|
On September 26 2010 09:26 Lea wrote:
[
I think you really have to give us more information where you play in the league in order for us to gauge how reliable your information is. Please don't take it as an offense, but but the fact that you seem to let zerg macro up seems to indicate that you may be in the lower tiers, and thus your experience is very different to everyone elses and might not be applicable as a general statement.
The problem isn't the zerg's macro play: the problem is that zerg units die like... uh, domino bricks once you start hitting on them. .
I'm 1300 diamond (259-231), so I guess thats med-diamond?
Maybe some units die too fast, but you can't say that ultras die too fast or corruptors.
|
On September 26 2010 09:13 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 01:44 deViation- wrote:
We should just basicly ask IdrA what he thinks would be good changes instead of asking him to destroy every change blizzard makes.
I love IdrA, but when will we see him satisfied with the state of the game? (perhaps when he wins all the time...) Why is only IdrA qualified to answer that? Just use some common sense and analyze the problem! <snip> So you see, it isnt that hard to analyze the problem and come to a conclusion as to what needs to be done. It doesnt even involve fiddling around with the stats of the units, which is terribly hard to do and keep the balance between fighting units. Feel free to question my reasoning and improve upon the suggested solutions. Even I am not perfect in my thought process and could have overlooked something.
Well... I noticed you only listed the pushing back of timings as possible solutions, artificially limiting our options to your favourite topic of restricting map variety to improve balance 
IMO, giving Zerg more time to learn the Terran tune he has to dance to in each game is just making a nice big carpet to sweep the problem under. I've posted my thoughts on the matter in my blog, if you're interested.
|
United Arab Emirates492 Posts
On September 26 2010 09:31 Dente wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 09:26 Lea wrote:
[
I think you really have to give us more information where you play in the league in order for us to gauge how reliable your information is. Please don't take it as an offense, but but the fact that you seem to let zerg macro up seems to indicate that you may be in the lower tiers, and thus your experience is very different to everyone elses and might not be applicable as a general statement.
The problem isn't the zerg's macro play: the problem is that zerg units die like... uh, domino bricks once you start hitting on them. . I'm 1300 diamond (259-231), so I guess thats med-diamond? Maybe some units die too fast, but you can't say that ultras die too fast or corruptors.
Dente you are seriously bashing Zerg race just because your not good in TvZ?
Case in point http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=150161
(Claiming the zerg just Amoves, while he played billion times better then you!!)
Lets just wait and see how this patch works out to be.
|
On September 26 2010 08:37 Dente wrote:
Pure bio:
You can advice the terran to spread out his army, but believe me, you can't spread out when speedlings are blocking your rines and while mutalisks are shooting. You can do drops, but against a good zerg you just can't. Overlords on key spots and there is no way that you can unload a medivac without 50 zerglings beneath it.
Pure mech:
You can go tank rine but when nicely surrounded there is no way you can stim your marines away from the banelings. Somethimes it works but if the zerg flanks, you're dead.
You can go thor tank helion, but ultras just destroy that so easy. You need a decent amount of thors and ultras >> thors.
bio:
You don't need to spread out, if you have good macro and micro you can just kite and your army won't die. If they have infestors, get Ghosts. Ghosts are great against Mutas as well. You shouldn't get your army flanked, that's your fault.
mech: how is pure mech tank-marine? You can say Ultras destroy Siege Tanks easily, but have you ever tried having walls of buildings and turrets and planetary fortresses along with a lot of Siege Tanks? Siege Tanks are really good vs Ultras if you spread them out and have something to take the hits. You normally will be way ahead by the time they get Ultras anyway. Ghosts are cost-efficient against Ultras as well.
Seems like you're just bad
|
On September 26 2010 09:36 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 09:13 Rabiator wrote:On September 26 2010 01:44 deViation- wrote:
We should just basicly ask IdrA what he thinks would be good changes instead of asking him to destroy every change blizzard makes.
I love IdrA, but when will we see him satisfied with the state of the game? (perhaps when he wins all the time...) Why is only IdrA qualified to answer that? Just use some common sense and analyze the problem! <snip> So you see, it isnt that hard to analyze the problem and come to a conclusion as to what needs to be done. It doesnt even involve fiddling around with the stats of the units, which is terribly hard to do and keep the balance between fighting units. Feel free to question my reasoning and improve upon the suggested solutions. Even I am not perfect in my thought process and could have overlooked something. Well... I noticed you only listed the pushing back of timings as possible solutions, artificially limiting our options to your favourite topic of restricting map variety to improve balance IMO, giving Zerg more time to learn the Terran tune he has to dance to in each game is just making a nice big carpet to sweep the problem under. I've posted my thoughts on the matter in my blog, if you're interested.
My favorite topic is restricting map variety? Well I do think that tiny maps screw too much with the balance and that you can not do a really good strategic macro game on them. So yes I want to "limit map variety" by kicking out the small ones.
There is no way for Zerg to adjust to the speed on Terran and Protoss without killing their traditional mechanic of "all units are spawned from larvae which are grown at the hatchery". Protoss and Terran produce their workers in a separate building and can constantly do so even while producing attacking units. That is a systematic difference between these races. So you want to "kill" that difference and make the races "the same" [in mechanics]?
Zerg dont need the time to "learn the Terran tune" but rather to have enough economy to be able to build defensive forces WITHOUT sacrificing their own economy. There is nothing to sweep under the carpet.
@Umpteen Blog
You suggest modifying Hydras heavily and moving them to T1.5, but the thing is that on tiny maps you probably wont be able to get to them if the opponent puts his mind to it. Modifying a unit so heavily as you suggested is going to cause more imbalance problems than just making maps "as big as they were in BW". The balance between units seems fairly good atm and fights can go either way, so changing one units that heavily is not a wise choice to do, because it has implications for the late game and might destabilize the whole thing. We have quite a few big tournaments running already and making such huge changes is not a good thing IMO.
The poll in THIS thread shows a significant majority of people agreeing with me on the map size issue. At - currently - 431 votes it isnt a large sample, but it should be large enough to give a clear indication of the discontent with the map size.
|
On September 26 2010 15:51 Rabiator wrote:
My favorite topic is restricting map variety? Well I do think that tiny maps screw too much with the balance and that you can not do a really good strategic macro game on them. So yes I want to "limit map variety" by kicking out the small ones.
And close position spawning, presumably.
There is no way for Zerg to adjust to the speed on Terran and Protoss without killing their traditional mechanic of "all units are spawned from larvae which are grown at the hatchery". Protoss and Terran produce their workers in a separate building and can constantly do so even while producing attacking units. That is a systematic difference between these races. So you want to "kill" that difference and make the races "the same" [in mechanics]?
Oh no; I don't think I even implied anything of the kind. If anything, I want to restore that element of Zerg's identity by removing the obligation to slowly crank out queen after queen in order to be able to shoot upward in a timely fashion.
Zerg dont need the time to "learn the Terran tune" but rather to have enough economy to be able to build defensive forces WITHOUT sacrificing their own economy. There is nothing to sweep under the carpet.
I respectfully disagree. As I highlighted in my blog, quantity is a terrible substitute for the 'right' tech in early-game SC2 ZvT, unlike in SC1. And it does nothing for the lack of zerg aggressive options.
Furthermore, ramping up map sizes damages Zerg's ability to scout far more than it delays Terran forces, because overlords are so slow. Add 10 seconds to hellion travel time and you add - what, forty seconds to overlord transit time? What am I going to do with ten extra seconds of economy compared to forty seconds less opportunity to see what's coming?
@Umpteen Blog
You suggest modifying Hydras heavily and moving them to T1.5, but the thing is that on tiny maps you probably wont be able to get to them if the opponent puts his mind to it.
Why not? I can get roaches out in time on any map, right now - unless I try to fast-expand first, which is risky (and rightly so) when rush distances are short. What's wrong with giving Zerg the tools to play differently on different maps?
Modifying a unit so heavily as you suggested is going to cause more imbalance problems than just making maps "as big as they were in BW". The balance between units seems fairly good atm and fights can go either way,
I agree there will be some knock-on effects. I'm not sure how terribly serious they will be. All we're talking about is being able to shoot up and be a little more robust against marauders. Right now, Hydras aren't seeing much play in ZvT so I wouldn't necessarily agree with your assessment that the units are fine as they are.
so changing one units that heavily is not a wise choice to do, because it has implications for the late game and might destabilize the whole thing. We have quite a few big tournaments running already and making such huge changes is not a good thing IMO.
Sorry, but you can't justify maintaining a game in a broken state on those grounds.
Also, I might be wrong, but isn't it possible to start a custom match, save it, and then load and continue it even after a patch? Tournament organisers could create a large pool of such saves and use them to complete tourneys with consistent settings.
The poll in THIS thread shows a significant majority of people agreeing with me on the map size issue. At - currently - 431 votes it isnt a large sample, but it should be large enough to give a clear indication of the discontent with the map size.
I'm not going to argue with what people want. I just don't think it's the answer to this issue.
|
On September 24 2010 10:26 Colbi wrote:Greg ' IdrA' Fields gives his thoughts on Blizzard's most recent patch for StarCraft 2. Below is an excerpt taken from the article: Show nested quote +The first balance patch for StarCraft2 came out roughly a month after release and consisted solely of changes that were announced weeks ago and that were actually already prepared at the start of phase 2 of the beta. Unfortunately, this is evident in the effect the changes will have on the game. Blizzard patched the state the game was in several weeks ago, and didn't address many developments in game play that have since made the patch almost irrelevant. ZvT and ZvP will remain largely unchanged while the balance issues in TvP will only be made worse, terran will now be even stronger early and protoss even stronger late in the game. You can read the rest of his thoughts at http://www.myeg.net/article/article_detail.php?article_id=877Do you agree or disagree with what he has to say?
Emphasis mine. I find that hilarious. The absolute state of the game was exactly identical several weeks ago than a day before the patch. This is what Blizzard tries to keep track of. They don't care about flavor of the week "imba". They don't care about random people ranting about random things. What would Idra have them do, roll out a patch every few days to counteract the latest "imba" that's spreading on the forums?
Blizzard is actively forming a view of the game on their own (naturally, a part of this is monitoring player feedback, moreso from higher skilled players) and patching according to that. I don't think anyone can objectively argue that the patch wasn't a step in the right direction. Then again I don't think anyone around here can objectively argue about anything balance-related in the first place...
|
On September 26 2010 22:39 Silu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2010 10:26 Colbi wrote:Greg ' IdrA' Fields gives his thoughts on Blizzard's most recent patch for StarCraft 2. Below is an excerpt taken from the article: The first balance patch for StarCraft2 came out roughly a month after release and consisted solely of changes that were announced weeks ago and that were actually already prepared at the start of phase 2 of the beta. Unfortunately, this is evident in the effect the changes will have on the game. Blizzard patched the state the game was in several weeks ago, and didn't address many developments in game play that have since made the patch almost irrelevant. ZvT and ZvP will remain largely unchanged while the balance issues in TvP will only be made worse, terran will now be even stronger early and protoss even stronger late in the game. You can read the rest of his thoughts at http://www.myeg.net/article/article_detail.php?article_id=877Do you agree or disagree with what he has to say? Emphasis mine. I find that hilarious. The absolute state of the game was exactly identical several weeks ago than a day before the patch. This is what Blizzard tries to keep track of. They don't care about flavor of the week "imba". They don't care about random people ranting about random things. What would Idra have them do, roll out a patch every few days to counteract the latest "imba" that's spreading on the forums? Blizzard is actively forming a view of the game on their own (naturally, a part of this is monitoring player feedback, moreso from higher skilled players) and patching according to that. I don't think anyone can objectively argue that the patch wasn't a step in the right direction. Then again I don't think anyone around here can objectively argue about anything balance-related in the first place...
This isn't a flavor of the week problem. the game is broken in multiple fundamental ways. I'm not sure its even fixable just by tweaking numbers. People have been cutting Blizzard a ton of slack because they desperately want to like this game, I know I have.
I didn't start until phase 2 of the beta but as soon as I saw the beta patch notes I became very concerned. These were not the kind of changes you should be seeing right before release. Like everyone else I heard the game was postponed a year for Battlenet 2. How could they have an extra year and still be making changes that big? It seems a little ridiculous to be making huge changes right before release then adopt the attitude that you can only make tiny changes after release. Certainly it's preferable to make small changes but not when you missed this mark by this much.
|
On September 24 2010 10:43 De4ngus wrote:
I don't get why Blizzard doesn't realize the problem here is with Zerg. Patching Terran and Protoss doesn't do anything useful. Now tanks can't even be used TvP.
Stole the thoughts out of my mind.
|
I started a separate post for my question. Please ignore.
|
Really, I think so many problems would be fixed if hydras were hatch tech. Reapers and hellions don't outrange them, they can shoot up and they do decently (but don't destroy) the main armies of Terran and Protoss. They just don't feel tier 2 and I don't understand why they are there.
|
On September 27 2010 15:52 Novembermike wrote:
Really, I think so many problems would be fixed if hydras were hatch tech. Reapers and hellions don't outrange them, they can shoot up and they do decently (but don't destroy) the main armies of Terran and Protoss. They just don't feel tier 2 and I don't understand why they are there.
as a protoss player I totally agree with you....In fact i always thought that roaches felt more like a lair tech. So to me swap them and adjust stats accordingly
toasting hydras so easily with storm or colossi always makes me pause and think....wow that was alot of gas just down the drain...sure they massacre unchecked but one wrong move and its lights out for the squishy guys.
|
On September 26 2010 18:56 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 15:51 Rabiator wrote:
My favorite topic is restricting map variety? Well I do think that tiny maps screw too much with the balance and that you can not do a really good strategic macro game on them. So yes I want to "limit map variety" by kicking out the small ones. And close position spawning, presumably.
Yes, I forgot to mention that dilemma on our 4-player maps.
On September 26 2010 18:56 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +There is no way for Zerg to adjust to the speed on Terran and Protoss without killing their traditional mechanic of "all units are spawned from larvae which are grown at the hatchery". Protoss and Terran produce their workers in a separate building and can constantly do so even while producing attacking units. That is a systematic difference between these races. So you want to "kill" that difference and make the races "the same" [in mechanics]? Oh no; I don't think I even implied anything of the kind. If anything, I want to restore that element of Zerg's identity by removing the obligation to slowly crank out queen after queen in order to be able to shoot upward in a timely fashion.
Well to adjust the development speed to a comparable level you could do more than change the Zerg - I was wrong saying that - you could also take away Warp Gate, Chrono Boost, MULE and Reactor (and consequently the Queen as well). Either way it is a heavy bunch of adjustments which do not belong into a "live" version of the game. Changing the map size is a really simple solution to these problems with the timing. Since the units themselves seem fairly balanced it is the easiest solution.
On September 26 2010 18:56 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +Zerg dont need the time to "learn the Terran tune" but rather to have enough economy to be able to build defensive forces WITHOUT sacrificing their own economy. There is nothing to sweep under the carpet. I respectfully disagree. As I highlighted in my blog, quantity is a terrible substitute for the 'right' tech in early-game SC2 ZvT, unlike in SC1. And it does nothing for the lack of zerg aggressive options. Furthermore, ramping up map sizes damages Zerg's ability to scout far more than it delays Terran forces, because overlords are so slow. Add 10 seconds to hellion travel time and you add - what, forty seconds to overlord transit time? What am I going to do with ten extra seconds of economy compared to forty seconds less opportunity to see what's coming?
So a Terran uses Hellions to scout and not a simple SCV? I think there is a bug in that logic somewhere. You cant just take the best thing from one side and the worst from another and compare them. On a large 4-player-map most good Zerg use a Drone to scout anyways, so what is the big problem?
Zerg players always rant on about scouting and how hard of a time they have while totally forgetting that scouting+reacting=defensive play and that puts you on the road to lose eventually most of the time. If a Terran is able to harrass them left and right with just a few units and all they can do is defend they will die to the "big push". You need to get the active role and on a larger map it is far easier / safer to get a sizeable stack of Mutalisks out than on a small map and dont say that Mutas suck at scouting and harrassing. Taking the offensive is MUCH easier with these units!
One important thing: Terrans are supposedly immobile and Zerg are supposedly mobile, but on a small map these advantages / disadvantages are practically negated. If you can cover 20% of the map with a bunch of sieged tanks it doesnt matter that they cant move [Steppes of War center of the map ...]. Outflanking isnt possible for the more mobile forces if they get funneled through the dozen small chokes and even Metalopolis has two relatively small paths running from one side to another, so that makes it kinda bad in a TvZ if the Terran gets enough sieged tanks at the Xel'Naga towers.
On September 26 2010 18:56 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +@Umpteen Blog
You suggest modifying Hydras heavily and moving them to T1.5, but the thing is that on tiny maps you probably wont be able to get to them if the opponent puts his mind to it. Why not? I can get roaches out in time on any map, right now - unless I try to fast-expand first, which is risky (and rightly so) when rush distances are short. What's wrong with giving Zerg the tools to play differently on different maps?
Sure you can get Roaches out in time, but these cost LARVAE which could have been Drones instead. This effectively slows down your economy the same way a successful harrass with 5-6 dead Drones does; it just feels better. You could also 6-pool on every map, but why doesnt any Zerg do it? Because it is bad for long term economy and getting Roaches out [too] early is the same.
On September 26 2010 18:56 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +Modifying a unit so heavily as you suggested is going to cause more imbalance problems than just making maps "as big as they were in BW". The balance between units seems fairly good atm and fights can go either way, I agree there will be some knock-on effects. I'm not sure how terribly serious they will be. All we're talking about is being able to shoot up and be a little more robust against marauders. Right now, Hydras aren't seeing much play in ZvT so I wouldn't necessarily agree with your assessment that the units are fine as they are.
The game is balanced unitwise ... much much much more than the systematic "harrassment = dead Zerg" and "pylon-ramp-block" problems. Really imbalanced units do not exist anymore and any "pushiver fights" result more from one building units which are vulnerable to the units of the other side than true imbalance. Obviously - taking the IQ of the average forum idiot into account - that doesnt stop people from whining about Siege Tanks, Force Fields and whatever.
Truly imbalanced units are those which will win you the game by only building that one unit. The 1-food Roach with 2 armor was such a case and the Marauder with Stimpack gets fairly close to it as well. [I would say that that dropping Stimpack from Marauders is a necessary thing, because they are too efficient in their drop-kill-Nexus-capability. Having a unit which can slow an enemy and haste itself is too good as well; either but not both is good.]
On September 26 2010 18:56 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +so changing one units that heavily is not a wise choice to do, because it has implications for the late game and might destabilize the whole thing. We have quite a few big tournaments running already and making such huge changes is not a good thing IMO. Sorry, but you can't justify maintaining a game in a broken state on those grounds. Also, I might be wrong, but isn't it possible to start a custom match, save it, and then load and continue it even after a patch? Tournament organisers could create a large pool of such saves and use them to complete tourneys with consistent settings.
You might get a working balance for your suggestions, BUT we arent in beta anymore and with a "permanently running" GSL with a big amount of money on the line and a lot of other big and small tournaments we do not have the time to do this anymore. Maybe for an expansion, but I doubt that would be a good time either.
On September 26 2010 18:56 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +The poll in THIS thread shows a significant majority of people agreeing with me on the map size issue. At - currently - 431 votes it isnt a large sample, but it should be large enough to give a clear indication of the discontent with the map size. I'm not going to argue with what people want. I just don't think it's the answer to this issue.
That is your right, but people want bigger maps for more than balance reasons. The complaint that SC2 maps are too small in comparison to BW has been around since the beginning of beta, although it was only a secondary issue compared to the problems of balancing the units.
Just remember: On a large map you can go for a much more interesting macro game and much wider variety of strategies than on a small map. The Nydus Network is used as a "direct assault vehicle" atm, but it could also be used as a "proxy pylon" for Zerg in a hidden position close to the base of your enemy. You could use it to surround your opponent and strike his army from the back. None of these tactics are viable on the current Maps and there may be others which arent used on the tiny maps. BW has a "containment" as a viable strategy and in the case of Terrans it involves a lot of bunkers and turrets outside the enemies base. I havent seen a game like that yet and most of the time the players just push into the base and "kill or be killed".
|
The patch was very late, a lot has changed since they determined they were releasing this patch.
I feel like if there's an issue with TvZ and PvZ blizzard should tweak Z, not P and T.
|
^ You do not have any mutalisks by the time you need to react to ANYTHING. This is one of the core problems with Zerg, they have absolutely no offense until mutalisks. Terran and Protoss can hold off infinite tier 1 units with no change to their builds at all.
|
On September 27 2010 18:11 Rabiator wrote:
Changing the map size is a really simple solution to these problems with the timing. Since the units themselves seem fairly balanced it is the easiest solution.
That's the point though: it's not a timing problem.
Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 18:56 Umpteen wrote:
I respectfully disagree. As I highlighted in my blog, quantity is a terrible substitute for the 'right' tech in early-game SC2 ZvT, unlike in SC1. And it does nothing for the lack of zerg aggressive options.
Furthermore, ramping up map sizes damages Zerg's ability to scout far more than it delays Terran forces, because overlords are so slow. So a Terran uses Hellions to scout and not a simple SCV? I think there is a bug in that logic somewhere. You cant just take the best thing from one side and the worst from another and compare them. On a large 4-player-map most good Zerg use a Drone to scout anyways, so what is the big problem?
No, Terran uses workers and then scans to scout and Hellions to come and ruin my economy. Hellion production, just like Banshee and Reaper production, can easily be hidden from drones and lings. Further delaying the arrival of my overlord gives Terran that much more time to prepare his choice of nasty early-game surprise without meaningfully increasing the time I have to work on my defence and economy. And you're forgetting proxy builds, which are very low-risk against Zerg now because Terran buildings can fly and I have to tech to T2 before I can shoot upwards anywhere outside my own base.
The reason delaying aggression by a few seconds won't help is that Zerg still has to have prepared the exact appropriate response, no more and no less, or he'll lose. It's not about not having enough stuff, it's about having rolled the dice and made the wrong stuff.
Zerg players always rant on about scouting and how hard of a time they have while totally forgetting that scouting+reacting=defensive play and that puts you on the road to lose eventually most of the time. If a Terran is able to harrass them left and right with just a few units and all they can do is defend they will die to the "big push". You need to get the active role and on a larger map it is far easier / safer to get a sizeable stack of Mutalisks out than on a small map and dont say that Mutas suck at scouting and harrassing. Taking the offensive is MUCH easier with these units!
I understand what you're trying to do, because I too agree that 'improved scouting for Zerg' would be fixing the wrong problem. But larger maps wouldn't fix the right problem, either.
One important thing: Terrans are supposedly immobile and Zerg are supposedly mobile, but on a small map these advantages / disadvantages are practically negated. If you can cover 20% of the map with a bunch of sieged tanks it doesnt matter that they cant move [Steppes of War center of the map ...]
I quite agree, but that's a different, later-game issue.
Sure you can get Roaches out in time, but these cost LARVAE which could have been Drones instead. This effectively slows down your economy the same way a successful harrass with 5-6 dead Drones does; it just feels better. You could also 6-pool on every map, but why doesnt any Zerg do it? Because it is bad for long term economy and getting Roaches out [too] early is the same.
With respect, you're not thinking this through quite far enough. The problem with getting roaches out in time is not that they could have been drones. The problem, against Terran, is that they're roaches. Forced defensive roaches is fine vs Protoss because the early-game arms-race is pretty stable: lings and roaches can hold the fort and even be aggressive until muta/hydra. Even If I make roaches when I didn't need to, Protoss can legitimately interpret that as potential early aggression and end up sacrificing his own economy to insure against it (units, cannons etc).
If Terran sees me make a bunch of roaches or lings unnecessarily, he can relax. He knows my economy and tech is lagging, and he knows I'm not mobilizing an early push because there aren't any viable early pushes for Z against T. He can macro up, make his choice of hard-counter unit and attack at his leisure. If he sees me neglecting roaches, on the other hand, he can punish me with reapers or hellions in my mineral line very, very quickly - and larger maps aren't going to help that to any significant degree.
I tried to expound on the subject of stability in my blog; presumably not well enough though  A stable game is one where decisions and mistakes have consequences in terms of what the right next move is on both sides and how closely each side is approaching victory, but where it takes a real clanger of a mistake or a shockingly bad decision to topple straight from 'doing fine' into defeat with no second chances. A good game is one where stability ramps up quickly and then gradually decays. Everything from football to poker to tennis to chess to monopoly to Mario to SC:BW obeys that cardinal rule. Games that are inherently unstable in high level play, like snooker, are played as lengthy BoX's to impose a more desirable stability curve.
If ZvT were symmetrically unstable, then BoX's would be an adequate solution. But it's not. Right now, it's all but impossible for a Terran player to make a decision or mistake in the early game that will cause them to just straight-up lose or suffer economically versus Zerg, and those that do exist, like not walling-in, are trivial to avoid. On the other hand, Zerg is faced with a series of limited-info choices and micro challenges, failure at any one of which spells defeat, success meaning that the game continues with little real advantage gained, and overwhelming success meaning that he's screwed three minutes down the line because, unlike Terran, he can't follow-through a crushing defensive win with aggression and thus exact commensurate economic damage.
The game is balanced unitwise ... much much much more than the systematic "harrassment = dead Zerg" and "pylon-ramp-block" problems. Really imbalanced units do not exist anymore and any "pushiver fights" result more from one building units which are vulnerable to the units of the other side than true imbalance.
I quite agree. The problem is, in ZvT I have no choice but to make units that are vulnerable to those of the other side. It's like some mad paper/scissors/stone where one guy gets two goes.
You might get a working balance for your suggestions, BUT we arent in beta anymore and with a "permanently running" GSL with a big amount of money on the line and a lot of other big and small tournaments we do not have the time to do this anymore. Maybe for an expansion, but I doubt that would be a good time either.
Blizzard could do what they have with WoW and make patch servers to conduct live beta-testing while leaving the main servers unchanged. Or the custom-game-save thing would work; bit of a chore but it only needs doing once and then publishing online for all tourneys to use - assuming it works, of course; I haven't tested it.
That is your right, but people want bigger maps for more than balance reasons. The complaint that SC2 maps are too small in comparison to BW has been around since the beginning of beta, although it was only a secondary issue compared to the problems of balancing the units.
Like I said, I'm not going to argue with you about people wanting bigger maps, provided their reasons aren't that it'll fix ZvT
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
