|
On September 24 2010 09:53 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 09:47 teamsolid wrote:On September 24 2010 09:46 MythicalMage wrote:On September 24 2010 09:35 Archerofaiur wrote:
Here is an important question:
Why wouldnt you patch aggressively if you knew you were going to be upending the balance in 18 months anyway? This. And then they'll do it AGAIN in another 18 months or so. People are asking for gameplay mechanic overhauls: You're not going to get them without an expansion. People are asking for perfect balance: It doesn't seem likely. If this is Blizzard's first attempt at a "balance" patch, then it seems reasonable to play it like WC3: Just don't play Zerg. When (or if) they get stronger later, switch back. Were I making my living out of playing, that's what seems the reasonable thing to do. Actually, if Blizzard just implemented the "fake" patch notes, a good amount of the early game Z issues would be fixed. No idea if that would actually bring the race to parity, but at least it would actually address many complaints without requiring a completely overhaul of the race. I'm not going to try to play Blizzard, because I don't have their resources at hand. They go through numerous in-house builds and they go through tons of data. What I WOULD like to see would be something like the WoW PTR, just to see the direction they're going. (I woudln't want to be a part of it, of course.)
No I'm not a fan of the WoW PTR system, I felt that it only delayed the process of patching the game. Also it seemed to me that no matter how many times people pointed out bugs in the PTR, the bugs still managed to make it into the live servers.
I think Blizzard just needs a better in-house testing team. Hire some progamers or semi-pros to help out with balance testing.
|
He's not the only one. Most zerg players are already outrageous about how bad Blizzard staffs designed zerg in SC2. If zergs don't get a good buff, I won't surprise if those crazy asian player do something terrible to the Blizzard people when they go to promote their games in asia. This is really bad. No one wants to see that kind thing happening.
|
On September 24 2010 09:46 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 09:35 Archerofaiur wrote:
Here is an important question:
Why wouldnt you patch aggressively if you knew you were going to be upending the balance in 18 months anyway? This. And then they'll do it AGAIN in another 18 months or so. People are asking for gameplay mechanic overhauls: You're not going to get them without an expansion. People are asking for perfect balance: It doesn't seem likely. If this is Blizzard's first attempt at a "balance" patch, then it seems reasonable to play it like WC3: Just don't play Zerg. When (or if) they get stronger later, switch back. Were I making my living out of playing, that's what seems the reasonable thing to do.
I think i should have put more emphasis on certain words. It should read
"Why wouldn't you patch aggressively if you knew you were going to be upending the balance in 18 months anyway?"
Look balancing by tiny pushes and nudges is great. I totally understand that conservative slow and staedy fine tuning approach. But this is not the final balance of the game we are talking about. We will have 2 more expansions. What good does it do to balance cautiously over 13 months only to tear the whole thing up again 5 months later.
It doesnt hurt (as much as people think) to implement quick(er) changes. If you end up messing something up than find a way to fix it. It may be slightly flavour of the month but thats ok you have till LotV to settle things out and its certainly better than zerg sitting at 15% for months.
|
On September 24 2010 09:56 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 09:53 Dionyseus wrote:On September 24 2010 09:46 MythicalMage wrote:On September 24 2010 09:35 Archerofaiur wrote:
Here is an important question:
Why wouldnt you patch aggressively if you knew you were going to be upending the balance in 18 months anyway? This. And then they'll do it AGAIN in another 18 months or so. People are asking for gameplay mechanic overhauls: You're not going to get them without an expansion. People are asking for perfect balance: It doesn't seem likely. If this is Blizzard's first attempt at a "balance" patch, then it seems reasonable to play it like WC3: Just don't play Zerg. When (or if) they get stronger later, switch back. Were I making my living out of playing, that's what seems the reasonable thing to do. Except you can't have terranVSprotoss-only tournaments and expect spectators and sponsors to stay happy. No spectators and no sponsors means SC2 would die in the esports scene regardless of how much money blizzard pours into it. Blizzard's rich but not that rich. Tis arguable. Warcraft 3 was arguably pretty successful. I mean, look at the IEM in NY coming up. There are no zergs, but it's still going to get tons of spectators. The GSL has two zergs left, but I doubt their stream numbers will go down; if anything, they'll likely increase. I think it's not as good as future as would be ideal, but it is still A future, which is all that is needed until the expansions bring life back into the game.
I payed for the GSL, and so far I've enjoyed it -- but if it ever gets to the point where all zerg are gone before RO32, there's no way I'm paying for it. It would probably be that way if any other race were basically "excluded" from the highest levels of play.
|
On September 24 2010 09:46 Half wrote:
How does a less mobile zerg with stronger units, a more versatile and more mobile terran, and a protoss that remains similar but with added, options, result in a game that is intrinsically not balance able?
because terran got more mobile, their units got more hp, had two very essential units combined into one (medevac), can tech fast and unlock units the fastest due to techlab swaps, terran has insane range on mostly all units and dont have to upgrade marine range like in sc1, got better defences in the planetary fortress and the lolsalvage bunkers....
while
zerg got less mobile beyond making it even and are now the least mobile off creep, didnt get more hp or armor except for the roach which has garbage range and sucks vs all T1.5, lost pre-lair anti air, lost the best unit to hold off pushes and defend expansions, units got more expensive for worse in-game performance...
i can go on all day
|
On September 24 2010 09:58 Dionyseus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 09:53 MythicalMage wrote:On September 24 2010 09:47 teamsolid wrote:On September 24 2010 09:46 MythicalMage wrote:On September 24 2010 09:35 Archerofaiur wrote:
Here is an important question:
Why wouldnt you patch aggressively if you knew you were going to be upending the balance in 18 months anyway? This. And then they'll do it AGAIN in another 18 months or so. People are asking for gameplay mechanic overhauls: You're not going to get them without an expansion. People are asking for perfect balance: It doesn't seem likely. If this is Blizzard's first attempt at a "balance" patch, then it seems reasonable to play it like WC3: Just don't play Zerg. When (or if) they get stronger later, switch back. Were I making my living out of playing, that's what seems the reasonable thing to do. Actually, if Blizzard just implemented the "fake" patch notes, a good amount of the early game Z issues would be fixed. No idea if that would actually bring the race to parity, but at least it would actually address many complaints without requiring a completely overhaul of the race. I'm not going to try to play Blizzard, because I don't have their resources at hand. They go through numerous in-house builds and they go through tons of data. What I WOULD like to see would be something like the WoW PTR, just to see the direction they're going. (I woudln't want to be a part of it, of course.) No I'm not a fan of the WoW PTR system, I felt that it only delayed the process of patching the game. Also it seemed to me that no matter how many times people pointed out bugs in the PTR, the bugs still managed to make it into the live servers. I think Blizzard just needs a better in-house testing team. Hire some progamers or semi-pros to help out with balance testing.
The idea was strictly as a way for Blizzard to reach out to the community, to show they were DOING something. A PR move, if anything.
|
On September 24 2010 09:59 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 09:46 MythicalMage wrote:On September 24 2010 09:35 Archerofaiur wrote:
Here is an important question:
Why wouldnt you patch aggressively if you knew you were going to be upending the balance in 18 months anyway? This. And then they'll do it AGAIN in another 18 months or so. People are asking for gameplay mechanic overhauls: You're not going to get them without an expansion. People are asking for perfect balance: It doesn't seem likely. If this is Blizzard's first attempt at a "balance" patch, then it seems reasonable to play it like WC3: Just don't play Zerg. When (or if) they get stronger later, switch back. Were I making my living out of playing, that's what seems the reasonable thing to do. I think i should have put more emphasis on certain words. It should read "Why wouldn't you patch aggressively if you knew you were going to be upending the balance in 18 months anyway?" Look balancing by tiny pushes and nudges is great. I totally understand that conservative slow and staedy fine tuning approach. But this is not the final balance of the game we are talking about. We will have 2 more expansions. What good does it do to balance cautiously over 13 months only to tear the whole thing up again 5 months later. It doesnt hurt (as much as people think) to implement quick(er) changes. If you end up messing something up than find a way to fix it. It may be slightly flavour of the month but thats ok you have till LotV to settle things out and its certainly better than zerg sitting at 15% for months.
Although making radical changes until the final expansion comes out in four years would probably be for the best, it wouldn't be fun to deal with a new FotM every month while there are high end tournaments like GSL trying to promote SC2.
|
mod edit - don't post image macros.
User was warned for this post
|
Same with the latest expansion, 6 months with the new class Death Knights(among others) requiring three players to take down a single guy playing a DK.
that is totaly fake, a paladin totaly steamrolled every class in the game in that 6 months... but in arenas, they didn't have the tools to overcome the healers, unlike DK that had lots of tools, silences, ghoul, etc ...
On Topic : I think zerg needs help early game... not sure how.. they are just not right. zealot nerf is not enough, MMM steamrolling every zerg unit, and Micro is the counter for blings.
|
On September 24 2010 09:44 Half wrote:Show nested quote +I strongly feel that zerg has the highest skill cap with the amount of attention it requires and on top of that comes the minor and major imbalances that makes playing zerg that much harder.
I'm a 1300+ diamond zerg and as of yesterday decided to take a break from the game. I'm glad I'm not the only player THAT frustrated with zerg. Props to FantaPrime, Cool and Zenio for really showcasing that zerg do need help. Despite many of you saying that the game is early and things are "unexplored", yet you guys fail to see the blatantly obvious imbalances that make playing zerg at a competitive level near impossible. [insert bronze level player telling zerg to use nydus worms, captain picard facepalm]. Personally, in some respects, I think its the opposite. I don't mean to say "Zerg is the easiest race", but as in many respects, zerg isn't designed to scale adequately with skill. Zerg is a little bit too reactive. They need opportunities to control the matchup midgame and even early game. Not enough ways for players to "express" there skill. In SC1, the TvZ matchup was defined by Muta harrass. That was a very high-skill activity, and how well the individual performed would really alter the rest of the game. In SC2, you don't really have similar opportunity to be "skilled". Being skilled with Zerg in SC2 is too much about "Not dieing", rather then actively doing something "skillful".
Your definition of skill may be different from mine. In general, I think Zerg require the most attention and are the least forgiving. Which in turn, are considered "skill" for me. For example, Chrono Boost, MULE and spawn larvae/creep tumor. It's OK to miss chrono boosts and mules, you can always come back to them later and either mass them with pretty much no downside, where as if a zerg player misses his spawn larvae by even a few seconds.. it can be devastating. On top of spawning larvae, a zerg also has to be attentive at spreading creep tumors, otherwise he gets harassed too hard or ends up being too slow. Things like having the hardest time scouting, not having any openers until you get a general idea of what your opponent is doing, etc. I mean you take a look around tl.net and you read things like "zerg need to have at least 1 base more than their opponent", or things like "a 1200 pt zerg = a 1500 pt terran", these things generally hold true.
|
On September 24 2010 10:00 tacrats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 09:46 Half wrote:
How does a less mobile zerg with stronger units, a more versatile and more mobile terran, and a protoss that remains similar but with added, options, result in a game that is intrinsically not balance able?
because terran got more mobile, their units got more hp, had two very essential units combined into one (medevac), can tech fast and unlock units the fastest due to techlab swaps, terran has insane range on mostly all units and dont have to upgrade marine range like in sc1, got better defences in the planetary fortress and the lolsalvage bunkers.... while zerg got less mobile beyond making it even and are now the least mobile off creep, didnt get more hp or armor except for the roach which has garbage range and sucks vs all T1.5, lost pre-lair anti air, lost the best unit to hold off pushes and defend expansions... i can go on all day
....
lol...You really don't understand it. Those literally have nothing to do with why the matchup cannot be balanced.
Your definition of skill may be different from mine. In general, I think Zerg require the most attention and are the least forgiving. Which in turn, are considered "skill" for me. For example, Chrono Boost, MULE and spawn larvae/creep tumor. It's OK to miss chrono boosts and mules, you can always come back to them later and either mass them with pretty much no downside, where as if a zerg player misses his spawn larvae by even a few seconds.. it can be devastating. On top of spawning larvae, a zerg also has to be attentive at spreading creep tumors, otherwise he gets harassed too hard or ends up being too slow. Things like having the hardest time scouting, not having any openers until you get a general idea of what your opponent is doing, etc. I mean you take a look around tl.net and you read things like "zerg need to have at least 1 base more than their opponent", or things like "a 1200 pt zerg = a 1500 pt terran", these things generally hold true.
I don't mean zerg are the easiest race to play, I'm saying they offer the least expressions of skill. Zerg skill is too much oriented around not screwing up. They have little room for exceptional play. And yes, T is op, etc etc, but if you look at Morrows reaper play against Idra at IEM, even if you disregarded imbalance-Morrows reaper control was exceptional.
Idra is a very good player, I'd argue among the top five in the world, but if you look at zerg, they have very few ways to express there skill, beyond playing a solid macro game and good strategic decisions.
|
Blizzard's balancing style is super minute. They don't want to break the game. Then again, they don't necessarily want to fix it either. They seem to want to make it "acceptable" to one degree or another.
|
On September 24 2010 10:02 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 10:00 tacrats wrote:On September 24 2010 09:46 Half wrote:
How does a less mobile zerg with stronger units, a more versatile and more mobile terran, and a protoss that remains similar but with added, options, result in a game that is intrinsically not balance able?
because terran got more mobile, their units got more hp, had two very essential units combined into one (medevac), can tech fast and unlock units the fastest due to techlab swaps, terran has insane range on mostly all units and dont have to upgrade marine range like in sc1, got better defences in the planetary fortress and the lolsalvage bunkers.... while zerg got less mobile beyond making it even and are now the least mobile off creep, didnt get more hp or armor except for the roach which has garbage range and sucks vs all T1.5, lost pre-lair anti air, lost the best unit to hold off pushes and defend expansions... i can go on all day .... lol...You really don't understand it. Those literally have nothing to do with why the matchup cannot be balanced.
not saying why it cannot be balanced, but why it is currently not balanced in its current state where armies have been adjusted to be more the same. thats what i thought u meant by 'how can they not be balanced if they are all the similar'
On September 24 2010 10:03 MythicalMage wrote:
Blizzard's balancing style is super minute. They don't want to break the game. Then again, they don't necessarily want to fix it either. They seem to want to make it "acceptable" to one degree or another.
Its already broken.
|
The hatred on this thread just shows the stupidity of the community. If 1 person were to defend zerg (myself), he will be flamed to high hell for not following the general I YELL THE LOUDEST consensus.
I enjoy playing the race at 1650+ and dont give a fuck what anyone says about the race because it is not weak. Take your shitty mechanics and let the professionals be professionals, and yourself be the casual you are. Stop making excuses for your lack of skill.
|
On September 24 2010 10:04 tacrats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 10:02 Half wrote:On September 24 2010 10:00 tacrats wrote:On September 24 2010 09:46 Half wrote:
How does a less mobile zerg with stronger units, a more versatile and more mobile terran, and a protoss that remains similar but with added, options, result in a game that is intrinsically not balance able?
because terran got more mobile, their units got more hp, had two very essential units combined into one (medevac), can tech fast and unlock units the fastest due to techlab swaps, terran has insane range on mostly all units and dont have to upgrade marine range like in sc1, got better defences in the planetary fortress and the lolsalvage bunkers.... while zerg got less mobile beyond making it even and are now the least mobile off creep, didnt get more hp or armor except for the roach which has garbage range and sucks vs all T1.5, lost pre-lair anti air, lost the best unit to hold off pushes and defend expansions... i can go on all day .... lol...You really don't understand it. Those literally have nothing to do with why the matchup cannot be balanced. not saying why it cannot be balanced, but why it is currently not balanced in its current state where armies have been adjusted to be more the same. thats what i thought u meant by 'how can they not be balanced if they are all the similar'
no I know they aren't balanced right now, I was responding to the guy who said Zerg could not balanced without completely reworking multiplayer.
|
this is sad i like zerg and would rather not switching...terran looks fine its just a matter of giving zerg more viable options
|
On September 24 2010 10:05 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 10:04 tacrats wrote:On September 24 2010 10:02 Half wrote:On September 24 2010 10:00 tacrats wrote:On September 24 2010 09:46 Half wrote:
How does a less mobile zerg with stronger units, a more versatile and more mobile terran, and a protoss that remains similar but with added, options, result in a game that is intrinsically not balance able?
because terran got more mobile, their units got more hp, had two very essential units combined into one (medevac), can tech fast and unlock units the fastest due to techlab swaps, terran has insane range on mostly all units and dont have to upgrade marine range like in sc1, got better defences in the planetary fortress and the lolsalvage bunkers.... while zerg got less mobile beyond making it even and are now the least mobile off creep, didnt get more hp or armor except for the roach which has garbage range and sucks vs all T1.5, lost pre-lair anti air, lost the best unit to hold off pushes and defend expansions... i can go on all day .... lol...You really don't understand it. Those literally have nothing to do with why the matchup cannot be balanced. not saying why it cannot be balanced, but why it is currently not balanced in its current state where armies have been adjusted to be more the same. thats what i thought u meant by 'how can they not be balanced if they are all the similar' no I know they aren't balanced right now, I was responding to the guy who said Zerg could not balanced without completely reworking multiplayer.
Oh, my bad. I agree, i dont think it needs an overhaul, it can definitely be done with the right stat or cost adjustments on zerg units. tech/build time reductions would be great too.
|
On September 24 2010 10:02 bpro wrote:![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/i2tA2.jpg)
Cool first post, haha.
|
why the hell are we talking about WoW in this thread...
I play terran and I'll even admit something should change for zerg, and i never even abused 5raxreapers against zerg. Hydra speed off of creep would be a good change, that or do something about creep in general.
Here's the thing, because zerg units move so fast on creep, they have to be balanced at least in part, around being on creep. because if they were balanced being OFF of creep, being on creep would make them unbalanced. This is a major problem. Zerg either live or die by their creep spreading. something that can easily be removed by 1 detector, but takes time, and micro to do properly. The creep bonus needs to be revamped in some way or form. either grant zerg units less of a discrepancy on creep/off creep, or make it so zerg retain their speed for a few seconds after moving off of creep so if you're in mid combat with zerg, and they gun down your surrounding creep tumors, you still have time to fight back and retreat, and not automatically retreat instantly or face an unretreatable situation off of creep.
|
Honestly at this point it is just shocking for Z loving players how crazy the matchups are. Z has been kicked in the nuts too many times and it's really disheartening. The pros r all agreeing yet so little is being done on Blizzard's part after so long...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
