|
If you have criticism, you need to address the content, not the hosts. Idra and Artosis are 2 (1.5) Zerg players, but you can't point that out and then blanket them as biased. Respond to the content.
You can't tell them to "get 2 Terran and Protoss players". That's fucking obtuse advice. "Yo just get 4 more high level players to record with you." Yes, I think everyone sees the value in getting it, but it's not practical.
Respond to the content and use evidence / logic to back up your claims. |
On February 03 2011 12:21 Zerokaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 12:18 AlBundy wrote:On February 03 2011 12:16 Zerokaiser wrote:On February 03 2011 12:14 AlBundy wrote:
Is it me or does this show smells "passive-aggressive"? Just my feelings though.
2 people agreeing that x unit is imba during 25 minutes might be cool to some spectators, but this is way too one-sided. Why not talk about both sides of the issue? Maybe bring up the topic from a different point of view, play the devil's advocate or whatnot. I had hoped that at least they'd show some theorycraft, or unit testing, or in-game scenario or even replays in order to back up their claims, but all I heard is "collossus dps OP, corruptor dps UP".
Thank you very much, but I can read that kind of stuff all day every day on TL forums.
Pro-level, sure, but it does not mean that your opinion is true and unquestionable. I'm sure you have a lot of experience playing Protoss, and playing against Protoss, but before talking about balance, you need to make sure that you get the whole picture. To me this show wasn't insightful at all, and again, too one-sided.
All in all I'm a bit disappointed, I guess the controversial title of the show is what attracted me, but well... That's alright Artosis and Idra, we get it, Z is UP <3 Why don't you stop the masochism and switch races once & for all?
Artosis did switch races, and the video is mostly about rebalancing Protoss so that it doesn't rely on what might be an overpowered unit. Would you rather have Colossus be overpowered, or the entire Protoss race be more viable and flexible? That's what they're talking about, Yes, reworking P core mechanics is the way to go. Get rid of wargate tech would be a good start, you know what I mean? So, the former. I didn't say a fucking thing about reworking core mechanics, and I definitely didn't say something about warpgate tech. Don't put words in my mouth and don't troll. Go rewatch the video, and this time disable the part of your brain that renders you incapable of hearing things you don't want to hear.
Again there is no real insight in this show. They may be pro-level but their game design and balance design experience is limited. They are not game developers. Talking about making the "Protoss race be more viable and flexible", which is, IMO, not only related to numbers but more importantly to the race's core mechanics, requires a lot more insight than straight up player experience.
|
Maybe nerf Colossi some (minimal--something like 5% damage redux or 5% buildtime increase--but enough to make HTs more desirable). Then make HTs easier to get (i.e. 50 gas off Templar Archives or Storm research) but nerf Amulet (make it increase regen by 15% instead of increase starting energy) so it doesn't ruin everything
|
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote:
Even though I actually enjoyed watching this introductory episode, I still think this entire show is a horrible idea. You've obviously chosen a subject close to your interests and it's obviously going to provide you with a ridiculous amounts of viewers that want to hear all about how their opponents have an unfair advantage. It's not, however, in the interest of the SC2 community.
TeamLiquid is already overrun with hundreds of brainless bronze Zergs that cling to every word IdrA says and will go rampaging through the forums every time the magic word *imbalance* is proclaimed. For every person that can see through obvious bias, oversimplification and exaggeration there are at least two that don't or won't and it shows in the continuous degradation of TL's SC2 Strategy Forums.
You explain how Starcraft 2 should be balanced around top level play since that's where the variable of "skill" relatively has the least influence. You fail to discuss though, the human factor, and what makes someone an objective judge of balance. Because let's face it, both you, IdrA and Artosis, are biased towards Zerg in the same way you were biased towards Terran when you played that race in BW. You're both easily the most vocal and quick in claiming imbalance in both versions of Starcraft and one can't help but notice that the arrow is always pointed at things that are disadvantageous to your race of play.
Even though I can see that you've tried to at least make logical steps of reasoning, it's still so obvious that you're both not objective in your judgement. You talk a little bit about Colossi in TvP and how it's balanced there, but watching that as spectator you just feel your disinterest in the subject and how you seem to be getting that part out of the way to get to the point you "really" want to talk about. Which becomes pretty obvious when Artosis says "now let's talk about Colossi in ZvP" and you both can't help but get a huge grin on your face since you get to tell it's overpowered.
You have both stated to not be familiar enough with other races than Zerg to play them at a competetive level. Doesn't that say enough about the validity of your judgement as two talented, but still biased Zerg players?
You talk about the Colossus being a weapon of choice in all MU's and how it seriously obliterates ground. Concluding that it's too hard for Zerg to balance Corrupter count together with the economy required to churn them out. But that's obviously just 1 side of the story, you don't mention how Protoss gateway units all get totally raped by Roach/ Hydra, which is the reason why Toss needs ranged splash damage in the first place. The relative weakness of the core gateway units needs the additional DPS of Storm and Colossi for it to be cost-efficient. And since Storm is such an expensive and long tech path, Colossi are practically always the unit of choice to survive through midgame.
Basically, I feel that the only ones that are benefited by such a show are yourselves; whilst SC communities like the ones on TL, SCReddit and even the Bnet forums are left to deal with even more irrational balance whines than there are now.
SPOT ON! Sounds like you should replace them hehe  ...but honestly...it would be more beneficial if there was a representative for each race that the community can agree upon for instance...Protoss I would like incontrol or tyler to represent and so on...this way we can have an overall perspective of MU's and thoughts on units
|
hahaha i was seriously gonna flame this thread so hard because most people try to make the most random excuses for why there race is the weakest or another is more overpowered. however when i saw it was an artosis video i got so excited. haha wish i could watch now, but i dont have 30 mins to spare just yet. hope this continually gets updated; everything looks good so far 
|
On February 03 2011 11:42 Rodregeus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 10:30 blade55555 wrote:On February 03 2011 10:27 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
"Zerg are so underpowered, nerf terran!"
*Zergs dominate GSL*
"You can't say Zerg are fine just because they won GSLs!"
*Terrans dominate GSL*
"OMG, Terran is raping GSL, look how many terrans! Clearly overpowered! There's no zerg representation!"
OK Zerg users, spell it out for us. Are we, or are we not allowed to infer balance conclusions from GSLs? Because once upon a time, we weren't allowed. But now that's what you're doing. Is it because it's convenient to do so now?
So transparent. I think you have something wrong "zergs dominate GSL" is completely wrong. Winning GSL and dominating are completely different. GSL1, Fruitdealer didnt' even "dominate" (almost lost vs TOP) every other zerg was out by ro16 I believe? GSL2 Nestea dominated through almost the entire GSL not zergs just nestea. GSL3 again zergs didn't dominate. As far as I know zergs have never "dominated" a GSL just a zerg has won it twice, winning a GSL and dominating are completely different ^^ I would just like to point out, That in a game with 3 races. Zerg has won exactly 50% of GSL finals. Along with the fact that zerg has been the least represented from the start, by about half that of Terran. Making their base chance at winning the GSL much slimmer than terrans. Even if the game was perfectly balanced, and GSL had 50% terrans, 25% Zerg and 25% protoss, Terran would still be more likely to win as a race because there are more there to begin with. Basically, less Zergs manage to beat out more terrans, for 50% of GSL wins in a game with 3 races. I hardly think that shows that zerg is UP at all. :/ It's all just carry over from beta, the game has changed since then.
Ok I hate to derail this thread even more but lets put this to bed once and for all. Zerg did not "dominate" anything as far as GSL is concerned. There had been 3 open seasons before this for a total of 24 Ro8 players. I pick Ro8 as this was a significant milestone in each tournament format and it just looks even worse if you only consider quarter-finalists. Of these 24 spots 11 were Terran, 6 were Zerg, and 7 were Protoss. Furthermore these 6 zerg spots were the work of just 4 players, whereas 9 different Terrans made round of 8, and 6 different Protoss took top 8 spots. On the whole Zerg did not do very well in the GSL. Cool and Zergbong did well in the GSL. The only other Zergs able to even crack the top 8 were Zenio and a one hit wonder by Kirix. Both of these in Season 2, which took place right after a major balance patch in which most the previous top players struggled to figure zerg out for a little while.
Is this proof that Zerg is weak? No probably not. But the notion that they "dominated" or even performed particularly well in the GSL is pretty silly.
|
I liked the video O.O but I'm not really sure why the inControl style of heavy stalkers-1 robo colossi is more imbalanced versus zerg than it is versus terran. Are stalkers that much better against corruptors than they are against vikings?
|
Honestly the idea of the show is good but lets be real here this would never be really that great for most to watch unless it had a panel of pro random players which are almost non-existent. Having a person each represent a race would still be a disaster because then they show would just be a show that has 3 people trying to defend why they need a unit or ability the way it currently is. As a matter of fact the show is better with 2 bias players who are bias toward the same race rather than a panel of 1-2 players from each race because it would just be a 30 minute argument and nothing would be discussed.
The reason you need random players is because, well, they play a random and even though I'm not saying they won't have a bias toward a certain race or MU I think we can all agree that they would have the least amount of bias overall. The fact that the two people who decided to host this show were IdrA and Artosis, well I find it funny that people don't understand where all the negativity is coming from. That would be like MorroW hosting a balance show when he played terran, could you imagine that thread?
Anyway my point is you can never really have a show about imbalanced unless you have an un-bias panel of people who are skilled and knowledgeable enough to actually have an interesting discussion about the game. This will only appeal mostly to zerg players the same way a show hosted by 2 terrans would appeal more to terran players and zerg and protoss would be in that thread saying how they don't like it.
Again, cool idea but probably not the best hosts. Someone said that this will just be more "ammunition" for people to go straight for the imba card rather than the my skill card. I expect to see this show as another reference people can use when complaining about a race mechanic, unit or ability all because "IdrA and Artosis said it's imbalanced on their show."
|
On February 03 2011 12:30 MajorityofOne wrote:
I liked the video O.O but I'm not really sure why the inControl style of heavy stalkers-1 robo colossi is more imbalanced versus zerg than it is versus terran. Are stalkers that much better against corruptors than they are against vikings?
Corruptors have to enter the stalker range of fire in order to hit the colossus, whereas vikings have a greater range and are not right on top of the stalker ball when they fire. So more stalkers = more damage on the corruptors vs Z, but that's not necessarily true vs T.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
Discuss Terran thank you very much.
|
On February 03 2011 12:30 Aquafresh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 11:42 Rodregeus wrote:On February 03 2011 10:30 blade55555 wrote:On February 03 2011 10:27 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
"Zerg are so underpowered, nerf terran!"
*Zergs dominate GSL*
"You can't say Zerg are fine just because they won GSLs!"
*Terrans dominate GSL*
"OMG, Terran is raping GSL, look how many terrans! Clearly overpowered! There's no zerg representation!"
OK Zerg users, spell it out for us. Are we, or are we not allowed to infer balance conclusions from GSLs? Because once upon a time, we weren't allowed. But now that's what you're doing. Is it because it's convenient to do so now?
So transparent. I think you have something wrong "zergs dominate GSL" is completely wrong. Winning GSL and dominating are completely different. GSL1, Fruitdealer didnt' even "dominate" (almost lost vs TOP) every other zerg was out by ro16 I believe? GSL2 Nestea dominated through almost the entire GSL not zergs just nestea. GSL3 again zergs didn't dominate. As far as I know zergs have never "dominated" a GSL just a zerg has won it twice, winning a GSL and dominating are completely different ^^ I would just like to point out, That in a game with 3 races. Zerg has won exactly 50% of GSL finals. Along with the fact that zerg has been the least represented from the start, by about half that of Terran. Making their base chance at winning the GSL much slimmer than terrans. Even if the game was perfectly balanced, and GSL had 50% terrans, 25% Zerg and 25% protoss, Terran would still be more likely to win as a race because there are more there to begin with. Basically, less Zergs manage to beat out more terrans, for 50% of GSL wins in a game with 3 races. I hardly think that shows that zerg is UP at all. :/ It's all just carry over from beta, the game has changed since then. Ok I hate to derail this thread even more but lets put this to bed once and for all. Zerg did not "dominate" anything as far as GSL is concerned. There had been 3 open seasons before this for a total of 24 Ro8 players. I pick Ro8 as this was a significant milestone in each tournament format and it just looks even worse if you only consider quarter-finalists. Of these 24 spots 11 were Terran, 6 were Zerg, and 7 were Protoss. Furthermore these 6 zerg spots were the work of just 4 players, whereas 9 different Terrans made round of 8, and 6 different Protoss took top 8 spots. On the whole Zerg did not do very well in the GSL. Cool and Zergbong did well in the GSL. The only other Zergs able to even crack the top 8 were Zenio and a one hit wonder by Kirix. Both of these in Season 2, which took place right after a major balance patch in which most the previous top players struggled to figure zerg out for a little while. Is this proof that Zerg is weak? No probably not. But the notion that they "dominated" or even performed particularly well in the GSL is pretty silly.
Including the GOM All Star Invitational, Zerg has won 3/5 of the top GOM tournaments (2 GSL wns + 1 GOM All Star Invitational). I'm sorry, but one can argue that Zerg is pretty powerful.
|
Canada11369 Posts
I don't know about a lot of these complaints. I'm generally of the Day9, speak-not-of-imbalance camp and am generally cautious of idra's complaints on imbalance.
However, I feel most of the 'this is only fodder for bronze level qq' missed the first 8min of the show. They were careful to define their terms, noted that the type of imbalance they are talking about could possibly a meta-game issue, (or map), but not necessarily a patch issue.
They also specifically said at the low level players mostly have skills to improve- it's only at the top level that one needs worry about imbalance.
I don't know, I thought it was a good show- as a toss player I feel Colossus does seem the better path more times than templar does- I wish templar tech was a better tech choice compared to robo.
|
Protoss has to tech to Colossi b/c of the mid game transition that Z and T go for...Bio destroys gateway units and that's the typical transition 95% T go for...Protoss can't tech to air units b/c of how effective Marines are against those so we are forced to tech one path...yes HTs would be another way to go but Protoss' army will be significantly weak b/c of the resources...HTs are less than Colossi but the damage Colossi beats HTs...Zerg loves to go roach/hydra which destroys gateway units..Protoss can't tech to air units against that as Hydras melt VRs and Phoenixes so we are forced to tech Colossi...
It's a cycle all races have to deal with until we break out of the norm like Kiwikaki. Unlike IdrA's comment about how Protoss revolves around the Colossi, Kiwikaki begs to differ as his build relies heavily on the Mothership. He's breaking out of the norm and showing us a new way of playing of the game...I think people need to stop playing the standard way and reach out for new styles...Idra is known for playing standard/boring where nothing fancy happens...if he uses his macro skills and creativity, I'm sure he can find a way to break out of the norm
|
On February 03 2011 12:11 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +Artosis plays Protoss.
If you actually listened to what they were saying instead of hearing what you wanted to hear, you'd realize that IdrA in particular thinks Protoss could use redesigning so that it DOESN'T rely on the Colossus. He doesn't want Colossus nerfed into the ground so that Protoss has nothing, he wants the race to be better balanced in different areas so that Protoss has different options in all of it's matchups.
People who are bitching about this video are bitching because all they're capable of hearing is Zerg QQ, when in reality the video was more about how centralized Protoss is around the Colossus than anything else.
Take your hands off of your ears and actually listen. Artosis and IdrA want a balanced game just like everybody else, and other professional players agree with them. As a matter of fact, Seraphic, YOU agree with them, but you didn't even realize it because you didn't listen to what they were saying. This is a fantastic response to the post by Saechiis that every single person feels the need to quote in this thread.
Word.
|
I really enjoyed it actually and thought it was very fair, i've sent an email of things i've thought in response thats probably so long that it makes me look like a weirdo but i think the game is wrong in some ways and possibly imbalanced in others and it is only right to discuss it fairly and properly.
I think the balance of moderation is usually right on TL and clearly stupid posts do get the bans and warnings they deserve. However i think also there has been no real place for the genuine debate on TL unfortunately and with the response any mention of imbalance gets and the straight up trolling on here and other forums too its difficult to imagine it being possible. i'm hoping youtube will make a better medium for this then. while youtube commenters are even worse than anything else on the internet artosis and idra (idrosis??? ) can do some quality control and only respond to the meaningful emails and comments. Its true they probably ought to get some terran or protoss player as well to balance them (we all know artosis heart is zerg really lol, even if he is playing toss now).
|
Can't believe how many people cite GSL winners and don't look at any other important statistics like who's in the top 8 etc. Facepalm.
|
I think it's interesting two hear to well known, and well versed, players talk about 'it', the balance issue in a RTS game that is a continually growing e-sport.
I'd be interested in hearing the discussion not simply be a "at the end of the day I feel x is overpowered, i.e. a balance issue exists". What would be better is if the show was prefaced with a "this is why we are doing this" statement so that the process and conclusions aren't misunderstood by the general public viewing it. For example, the goal could be to educate or arrive at a lowest common denominator knowledge or generally accepted agreement over what works or doesn't work in the matchups and why. Or it could be to raise the visibility of problems in the hopes they are readily addressed, and with the assistance of your discussion. - Or I could just be stating the obvious, I guess I came away from the show wanting the next step of the discussion so naturally I asked the age old question - why?
Weighing in on the particular content of this episode (I am a Protoss player myself) I don't think it is strange that the Collosus is the game-defining unit that it is. It is the Protoss' most readily available (safe/efficient) splash unit, granted getting a Robo for mobile detection is almost always the reccomended course of action. There are also, relatively few units at the disposal of Protoss, even fewer for Zerg, and it doesn't surpirse me that before xpacs there will be spotlight/crutch units that heavily relied on. All that said, I do agree that Collosus vs. Zerg is arguably more difficult to deal with than it could/should be. I guess the question becomes is this a function of the tools Zerg has to deal with it (should the Corrupter be more like the Viking?) or does the Collosus itself need to be toned down, and what would the ramifications of either of these changes be on the other matchups?
Much enjoyed and looking forward to future episodes.
|
On February 03 2011 12:34 StarcraftMan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 12:30 Aquafresh wrote:On February 03 2011 11:42 Rodregeus wrote:On February 03 2011 10:30 blade55555 wrote:On February 03 2011 10:27 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
"Zerg are so underpowered, nerf terran!"
*Zergs dominate GSL*
"You can't say Zerg are fine just because they won GSLs!"
*Terrans dominate GSL*
"OMG, Terran is raping GSL, look how many terrans! Clearly overpowered! There's no zerg representation!"
OK Zerg users, spell it out for us. Are we, or are we not allowed to infer balance conclusions from GSLs? Because once upon a time, we weren't allowed. But now that's what you're doing. Is it because it's convenient to do so now?
So transparent. I think you have something wrong "zergs dominate GSL" is completely wrong. Winning GSL and dominating are completely different. GSL1, Fruitdealer didnt' even "dominate" (almost lost vs TOP) every other zerg was out by ro16 I believe? GSL2 Nestea dominated through almost the entire GSL not zergs just nestea. GSL3 again zergs didn't dominate. As far as I know zergs have never "dominated" a GSL just a zerg has won it twice, winning a GSL and dominating are completely different ^^ I would just like to point out, That in a game with 3 races. Zerg has won exactly 50% of GSL finals. Along with the fact that zerg has been the least represented from the start, by about half that of Terran. Making their base chance at winning the GSL much slimmer than terrans. Even if the game was perfectly balanced, and GSL had 50% terrans, 25% Zerg and 25% protoss, Terran would still be more likely to win as a race because there are more there to begin with. Basically, less Zergs manage to beat out more terrans, for 50% of GSL wins in a game with 3 races. I hardly think that shows that zerg is UP at all. :/ It's all just carry over from beta, the game has changed since then. Ok I hate to derail this thread even more but lets put this to bed once and for all. Zerg did not "dominate" anything as far as GSL is concerned. There had been 3 open seasons before this for a total of 24 Ro8 players. I pick Ro8 as this was a significant milestone in each tournament format and it just looks even worse if you only consider quarter-finalists. Of these 24 spots 11 were Terran, 6 were Zerg, and 7 were Protoss. Furthermore these 6 zerg spots were the work of just 4 players, whereas 9 different Terrans made round of 8, and 6 different Protoss took top 8 spots. On the whole Zerg did not do very well in the GSL. Cool and Zergbong did well in the GSL. The only other Zergs able to even crack the top 8 were Zenio and a one hit wonder by Kirix. Both of these in Season 2, which took place right after a major balance patch in which most the previous top players struggled to figure zerg out for a little while. Is this proof that Zerg is weak? No probably not. But the notion that they "dominated" or even performed particularly well in the GSL is pretty silly. Including the GOM All Star Invitational, Zerg has won 3/5 of the top GOM tournaments (2 GSL wns + 1 GOM All Star Invitational). I'm sorry, but one can argue that Zerg is pretty powerful.
No, one cannot really argue balance from tournament results at all, whether one is arguing that Zerg is powerful or not. You need a massive data pool that only two groups of people approach access to: those with thousands of games played at the highest level (i.e. progamers) and the developers of the game.
Whether you like it or not, Idra is definitely one of the people whose voice should be heard on balance.
|
On February 03 2011 12:30 MajorityofOne wrote:
I liked the video O.O but I'm not really sure why the inControl style of heavy stalkers-1 robo colossi is more imbalanced versus zerg than it is versus terran. Are stalkers that much better against corruptors than they are against vikings?
Because stalkers are much worse vs marauders than roaches and it's much harder to protect vs vikings due to range, hence why Colossi/Phoenix play happens a fair bit. Generally PvT compositions are a bit more chargelot skewed rather than stalker heavy because stalkers go down faster than a free hooker. Corrupters tend to hover over your stalkers even while flanking and you can simply FF roaches away so they can barely hit your front rank of stalkers while the back ranks kill corrupters.
|
i am actually kinda curious on the unit they are going to do next
|
it think this series is a good idea actually
from it there can be discussions, not only on why certain units or builds are strong, but smart and interesting ways to deal with them while we wait on a patch. Or if there is no patch to address certain concerns then we develop ways to deal with them, as we should anyway.
This series will only help to facilitate healthy discussion.
however i don't feel most people here have it within them to discuss balance in a mature and reasonable way. (exhibit A....99% of replies in this thread)
either artosis and idra are the greatest trolls with this series....or they are trying to use their knowledge and experience to expand the strategies of the game
either way they rock and i can't wait for the next installment
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
