EPTOfficial State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 947
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
dtz
5834 Posts
On May 04 2011 19:49 Tachion wrote: And if it never did pop up? How do you determine when to let an imbalance fix itself, and when to get the devs to step in? Should Blizzard never patch the game again and just let everything work itself out from here on out? Even if blizzard patch something to fix a certain perceived imbalance, there is no way to tell if in 6 years that certain patch or change will cause further imbalance. Might as well let things settle down and don't change anything because there is no way to tell. At least better than keep changing things every 2 months which means the strategies will not develop. | ||
|
Brutus
Netherlands284 Posts
| ||
|
Swatch
Germany114 Posts
but as said, great show, great work i really love all the effort jp is putting into this (and sc-center). find yourself a sponsor, jp. | ||
|
nehcnhoj
United States213 Posts
In response to Tyler's argument against Idra's principles of how a good game should go, Tyler brought up the fact that Protoss do a coin flip, and Idra is expecting to win by generally not taking a risk on his part and still come out at least even. However, I believe, this stems back to IdrA's initial point with regards to scouting. Toss are so inclined to take a coin flip, because it is so easy to pull off based off the issue that a Zerg plays with close to no information. If Zerg makes any coinflip what-so-ever, whether it be in response or if the Zerg makes the first move. This is (i want to say easily) easier and within much more reasonable means for a toss to scout the coin flip than a Zerg to scout the Toss. So then, if we're comparing balance in terms of coin flips, which as agreed on the show, is absolutely terrible game design, even then I believe it's a weighted coin, in favor of the toss. I feel IdrA is having so high a rate of success with his risky plays because, as he said, nobody expects it from him. In an ideal world, where PvZ was played and two equal players did risky builds, scouted to the best of their abilities, my opinion is that P would win that BO7 grand finals. And this is only PvZ. I wish more concrete in-game examples of coin flips done were made so this argument could have more substance than just speculative points. Please take this as my 2 cents, I'm not at the level nor do I invest enough time and effort to fight this argument as equals, but this is my opinion =). Amazing show as usual. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On May 04 2011 19:52 dtz wrote: Even if blizzard patch something to fix a certain perceived imbalance, there is no way to tell if in 6 years that certain patch or change will cause further imbalance. Might as well let things settle down and don't change anything because there is no way to tell. At least better than keep changing things every 2 months which means the strategies will not develop. That sentence right there is the real crux of the issue I have. The time it takes to take action on a perceived imbalance, and I don't think there's any acceptable solution that isn't subjective. | ||
|
adeezy
United States1428 Posts
BTW, did you know there was a small patch of time between GSL 2 and 3 that protoss was considered weak??? Things change easily and fast | ||
|
billyX333
United States1360 Posts
On May 04 2011 19:45 dtz wrote: Agree. I think he thought / expected zerg to be the passive macro race at the beginning which is why he picked it. When recent trends and developments show that it's not totally true ie zerg has to be more active because they have the best midgame production capability as well as lacklustre late game, he feels unhappy because it does not fit his "philosophy" Most probably, the real complain that idra has whether he realize it or not is not that zerg has a fundamental problem but that idra has a problem with the way zerg is played. It does not suit him / he does not feel totally comfortable to be the one who dictates aggression. And now it's too late for him to change race because too many things need to be re-learned. So what he is trying to do is to change zerg to a race that fits his true style/mindset. That's not really balance problem. The debate that took place was a game design complaint mostly. And he was referring to how standard play in early game zerg is reactionary and passive. Arguing otherwise is stupid. You have to expand as zerg and the only aggressive 2 base builds only work when you are 100% positive your opponent is expanding and they are generally low drone count all ins which depend heavily on your opponent being overly greedy. To restate: zerg is reactionary and passive in the early game. This is essentially a fact unless you're going all in and praying your opponent doesnt scout. So essentially a standard game, zerg is playing blind and guessing. There is such a great variety of 1 base all ins and compound that fact with zerg's inability to scout early game makes for a stupid guessing game. Idra's primary points: theres no safe build that covers all the possibilities in the early game. Theres also no way to scout in the early game. This specific discussion was about game design more so than balance | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
On May 04 2011 19:58 billyX333 wrote: The debate that took place was a game design complaint mostly. And he was referring to how standard play in early game zerg is reactionary and passive. Arguing otherwise is stupid. You have to expand as zerg and the only aggressive 2 base builds only work when you are 100% positive your opponent is expanding and they are generally low drone count all ins which depend heavily on your opponent being overly greedy. To restate: zerg is reactionary and passive in the early game. This is essentially a fact unless you're going all in and praying your opponent doesnt scout. So essentially a standard game, zerg is playing blind and guessing. There is such a great variety of 1 base all ins and compound that fact with zerg's inability to scout early game makes for a stupid guessing game. Idra's primary points: theres no safe build that covers all the possibilities in the early game. Theres also no way to scout in the early game. This specific discussion was about game design more so than balance Zerg being reactionary in early game is not a fact but a style that is prevalent right now. Lets look at protoss in BW, the most standard build in the past before forge expand came out was like 2 gate sometimes with robo. The thing is style change. Protoss changed from an aggressive early game in a defensive early game. It took bisu in bw to tune the forge expand build and it took a long time but in the end it happened. The thing is metagame and "standard" play is always evolving. | ||
|
Executor1
1353 Posts
On May 04 2011 19:54 nehcnhoj wrote: I hate to start a constructive argument without watching the entirety of the episode just in case relevant points were brought up in a later segment, but I have to write this down before I lose my train of thought. In response to Tyler's argument against Idra's principles of how a good game should go, Tyler brought up the fact that Protoss do a coin flip, and Idra is expecting to win by generally not taking a risk on his part and still come out at least even. However, I believe, this stems back to IdrA's initial point with regards to scouting. Toss are so inclined to take a coin flip, because it is so easy to pull off based off the issue that a Zerg plays with close to no information. If Zerg makes any coinflip what-so-ever, whether it be in response or if the Zerg makes the first move. This is (i want to say easily) easier and within much more reasonable means for a toss to scout the coin flip than a Zerg to scout the Toss. So then, if we're comparing balance in terms of coin flips, which as agreed on the show, is absolutely terrible game design, even then I believe it's a weighted coin, in favor of the toss. I feel IdrA is having so high a rate of success with his risky plays because, as he said, nobody expects it from him. In an ideal world, where PvZ was played and two equal players did risky builds, scouted to the best of their abilities, my opinion is that P would win that BO7 grand finals. And this is only PvZ. I wish more concrete in-game examples of coin flips done were made so this argument could have more substance than just speculative points. Please take this as my 2 cents, I'm not at the level nor do I invest enough time and effort to fight this argument as equals, but this is my opinion =). Amazing show as usual. I did a test in the unit tester earlier on in this thread with overlord scout vs a stalker and an overlord scout vs 2 marines. here is what i found vs the stalker, obviously this is subjective, but i did the tests using the best possible situation for the protoss here is what i found :"Okay i just did a test on the unit tester using the platform in the middle as "the base" I used the best possible scenario for the stalker assuming the player noticed right away and the stalker was right in position and hit the overlord just as he was approaching the ledge. The platform in the unit tester is easily as big as a normal base if not slightly bigger than some like xelnaga caverns. So the stalker hits maybe 4 in game seconds before the overlord reaches the ledge this is assuming the best possible situation as unless you are standing right on the ledge or very close to it in the right position you will not see the overlord until it has passed the ledge. It took 27 in game seconds to kill the overlord and by that time it had completely scouted the entire platform except for 2 small corners (not enough space to fit a building without being seen)" besides the fact that you have to sac an overlord i see no reason why a properly timed scout shouldnt give you the information you need to decide what to do next in the mid early game. Also this is assuming a stalker is made after the zealot i would say its far more common to see a sentry in zvp and sentries do considerably less damage even if there were 2 you would likely be in the same situation if not better and get a full scout of the base. | ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
Idra: "I think theyre gonna be really fucking strong" Inc.: "That doesnt surprise me" hahahaah | ||
|
Executor1
1353 Posts
On May 04 2011 20:08 loveeholicce wrote: Inc: "no1s complaining about it" Idra: "I think theyre gonna be really fucking strong" Inc.: "That doesnt surprise me" hahahaah what were they talking about there i forgot >< | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
| ||
|
billyX333
United States1360 Posts
On May 04 2011 20:05 xbankx wrote: Zerg being reactionary in early game is not a fact but a style that is prevalent right now. Lets look at protoss in BW, the most standard build in the past before forge expand came out was like 2 gate sometimes with robo. The thing is style change. Protoss changed from an aggressive early game in a defensive early game. It took bisu in bw to tune the forge expand build and it took a long time but in the end it happened. The thing is metagame and "standard" play is always evolving. You mean nal_ra pioneered the forge expand. Bisu just teched behind it. But anyways, your example doesn't fit because the "standard" for PvZ went from being 1 base to being 2 base. Are you somehow proposing the standard for zerg could go from being 2 base to 1 base? I'd love to hear it. The only aggressive early game builds involve roaches, lings, or banes and I'm positive we've seen enough of that 1base zerg bullshit in the beta to know how well that operates and the ceiling on its potential. | ||
|
Executor1
1353 Posts
On May 04 2011 20:10 Tachion wrote: Archons haha yea i thought thats what it was but you never know with idra  | ||
|
Tears.Of.The.Moon
Slovenia715 Posts
Kinda makes you think about it. I know that Blizzard cannot decrease the spine crawlers build time due to zvz, and the problems of proxy spine crawlers. But i'm wondering if the people that are good with the editor know, if it is possible to make creep player specific, so a players has ownership of the creep, and only he gets the bonus from the creep and is able to build buildings on it. If that would be the case , they they could easily decrease the build time of the spine crawlers , and maybe match it's build time to that of the spore crawler. I think this change would be a great benefit to the zerg race. So in short make creep players specific , and decrease the build time of spine crawlers from 50s to the build time of spore crawlers which is 30s . | ||
|
Executor1
1353 Posts
On May 04 2011 20:11 PerfectTear wrote: The Idra and Day9 discussion, and especially the thing about not being able to react fast enough and build spine crawlers due to their 50s build time was really interesting. Kinda makes you think about it. I know that Blizzard cannot decrease the spine crawlers build time due to zvz, and the problems of proxy spine crawlers. But i'm wondering if the people that are good with the editor know, if it is possible to make creep player specific, so a players has ownership of the creep, and only he gets the bonus from the creep and is able to build buildings on it. If that would be the case , they they could easily decrease the build time of the spine crawlers , and maybe match it's build time to that of the spore crawler. I think this change would be a great benefit to the zerg race. So in short make creep players specific , and decrease the build time of spine crawlers from 50s to the build time of spore crawlers which is 30s . Well obviously doing the player specific creep is possible i just dont think blizzard is willing to make that change. I was suprised they never mentioned anything about zvz when talking about spine crawler time. also i think building spines should be a neccisty at least in zvp forcefields can make your units useless so you need some static defense 9 times out of 10 the protoss is going to at least pressure, and with a few spines up you can drone harder not having to worry as much about making units that could become useless from forcefields anyways. The spanishiwa style is really interesting like that, using queens and spines so you can commit all your larva to drones. I like how idra gives it little to no credit as a viable build but then uses it himself on quite a few occasions including last week in NASL. Hes a walking contradiction sometimes. "well you can only use it against players that are way worse than you" he says that so much and to me at least it just doesnt make sense. How can he rationally deduce that he is better than someone who has beaten him before (such as kiwi) i would say they are pretty close to the same level its not like IPL was extremely one sided or anything. Like day 9 said the only real measure we have of who is better is through wins and losses not some arbitrary reason in idra's head. | ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
On May 04 2011 20:05 xbankx wrote: Zerg being reactionary in early game is not a fact but a style that is prevalent right now. Lets look at protoss in BW, the most standard build in the past before forge expand came out was like 2 gate sometimes with robo. The thing is style change. Protoss changed from an aggressive early game in a defensive early game. It took bisu in bw to tune the forge expand build and it took a long time but in the end it happened. The thing is metagame and "standard" play is always evolving. I'm sorry but just about everything you said was wrong  | ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
On May 04 2011 20:09 Executor1 wrote: what were they talking about there i forgot >< About the archon range buff lol | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
On May 04 2011 20:10 billyX333 wrote: You mean nal_ra pioneered the forge expand. Bisu just teched behind it. But anyways, your example doesn't fit because the "standard" for PvZ went from being 1 base to being 2 base. Are you somehow proposing the standard for zerg could go from being 2 base to 1 base? I'd love to hear it. The only aggressive early game builds involve roaches, lings, or banes and I'm positive we've seen enough of that 1base zerg bullshit in the beta to know how well that operates and the ceiling on its potential. nal_ra showed it first but Bisu standardized it. Nal_ra was an creative player but he did not perfect the forge expand like Bisu. Im saying zerg doesn't have to be defensive and reactionary early game at all. It is just the metagame right now. You never know with new timing can be found. It is possible to find a build that would force protoss to not sentry expand and go back to a more 1 base robo opening. Builds are always evolving and adapt to the metagame. | ||
| ||
