patches made to the game is evidence that there is imbalance in the game. If it weren't broken. Blizzard wouldn't have gone and fixed it. However, you are right in pointing out that 'imba' shouldn't be the first word out of our mouths every time we lose to something. Instead, we need to look at the entirety of the game, across every matchup, every player, and every skill level, with analysis so in-depth that it puts astrophysicists to shame, before we can confidently label something as overpowered or just simply not countered yet.
Ultimately, the failure of a player who calls 'imba' with every loss isn't that he can't defend against a certain mechanic, but that he can't be bothered to analyze the situation and adapt his play accordingly. We're already three game-changing major patches into the game, and that's after months of beta. If there were some aspect of the game that was so imbalanced as to break the game, it would have been found and fixed ages ago.
this isn't the case actually, majority of the imbalances and FotM "unbeatable" builds come from the shift of metagame.
|
On April 04 2011 00:48 Dragar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:46 iChau wrote:On April 04 2011 00:38 GG.NoRe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Author is either naive or knows nothing at all.
SC2 is not only about matching and countering your opponent. And the game dynamics flows all the time between opponents as offensive (someone who dictates the game) and defensive (and the player who scouts and reacts). The OP, for the information of the author, arises out of certain irregularities at certain levels as the game progresses. Just one example, QQ in ZvP mostly happen because of the inability of tier 3 zerg to deal with macroed maxed up P. This is not anymore about TOOLS, as you say it. There is really almost nothing efficient in the Z arsenal to counter the P deathball. This is the heart of every OP discussion - when the game reaches at point where chronologically and technologically both players should be equal or more or less so, but in practice are not!
This author should have saved all of us time and effort by posting his opening post in the Force Field analysis thread. Meh. Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers. But Zerg doesn't! It has a smaller army!
I totally disagree with the original post in this thread and you're post. Along with so many others.
-If a zerg doesn't scout and lets their opponent get a 50 supply advantage, its a failure on the zerg player. This actually applys to any race. But zerg? A scout and thrash, prod and exploit, attack and move-not attackmove-race.. Superior numbers? No. Superior tactics.
Imba exists but probably in ways most players don't know about or understand. The game has been out for a year and the world imbalanced has been used over one trillion times. A few things have been heavily patched to fix a imbalance or a severely perceived imbalance but the majority of the claims that there was nothing that could have been done are just T_T
And as for the machine guns vs sticks argument- ask the proud Zulu people how spears, shields and larger forces faired against matchlock and cannon. Your example has a glaring flaw: Its completely ignorant.
|
just another "this game is perfect" thread
we see this since the start of the game and Im pretty sure noone wants 1supply roaches back, but bak when roaches were nerfed... a lot of players cried
|
Not a strategy thread. Repost this in general if you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
