The Battlecry of the Damned: Imbalance - Page 11

On January 09 2011 22:12 peterra wrote:
I've to type out that I am having a huge disagreement with this post overall.

The points you raise up are good to a valid point but you cannot possibly IN ANY WAY forbid people of talking/writing about points that are obviously -disturbing- the gameplay of the game.

I am not a SC:BW player but instead a Warcraft 3 player. In Warcraft 3 the game always was MORE IMBALANCED and OVERPOWERED than the Starcraft:Broodwar ever was and ever will be.

And trust me, in Warcraft 3, Blizzard just did not care for the game after the first 3 years at all. People were screaming for changes and people didn't get changes at all. People used years and years to be innovative and to come up with new strategies in the imbalanced matchups: UD vs. Orc was imbalanced back 2004 and back 2011 the matchup is still just as imbalanced as it was the first day of 2004.

What your post at its best accomplishes is trying to hide the problem and silence the opposition. Game world does not work like this, real life does not work like this. Problems won't disappear if you ignore them. Imbalances of the game won't disappear when you ignore them and try to hide it "hey it's alright my build order just sucks so much that i cannot win in this situation"

First of everything I'll go deeper to this, i am trying to define you what IMBALANCE in matter of fact means to me (dunno if it means the same for the others but it definitely means the following for me):

Imbalance is a point or stance of the game when your opponent to a reason irrelevant to his skill level, style or early game success reaches an -undeniable- advantage, which is easier to pull out than it is to pull off.

For instance for myself, as a player of the zerg race, i consider protoss the race of problems at this point. Why? Because protoss has relatively good cheeses which _MUST BE_ scouted in order to be countered but along the line protoss has a possibility to expand early which is hard to stop and which automatically leads to a macrogame. This process of protoss going to a macrogame is very hard to stop and requires you to 1) all-in and wish for the best 2) try to play the macrogame where you most likely lose in the long run.

A good protoss that knows the basics of his race knows how to get the game to the stage of the macrogame. He knows how to defend early roach pushes, how to defend his early expansion and he also knows to scout his opponent. When protoss gets high tier units (standard units like colossi) the game turns into a nightmare for the opponent automatically. A traditional combination of protoss stalkers, zealots, sentries and colossi and i bet you if both players have reached a traditional army combination of their representive race to that point of time it wouldn't matter if the game was paused and the players would change places - the zerg to become the protoss and the protoss to become the zerg, i bet you the winner would still be the same.

That's how I count something is imbalanced: when using a special type of army that both players might consider a standard obviously grants one of the players a huge advantage in the fight. The process or zerg vs. protoss in the midgame when protoss steps to high templars or colossus is so unfair and no matter who controls that protoss army seems to win the game.

I've been following the games of pro zerg against pro protoss lately and the only successful zerg at the moment appears to be SEN who always seems to be way ahead his opponent in both thought process and skill. When i watch GSL and see nestea and fruitdealer totally losing to -cheesy strategies- followed by an expansion and lategame i only feel sorry for the zerg players.

Also pointing out some noteable facts that everyone in the diamond league is familiar with:
protoss seems to be the most played race atm. You usually get 3/5 of the games against protoss and the rest of 2 shared games between zergs and terrans. Protoss seems to also have the best percents in higher leagues and also seems to be represented the best atm. I'd like to see that top 200 and those new percents of each matchup in every realm. Last time Protoss had a slice of 60% vs. terran and a slice of 55% vs. zerg in both Europe and America.

And I know that there're tons of things i can still do better but what really hits me hard is the fact that protoss players don't have to do that any better. Good protoss players seem to have fun playing atm since i feel like some of them are making really huge errors during the early game and really losing a lot and even when i watch those replays of mine several times i cannot figure out how did i play worse and that hits me straight to the fact. I sometimes send those games to fellow zerg players and their answers are "well i've got the problem every time so i think you should just to try to finish the game before and all-in" when i am a macroplayer wanting to oriantate to win the game later.

I think it's an unfair slice that one race has an army that automatically (independant of positioning and with very little micro required) can so easily win a huge fight vs. equal pop of the opponent race. Think about colossi for instance: they're huge - probably the easiest single unit to micro in the game with a lot of hp and only losing when the opponent gets absolutely close. Comparing this situation to the counters and how much micro do they need to work out _that well_ is a completely unfair situation and that situation is nearly always something you need to go in. The only way to prevent the creation of this type of army of a protoss players is to go mass air which wins when he doesn't know he has phoenix which are buffed for the next patch to further buest protosses chances of adaption.

I think the game still has these tweaks and where i agree with you that writing short useless posts without any point or thought about imbalance is waste of the community i also think that trying to hide the imbalance and the overpower of some "traditional" situations and the fact that player neeeds more than a small change into the build order is also wrong. The game is still new and full of small errors, even if the game experience so far has been smoother than in war3 i still think you shouldn't consider that it's balanced yet.

On January 11 2011 17:01 BeatriX wrote:
hmm.... seems like a good post but when i repeated again the post is logically flawed .u can't hide a problem by ignoring it. You are trying to say that "if there are imbalance, just deal with it". for example, Thor drop, tank drop on Lost temple against zerg is clealy imbalanced. That map need to be fixed ASAP u can't ignore that.

Actually i wouldn't be surprise if OP play terran because only terran players don't whine about imbalance and make this kind of holy post. I presume that OP is either "gold" or "platinum" because i geniunely felt that the game is completely balanced when i was in platinum and i had the same thought as OP. But there are quite a lot of abusable things in sc2 to be honest. for exampe, pylon cannon contain, Polt attack and thor-scv repair against protoss are remarkably powerful. The opponent has to do quite a lot of works just to counter simple a-move then there are already quite a lot of issues there.

I don't know why so many people support this post and like this post... to me it's like a dictator is trying to cloud people's mind by by saying "hey who cares if South korea is rich and have access to high speed internet, we have Huts and 56k modem internet which deliver the same result we just need to wait 1000 times longer than south korean internet to download a 3mb file. it's balance, stop whine, just be patience."