|
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On November 06 2012 00:43 Maloreon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:37 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. Check out TvZ in Korean for Oct. This number is not going to stay the same though. You are looking at an extraordinarily small sample size (you linked to like 14 games played earlier from GSL, really?).
I didn't link anything...there are a lot more than 14 TvZ games in Korea in October. No, it is not a huge sample size, it never is when you look at Korean offline tournaments. But when terrans used International results, we are told foreigner terrans have always been weak and we need to balance for the tip top. Kinda of convenient how that works out. Now, even the tip top results are bad for terrans, it is the sample size is not big enough...
|
On November 06 2012 00:47 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:39 Dodgin wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. What blizzard needs to do is look at how to provide more options for all races to have a good chance to win at all points during the game. Luckily for us that seems to be their goal with HOTS. Is it ? I mean they tweaked the reaper and the hellion for terran while adding an early game mine, meanwhile zerg and protoss got mid-late game new units. If anything, blizzard seems to follow the same path. Polt and MKP better have a good run in this gsl :[
I thought Raven's and BC's got a buff in the beta? Lower energy cost on seeker missile and BC damage increased or something. Lower energy for yamato cannon too.
|
On November 06 2012 00:39 Dodgin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. The problem is even though winrates may be balanced, for example in PvZ most Protoss wins come from two base all ins and most Zerg wins come from the lategame. What blizzard needs to do is look at how to provide more options for all races to have a good chance to win at all points during the game. Luckily for us that seems to be their goal with HOTS. It's pretty easy to take a look at the game and see for yourself what is too powerful, It's ridiculous that some people might disagree because " there are majority terrans in code s "
Of course it would be ideal to give every race an equal chance of winning at every stage of the game. Problem is that blizzard came out early on in sc2 saying that they wanted terran to be the early/mid game race and zerg to be the late game race. It's in an interview somewhere if you can find it.They claimed it was intentionally done to promote different choices for playstyle when choosing a race. Whether it worked out for them is pretty questionable at this point so let's see if they can fix that with the expansion.
However, if we want to fix the game right now, the game statistics do matter. If the statistics said everything is fine and you buffed one race, obviously you will skew the statistics in one direction. You would have to nerf something to compensate. It's too late to make big sweeping changes for WoL at this point.
|
On November 06 2012 00:51 Dodgin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:47 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:On November 06 2012 00:39 Dodgin wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. What blizzard needs to do is look at how to provide more options for all races to have a good chance to win at all points during the game. Luckily for us that seems to be their goal with HOTS. Is it ? I mean they tweaked the reaper and the hellion for terran while adding an early game mine, meanwhile zerg and protoss got mid-late game new units. If anything, blizzard seems to follow the same path. Polt and MKP better have a good run in this gsl :[ I thought Raven's and BC's got a buff in the beta? Lower energy cost on seeker missile and BC damage increased or something. Lower energy for yamato cannon too.
No, those were bugs. Blizzard "fixed" them.
|
On November 06 2012 00:51 Dodgin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:47 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:On November 06 2012 00:39 Dodgin wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. What blizzard needs to do is look at how to provide more options for all races to have a good chance to win at all points during the game. Luckily for us that seems to be their goal with HOTS. Is it ? I mean they tweaked the reaper and the hellion for terran while adding an early game mine, meanwhile zerg and protoss got mid-late game new units. If anything, blizzard seems to follow the same path. Polt and MKP better have a good run in this gsl :[ I thought Raven's and BC's got a buff in the beta? Lower energy cost on seeker missile and BC damage increased or something. Lower energy for yamato cannon too.
Those are bugs apparently and blizzard is about to fix them.
|
On November 06 2012 00:48 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:43 Maloreon wrote:On November 06 2012 00:37 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. Check out TvZ in Korean for Oct. This number is not going to stay the same though. You are looking at an extraordinarily small sample size (you linked to like 14 games played earlier from GSL, really?). I didn't link anything...there are a lot more than 14 TvZ games in Korea in October. No, it is not a huge sample size, it never is when you look at Korean offline tournaments. But when terrans used International results, we are told foreigner terrans have always been weak and we need to balance for the tip top. Kinda of convenient how that works out. Now, even the tip top results are bad for terrans, it is the sample size is not big enough...
When you look at small sample sizes, random spikes tend to happen. If you look at the months before, it's a farcry. Wait another month or two and see if it even remains anywhere near the same.
|
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On November 06 2012 00:47 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:39 Dodgin wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. What blizzard needs to do is look at how to provide more options for all races to have a good chance to win at all points during the game. Luckily for us that seems to be their goal with HOTS. Is it ? I mean they tweaked the reaper and the hellion for terran while adding an early game mine, meanwhile zerg and protoss got mid-late game new units. If anything, blizzard seems to follow the same path. Polt and MKP better have a good run in this gsl :[
Although HoTS balance is not done yet. It is still not looking good. Terrans got early/mid game units and still no late game help. Which means they are going to be strong mid game and just come up with strong timings that either outright kills the Zerg/Protoss or cripple them enough that they can just snowball and win. Which was what happened in 2011/early 2012.
Or the Protoss/Zerg can defend well and their deathball will just have more opts versus the Terran max. Blizzard seems to want to use this asymmetric balance which just doesn't make things interesting. They want the Terran to be able to do damage mid game or be behind in late game. What this promotes is for the Terran to go allin in the mid game and kill the Zerg outright. This is the same for PvZ. You just see Protoss going wonwonwon or the 3 base prehive.
|
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On November 06 2012 00:54 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:39 Dodgin wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. The problem is even though winrates may be balanced, for example in PvZ most Protoss wins come from two base all ins and most Zerg wins come from the lategame. What blizzard needs to do is look at how to provide more options for all races to have a good chance to win at all points during the game. Luckily for us that seems to be their goal with HOTS. It's pretty easy to take a look at the game and see for yourself what is too powerful, It's ridiculous that some people might disagree because " there are majority terrans in code s " Of course it would be ideal to give every race an equal chance of winning at every stage of the game. Problem is that blizzard came out early on in sc2 saying that they wanted terran to be the early/mid game race and zerg to be the late game race. It's in an interview somewhere if you can find it.They claimed it was intentionally done to promote different choices for playstyle when choosing a race. Whether it worked out for them is pretty questionable at this point so let's see if they can fix that with the expansion. However, if we want to fix the game right now, the game statistics do matter. If the statistics said everything is fine and you buffed one race, obviously you will skew the statistics in one direction. You would have to nerf something to compensate. It's too late to make big sweeping changes for WoL at this point.
But here is the key. Maps!!! It seems all the map favor a macro (late) game with easy to defend 3rd and even accessible fourths with huge rush distances. Not sure how you can do damage early and mid game with Terran unless you do a proxy 11/11 on maps like whirlwind. If races were balanced around this, it is pretty bad.
|
On November 06 2012 00:57 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:48 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:43 Maloreon wrote:On November 06 2012 00:37 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. Check out TvZ in Korean for Oct. This number is not going to stay the same though. You are looking at an extraordinarily small sample size (you linked to like 14 games played earlier from GSL, really?). I didn't link anything...there are a lot more than 14 TvZ games in Korea in October. No, it is not a huge sample size, it never is when you look at Korean offline tournaments. But when terrans used International results, we are told foreigner terrans have always been weak and we need to balance for the tip top. Kinda of convenient how that works out. Now, even the tip top results are bad for terrans, it is the sample size is not big enough... When you look at small sample sizes, random spikes tend to happen. If you look at the months before, it's a farcry. Wait another month or two and see if it even remains anywhere near the same.
just quickly counted through the tvz's in korean tlpd
september has a 60% winrate favoring terran whereas october it's the other way around
both months have the usual small sample size for korea, but there might be some games missing still
|
On November 06 2012 01:02 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:54 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:39 Dodgin wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. The problem is even though winrates may be balanced, for example in PvZ most Protoss wins come from two base all ins and most Zerg wins come from the lategame. What blizzard needs to do is look at how to provide more options for all races to have a good chance to win at all points during the game. Luckily for us that seems to be their goal with HOTS. It's pretty easy to take a look at the game and see for yourself what is too powerful, It's ridiculous that some people might disagree because " there are majority terrans in code s " Of course it would be ideal to give every race an equal chance of winning at every stage of the game. Problem is that blizzard came out early on in sc2 saying that they wanted terran to be the early/mid game race and zerg to be the late game race. It's in an interview somewhere if you can find it.They claimed it was intentionally done to promote different choices for playstyle when choosing a race. Whether it worked out for them is pretty questionable at this point so let's see if they can fix that with the expansion. However, if we want to fix the game right now, the game statistics do matter. If the statistics said everything is fine and you buffed one race, obviously you will skew the statistics in one direction. You would have to nerf something to compensate. It's too late to make big sweeping changes for WoL at this point. But here is the key. Maps!!! It seems all the map favor a macro (late) game with easy to defend 3rd and even accessible fourths with huge rush distances. Not sure how you can do damage early and mid game with Terran unless you do a proxy 11/11 on maps like whirlwind. If races were balanced around this, it is pretty bad.
It's pretty bad game design in general to have the balance depend so heavily on maps. A good design would give every race enough options, asymmetric of course, to flexibly deal with a diverse array of maps and playstyles. To fix the game, you have to fix the design. Fixing maps is only a workaround on a bad design.
|
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On November 06 2012 00:57 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:48 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:43 Maloreon wrote:On November 06 2012 00:37 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. Check out TvZ in Korean for Oct. This number is not going to stay the same though. You are looking at an extraordinarily small sample size (you linked to like 14 games played earlier from GSL, really?). I didn't link anything...there are a lot more than 14 TvZ games in Korea in October. No, it is not a huge sample size, it never is when you look at Korean offline tournaments. But when terrans used International results, we are told foreigner terrans have always been weak and we need to balance for the tip top. Kinda of convenient how that works out. Now, even the tip top results are bad for terrans, it is the sample size is not big enough... When you look at small sample sizes, random spikes tend to happen. If you look at the months before, it's a farcry. Wait another month or two and see if it even remains anywhere near the same.
Remember when zergs was overrunning GSTL after the patch? The stats were pretty bad and terrans were told to wait as well. How many months has it been? Look, I am glad queens and overseers got buffed so zergs did just die to random allies since they had poor scouting and no map control. It has helped to stabilize the early game. Terrans just want a late game option. We don't want all terrans to play where they NEED to kill tons of drones with hellions or do tons of damage with drops. Sure, that should be one of the option with its own risks and rewards. But there should be other options. Right now, it just doesn't seem to be happening in most games.
|
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On November 06 2012 01:08 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 01:02 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:54 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:39 Dodgin wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. The problem is even though winrates may be balanced, for example in PvZ most Protoss wins come from two base all ins and most Zerg wins come from the lategame. What blizzard needs to do is look at how to provide more options for all races to have a good chance to win at all points during the game. Luckily for us that seems to be their goal with HOTS. It's pretty easy to take a look at the game and see for yourself what is too powerful, It's ridiculous that some people might disagree because " there are majority terrans in code s " Of course it would be ideal to give every race an equal chance of winning at every stage of the game. Problem is that blizzard came out early on in sc2 saying that they wanted terran to be the early/mid game race and zerg to be the late game race. It's in an interview somewhere if you can find it.They claimed it was intentionally done to promote different choices for playstyle when choosing a race. Whether it worked out for them is pretty questionable at this point so let's see if they can fix that with the expansion. However, if we want to fix the game right now, the game statistics do matter. If the statistics said everything is fine and you buffed one race, obviously you will skew the statistics in one direction. You would have to nerf something to compensate. It's too late to make big sweeping changes for WoL at this point. But here is the key. Maps!!! It seems all the map favor a macro (late) game with easy to defend 3rd and even accessible fourths with huge rush distances. Not sure how you can do damage early and mid game with Terran unless you do a proxy 11/11 on maps like whirlwind. If races were balanced around this, it is pretty bad. It's pretty bad game design in general to have the balance depend so heavily on maps. A good design would give every race enough options, asymmetric of course, to flexibly deal with a diverse array of maps and playstyles. To fix the game, you have to fix the design. Fixing maps is only a workaround on a bad design.
Yes, this is the ideal case. But we have to remember that even in BW, maps were a big deal in terms of strategy. That is why PL had so many mirrors, some maps were just 'better' for certain races.
|
On November 06 2012 00:51 Dodgin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:47 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:On November 06 2012 00:39 Dodgin wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. What blizzard needs to do is look at how to provide more options for all races to have a good chance to win at all points during the game. Luckily for us that seems to be their goal with HOTS. Is it ? I mean they tweaked the reaper and the hellion for terran while adding an early game mine, meanwhile zerg and protoss got mid-late game new units. If anything, blizzard seems to follow the same path. Polt and MKP better have a good run in this gsl :[ I thought Raven's and BC's got a buff in the beta? Lower energy cost on seeker missile and BC damage increased or something. Lower energy for yamato cannon too.
After awhile Blizzard said "that BC increased damage and lowered energy on raven seekers were a bug" even if David Kim spoke about that on a interview haha.
|
On November 06 2012 01:10 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:57 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:48 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:43 Maloreon wrote:On November 06 2012 00:37 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. Check out TvZ in Korean for Oct. This number is not going to stay the same though. You are looking at an extraordinarily small sample size (you linked to like 14 games played earlier from GSL, really?). I didn't link anything...there are a lot more than 14 TvZ games in Korea in October. No, it is not a huge sample size, it never is when you look at Korean offline tournaments. But when terrans used International results, we are told foreigner terrans have always been weak and we need to balance for the tip top. Kinda of convenient how that works out. Now, even the tip top results are bad for terrans, it is the sample size is not big enough... When you look at small sample sizes, random spikes tend to happen. If you look at the months before, it's a farcry. Wait another month or two and see if it even remains anywhere near the same. Remember when zergs was overrunning GSTL after the patch? The stats were pretty bad and terrans were told to wait as well. How many months has it been? Look, I am glad queens and overseers got buffed so zergs did just die to random allies since they had poor scouting and no map control. It has helped to stabilize the early game. Terrans just want a late game option. We don't want all terrans to play where they NEED to kill tons of drones with hellions or do tons of damage with drops. Sure, that should be one of the option with its own risks and rewards. But there should be other options. Right now, it just doesn't seem to be happening in most games.
I personally think Terran do have good late-game options that few have explored (the random game here or there for Terran that does reach uber late-game seems to support my argument, but not enough games overall obviously). However I'd love for Terran endgame to get some buffs: I've supported buffs for Raven for example. Probably a big buff for BC's. Anyway, at the very least it might get the greatest Terrans actually motivated to give Turtle-mech a more serious look.
Stats have held even, you're just citing an enormously small sample. I agree with you in that the game needs some love but Zerg is not overwhelming everyone: Life, Leenock, DRG, and Symbol are really.
|
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On November 06 2012 01:17 Maloreon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 01:10 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:57 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:48 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:43 Maloreon wrote:On November 06 2012 00:37 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. Check out TvZ in Korean for Oct. This number is not going to stay the same though. You are looking at an extraordinarily small sample size (you linked to like 14 games played earlier from GSL, really?). I didn't link anything...there are a lot more than 14 TvZ games in Korea in October. No, it is not a huge sample size, it never is when you look at Korean offline tournaments. But when terrans used International results, we are told foreigner terrans have always been weak and we need to balance for the tip top. Kinda of convenient how that works out. Now, even the tip top results are bad for terrans, it is the sample size is not big enough... When you look at small sample sizes, random spikes tend to happen. If you look at the months before, it's a farcry. Wait another month or two and see if it even remains anywhere near the same. Remember when zergs was overrunning GSTL after the patch? The stats were pretty bad and terrans were told to wait as well. How many months has it been? Look, I am glad queens and overseers got buffed so zergs did just die to random allies since they had poor scouting and no map control. It has helped to stabilize the early game. Terrans just want a late game option. We don't want all terrans to play where they NEED to kill tons of drones with hellions or do tons of damage with drops. Sure, that should be one of the option with its own risks and rewards. But there should be other options. Right now, it just doesn't seem to be happening in most games. I personally think Terran do have good late-game options that few have explored (the random game here or there for Terran that does reach uber late-game seems to support my argument, but not enough games overall obviously). However I'd love for Terran endgame to get some buffs: I've supported buffs for Raven for example. Probably a big buff for BC's. Anyway, at the very least it might get the greatest Terrans actually motivated to give Turtle-mech a more serious look. Stats have held even, you're just citing an enormously small sample. I agree with you in that the game needs some love but Zerg is not overwhelming everyone: Life, Leenock, DRG, and Symbol are really.
The greatest sc2 Terran DID that at a foreigner tournament and beat some foreigner zergs and a slumping Nestea.. Then the maps he could do them on (Metropolis, Atlantic Spaceship) were removed from GSL. Nerfing the Zerg creep spread at pro level was cancelled. Raven buffs cancelled.
That is why some of us terrans get annoyed when we are told the sample size is too small or we need to wait a couple months. Blizzard had ALREADY had it in the testing patch and there didn't seem to be too many issues with balance yet. Then Mvp wins some of his games at IEM with ravens and patch gets cancelled. The BC and raven damage 'bug' in HoTS didn't help either.
|
On November 06 2012 01:10 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 00:57 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:48 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:43 Maloreon wrote:On November 06 2012 00:37 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. Check out TvZ in Korean for Oct. This number is not going to stay the same though. You are looking at an extraordinarily small sample size (you linked to like 14 games played earlier from GSL, really?). I didn't link anything...there are a lot more than 14 TvZ games in Korea in October. No, it is not a huge sample size, it never is when you look at Korean offline tournaments. But when terrans used International results, we are told foreigner terrans have always been weak and we need to balance for the tip top. Kinda of convenient how that works out. Now, even the tip top results are bad for terrans, it is the sample size is not big enough... When you look at small sample sizes, random spikes tend to happen. If you look at the months before, it's a farcry. Wait another month or two and see if it even remains anywhere near the same. Remember when zergs was overrunning GSTL after the patch? The stats were pretty bad and terrans were told to wait as well. How many months has it been? Look, I am glad queens and overseers got buffed so zergs did just die to random allies since they had poor scouting and no map control. It has helped to stabilize the early game. Terrans just want a late game option. We don't want all terrans to play where they NEED to kill tons of drones with hellions or do tons of damage with drops. Sure, that should be one of the option with its own risks and rewards. But there should be other options. Right now, it just doesn't seem to be happening in most games.
I couldn't find the TLPD winrates thread for September and October but here's the August one.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=368146
From that, you can see that it hasn't been unbearably rough for terrans. And the graph takes international winrates into consideration as well where foreign terrans supposedly lose left and right.
I'm not against terran getting a buff or anything. All I'm saying is that if a buff is called for, it will be given. Or perhaps everyone would have already moved over to HoTS by then lol. Blizzard is painfully slow at fixing anything as we all know by now. It took them quite a long time to even buff zergs if you look back at it.
|
On November 06 2012 00:32 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 23:47 Kitaen wrote:ppl are ranting about terran's weakness because terran must not do any error in their game at, while zerg and protoss can take worker harass and/or lose engagements and still be in a somehow winable position best example at this MLG: rain loses 8 (eight!) colossi to taeja vikings (because he randomly lost 10 stalkers) and just rolls over him with mass zealot/archon imagine a terran losing 8 tanks before an actual engagment happens; good luck  ) or when (i think demuslim was it) killed 150 workers in a mech tvz vs stephano at WCS europe; ppl start to wonder if somebody deserves a win while not beeing able to shutdown major errors/harass like this terran is a strong races when your gameplan and execution works to perfection, but this has not to be the case for protoss and especially not zerg TvP lategame is NOT Protoss favored. Taeja lost 16 ghosts when that fight began. SIXTEEN! 3200-1600, much more expensive than the 7 colossi Rain lost. And rain still got storms off. The real imbalance is that taeja still almost won that engagement after losing all that.
i wasn't complaining about imbalance, under perfect conditions every matchup evens out - the problem is that zerg and protoss have more room for errors
and by errors in a terran way i mean not getting ahead by any means results in a loss most of the time.
you simply don't want an endgame army standing against you (i don't care how you feel about lategame pvt, its very obvious that p is heavily favored there) - so your literally on the clock all game long as terran
moreover both zerg and protoss reproducing mechanics favor late game, aswell as their ability to wildly switch between techs aslong as you where able to build enough structures throughout the game
yet again, i think sc2 is very balanced overall in a gamespan of 0-15 minutes - after that zerg pulls usually ahead, protoss is decent and terran suffers the most
but well, since most games are decided in midlenght games, it could be said sc2 is in a good spot
|
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On November 06 2012 01:23 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 01:10 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:57 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:48 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:43 Maloreon wrote:On November 06 2012 00:37 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. Check out TvZ in Korean for Oct. This number is not going to stay the same though. You are looking at an extraordinarily small sample size (you linked to like 14 games played earlier from GSL, really?). I didn't link anything...there are a lot more than 14 TvZ games in Korea in October. No, it is not a huge sample size, it never is when you look at Korean offline tournaments. But when terrans used International results, we are told foreigner terrans have always been weak and we need to balance for the tip top. Kinda of convenient how that works out. Now, even the tip top results are bad for terrans, it is the sample size is not big enough... When you look at small sample sizes, random spikes tend to happen. If you look at the months before, it's a farcry. Wait another month or two and see if it even remains anywhere near the same. Remember when zergs was overrunning GSTL after the patch? The stats were pretty bad and terrans were told to wait as well. How many months has it been? Look, I am glad queens and overseers got buffed so zergs did just die to random allies since they had poor scouting and no map control. It has helped to stabilize the early game. Terrans just want a late game option. We don't want all terrans to play where they NEED to kill tons of drones with hellions or do tons of damage with drops. Sure, that should be one of the option with its own risks and rewards. But there should be other options. Right now, it just doesn't seem to be happening in most games. I couldn't find the TLPD winrates thread for September and October but here's the August one. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=368146From that, you can see that it hasn't been unbearably rough for terrans. And the graph takes international winrates into consideration as well where foreign terrans supposedly lose left and right. I'm not against terran getting a buff or anything. All I'm saying is that if a buff is called for, it will be given. Or perhaps everyone would have already moved over to HoTS by then lol. Blizzard is painfully slow at fixing anything as we all know by now. It took them quite a long time to even buff zergs if you look back at it.
I posted this above as well. But a buff to ravens was coming, being tested even. Then Mvp wins IEM and poof. Why this sudden change? It is like Life winning GSL, MLG with a lot of ling runbys and lings just get nerfed.
|
On November 06 2012 01:29 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 01:23 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 01:10 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:57 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:48 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:43 Maloreon wrote:On November 06 2012 00:37 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. Check out TvZ in Korean for Oct. This number is not going to stay the same though. You are looking at an extraordinarily small sample size (you linked to like 14 games played earlier from GSL, really?). I didn't link anything...there are a lot more than 14 TvZ games in Korea in October. No, it is not a huge sample size, it never is when you look at Korean offline tournaments. But when terrans used International results, we are told foreigner terrans have always been weak and we need to balance for the tip top. Kinda of convenient how that works out. Now, even the tip top results are bad for terrans, it is the sample size is not big enough... When you look at small sample sizes, random spikes tend to happen. If you look at the months before, it's a farcry. Wait another month or two and see if it even remains anywhere near the same. Remember when zergs was overrunning GSTL after the patch? The stats were pretty bad and terrans were told to wait as well. How many months has it been? Look, I am glad queens and overseers got buffed so zergs did just die to random allies since they had poor scouting and no map control. It has helped to stabilize the early game. Terrans just want a late game option. We don't want all terrans to play where they NEED to kill tons of drones with hellions or do tons of damage with drops. Sure, that should be one of the option with its own risks and rewards. But there should be other options. Right now, it just doesn't seem to be happening in most games. I couldn't find the TLPD winrates thread for September and October but here's the August one. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=368146From that, you can see that it hasn't been unbearably rough for terrans. And the graph takes international winrates into consideration as well where foreign terrans supposedly lose left and right. I'm not against terran getting a buff or anything. All I'm saying is that if a buff is called for, it will be given. Or perhaps everyone would have already moved over to HoTS by then lol. Blizzard is painfully slow at fixing anything as we all know by now. It took them quite a long time to even buff zergs if you look back at it. I posted this above as well. But a buff to ravens was coming, being tested even. Then Mvp wins IEM and poof. Why this sudden change? It is like Life winning GSL, MLG with a lot of ling runbys and lings just get nerfed.
Or like T-Zain winning a game with thors and thors getting nerfed. Or like Mvp using mass ghost to win some games when he was ahead anyway and ghosts getting nerfed.
|
On November 06 2012 01:22 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 01:17 Maloreon wrote:On November 06 2012 01:10 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:57 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:48 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:43 Maloreon wrote:On November 06 2012 00:37 vthree wrote:On November 06 2012 00:35 DigitalDevil wrote:On November 06 2012 00:29 Dodgin wrote:
The problem is you guys are looking at the numbers to justify either whining or defending about something being OP, you should be looking at the game itself and not just " x terrans are in GSL, x terrans are in WCS worlds " And how do you propose balancing without win/loss statistics? If you want to talk about game design, there are plenty of things wrong with sc2, for EVERY race. If you've been around since the beginning of sc2, then you would have tasted all of the different tears by now. Strategies shift, deal with it.If win/loss statistics justify it, balance will be made. Check out TvZ in Korean for Oct. This number is not going to stay the same though. You are looking at an extraordinarily small sample size (you linked to like 14 games played earlier from GSL, really?). I didn't link anything...there are a lot more than 14 TvZ games in Korea in October. No, it is not a huge sample size, it never is when you look at Korean offline tournaments. But when terrans used International results, we are told foreigner terrans have always been weak and we need to balance for the tip top. Kinda of convenient how that works out. Now, even the tip top results are bad for terrans, it is the sample size is not big enough... When you look at small sample sizes, random spikes tend to happen. If you look at the months before, it's a farcry. Wait another month or two and see if it even remains anywhere near the same. Remember when zergs was overrunning GSTL after the patch? The stats were pretty bad and terrans were told to wait as well. How many months has it been? Look, I am glad queens and overseers got buffed so zergs did just die to random allies since they had poor scouting and no map control. It has helped to stabilize the early game. Terrans just want a late game option. We don't want all terrans to play where they NEED to kill tons of drones with hellions or do tons of damage with drops. Sure, that should be one of the option with its own risks and rewards. But there should be other options. Right now, it just doesn't seem to be happening in most games. I personally think Terran do have good late-game options that few have explored (the random game here or there for Terran that does reach uber late-game seems to support my argument, but not enough games overall obviously). However I'd love for Terran endgame to get some buffs: I've supported buffs for Raven for example. Probably a big buff for BC's. Anyway, at the very least it might get the greatest Terrans actually motivated to give Turtle-mech a more serious look. Stats have held even, you're just citing an enormously small sample. I agree with you in that the game needs some love but Zerg is not overwhelming everyone: Life, Leenock, DRG, and Symbol are really. The greatest sc2 Terran DID that at a foreigner tournament and beat some foreigner zergs and a slumping Nestea.. Then the maps he could do them on (Metropolis, Atlantic Spaceship) were removed from GSL. Nerfing the Zerg creep spread at pro level was cancelled. Raven buffs cancelled. That is why some of us terrans get annoyed when we are told the sample size is too small or we need to wait a couple months. Blizzard had ALREADY had it in the testing patch and there didn't seem to be too many issues with balance yet. Then Mvp wins some of his games at IEM with ravens and patch gets cancelled. The BC and raven damage 'bug' in HoTS didn't help either.
Yeah not sure if you are understanding me. I think the match-ups are pretty balanced numbers wise but I agree on the following:
Raven should get buffed. BC should get buffed. I'm not against a creep nerf (minor one, 20% maybe). I like the maps you mentioned and miss them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
