EPTIMBALANCED! - Introduction - Page 40
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
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. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
| ||
|
BandonBanshee
Canada437 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
a) there is such a thing as "balance" at all and b) that there is some gross unfairness to yell and complain about. The whole first sentence "... the show about IMbalance" shows what the intention behind it is: to whine and yell and rage about supposedly bad things in SC2. It is NOT about seeking ways to make the game more fair for each matchup! Why isnt it a show for those with overinflated egos? Arent those the ones who cry "IMBALANCE" first when they cant seem to win against certain things? After this the two hosts go on and give a ton of examples - which may or may not be relevant because they add a lot of conditionals in there ("which may be imbalanced") - to "define imbalance", but with NO WORD are they mentioning maps at all. No word about rush distances on Steppes of War and Scrap Station and those do affect the game balance. FAIL #1 of the show: The impact of maps on balance is sooo important and yet they fail to mention them in their "definition" of imbalance - which simply consisted of a lot of examples with conditional phrases. Does anyone think you can talk about balance and pick just one unit from a whole army? Sure the Colossus is strong, BUT it isnt strong without support, so talking about "Colossus" is a stupid idea. The example of the "beta Roach" was different, because that unit was the only thing the Zerg needed to produce at the time to win easily. In the example "ZvP" the guys arent talking about the Colossus but rather "whining" that the "Corruptor isnt as strong as the Viking". FAIL #2 of the show: They give the Colossus as the "motto" but then talk about inadequacies of "their own units" (as 1.5 Zerg players). Further on they say "the Colossus dictates the game", but is that really true? Does the Zerg have no choice to "dictate the game" himself? I am no Zerg player, but that seems highly unlikely and again Artosis and IdrA are "whining" about no existent tactics to beat a strong Colossus army. But isnt it more important to kill the opponents economy than the opponents army? Later on the maps get mentioned, but 15 minutes of whining are just wasting time of all the viewers. The imbalance of tiny Blizzard maps is so ridiculously obvious that it doesnt warrant a show and in any case the whole show is structured badly and not well thought out. Even Artosis says "a lot of it is map based", but then they continue to whine again about the units. On larger maps the matchups are fine and fair and we just need to get rid of small maps. FAIL #3 of the show: They have the right idea (maps create imbalance or remove it) but fail to talk about it. My judgement on the show: B for the concept F- for effort It is a good thing to try to look at the "fairness" of the game, but the way they do it is simply biased and done in a "whiney tabloid style" without any concept whatsoever. Most of it is just random talk with a lot of phrases like "may be too strong" in it. That does not help proving anything. We also need a good definition for "balance" and which elements of the game figure into it. Artosis and IdrA have only talked about one small aspect and that usually creates whining. | ||
|
BetterFasterStronger
United States604 Posts
On February 04 2011 17:23 Rabiator wrote: When you call a show "IMBALANCED" (in all caps) you are suggesting that a) there is such a thing as "balance" at all and b) that there is some gross unfairness to yell and complain about. The whole first sentence "... the show about IMbalance" shows what the intention behind it is: to whine and yell and rage about supposedly bad things in SC2. It is NOT about seeking ways to make the game more fair for each matchup! Why isnt it a show for those with overinflated egos? Arent those the ones who cry "IMBALANCE" first when they cant seem to win against certain things? After this the two hosts go on and give a ton of examples - which may or may not be relevant because they add a lot of conditionals in there ("which may be imbalanced") - to "define imbalance", but with NO WORD are they mentioning maps at all. No word about rush distances on Steppes of War and Scrap Station and those do affect the game balance. FAIL #1 of the show: The impact of maps on balance is sooo important and yet they fail to mention them in their "definition" of imbalance - which simply consisted of a lot of examples with conditional phrases. Does anyone think you can talk about balance and pick just one unit from a whole army? Sure the Colossus is strong, BUT it isnt strong without support, so talking about "Colossus" is a stupid idea. The example of the "beta Roach" was different, because that unit was the only thing the Zerg needed to produce at the time to win easily. In the example "ZvP" the guys arent talking about the Colossus but rather "whining" that the "Corruptor isnt as strong as the Viking". FAIL #2 of the show: They give the Colossus as the "motto" but then talk about inadequacies of "their own units" (as 1.5 Zerg players). Further on they say "the Colossus dictates the game", but is that really true? Does the Zerg have no choice to "dictate the game" himself? I am no Zerg player, but that seems highly unlikely and again Artosis and IdrA are "whining" about no existent tactics to beat a strong Colossus army. But isnt it more important to kill the opponents economy than the opponents army? Later on the maps get mentioned, but 15 minutes of whining are just wasting time of all the viewers. The imbalance of tiny Blizzard maps is so ridiculously obvious that it doesnt warrant a show and in any case the whole show is structured badly and not well thought out. Even Artosis says "a lot of it is map based", but then they continue to whine again about the units. On larger maps the matchups are fine and fair and we just need to get rid of small maps. FAIL #3 of the show: They have the right idea (maps create imbalance or remove it) but fail to talk about it. My judgement on the show: B for the concept F- for effort It is a good thing to try to look at the "fairness" of the game, but the way they do it is simply biased and done in a "whiney tabloid style" without any concept whatsoever. Most of it is just random talk with a lot of phrases like "may be too strong" in it. That does not help proving anything. We also need a good definition for "balance" and which elements of the game figure into it. Artosis and IdrA have only talked about one small aspect and that usually creates whining. Its stuff like this that is going to get the thread closed again. THIS WAS A THEME EPISODE AROUND THE COLLOSIS NOT EVERYTHING THAT IS POSSIBLY WRONG WITH THE GAME. The topic was about the Collosis and it being to much of a needed unit. Jesus Christ. Anyway. Thank you Artosis/IdrA for starting a show | ||
|
ihavetofartosis
1277 Posts
On February 04 2011 17:23 Rabiator wrote: When you call a show "IMBALANCED" (in all caps) you are suggesting that a) there is such a thing as "balance" at all and b) that there is some gross unfairness to yell and complain about. The whole first sentence "... the show about IMbalance" shows what the intention behind it is: to whine and yell and rage about supposedly bad things in SC2. It is NOT about seeking ways to make the game more fair for each matchup! Why isnt it a show for those with overinflated egos? Arent those the ones who cry "IMBALANCE" first when they cant seem to win against certain things? After this the two hosts go on and give a ton of examples - which may or may not be relevant because they add a lot of conditionals in there ("which may be imbalanced") - to "define imbalance", but with NO WORD are they mentioning maps at all. No word about rush distances on Steppes of War and Scrap Station and those do affect the game balance. FAIL #1 of the show: The impact of maps on balance is sooo important and yet they fail to mention them in their "definition" of imbalance - which simply consisted of a lot of examples with conditional phrases. Does anyone think you can talk about balance and pick just one unit from a whole army? Sure the Colossus is strong, BUT it isnt strong without support, so talking about "Colossus" is a stupid idea. The example of the "beta Roach" was different, because that unit was the only thing the Zerg needed to produce at the time to win easily. In the example "ZvP" the guys arent talking about the Colossus but rather "whining" that the "Corruptor isnt as strong as the Viking". FAIL #2 of the show: They give the Colossus as the "motto" but then talk about inadequacies of "their own units" (as 1.5 Zerg players). Further on they say "the Colossus dictates the game", but is that really true? Does the Zerg have no choice to "dictate the game" himself? I am no Zerg player, but that seems highly unlikely and again Artosis and IdrA are "whining" about no existent tactics to beat a strong Colossus army. But isnt it more important to kill the opponents economy than the opponents army? Later on the maps get mentioned, but 15 minutes of whining are just wasting time of all the viewers. The imbalance of tiny Blizzard maps is so ridiculously obvious that it doesnt warrant a show and in any case the whole show is structured badly and not well thought out. Even Artosis says "a lot of it is map based", but then they continue to whine again about the units. On larger maps the matchups are fine and fair and we just need to get rid of small maps. FAIL #3 of the show: They have the right idea (maps create imbalance or remove it) but fail to talk about it. My judgement on the show: B for the concept F- for effort It is a good thing to try to look at the "fairness" of the game, but the way they do it is simply biased and done in a "whiney tabloid style" without any concept whatsoever. Most of it is just random talk with a lot of phrases like "may be too strong" in it. That does not help proving anything. We also need a good definition for "balance" and which elements of the game figure into it. Artosis and IdrA have only talked about one small aspect and that usually creates whining. The funny thing is, reading your post, it seems like you didn't even watch the video at all. The things you complain about did not occur during the video, there was no whining, it was merely an analysis of certain units and how it effects the races as a whole. | ||
|
Zips
United States146 Posts
On February 04 2011 17:23 Rabiator wrote: My judgement on the show: B for the concept F- for effort It is a good thing to try to look at the "fairness" of the game, but the way they do it is simply biased and done in a "whiney tabloid style" without any concept whatsoever. Most of it is just random talk with a lot of phrases like "may be too strong" in it. That does not help proving anything. Their most legitimate complaint, which I agree with, is the preeminent role of the colossus. That may or may not be due to balance issues; but in this case, balance issues don't matter. The grievance is that colossus' play too central a role in nearly every protoss army composition. It shouldn't be THE staple unit (other than stalker) that protoss cranks out in order to win. Even if it's not imbalanced, maybe protoss should still be re-tuned, in order to add viable options to army composition. As they said many times, it may simply be a matter of figuring out how to counter it efficiently -- meaning its efficacy may be embellished, at the moment. If that's the case, then eventually we'll see an organic switch to more diverse army compositions. However, if it is imbalanced, we'll continue to see more and more colossus play (which would be a real shame, because protoss is more than just stalker/colossus). | ||
|
Ajunta
Germany522 Posts
However, I can't stop thinking about the devourers from BW. How about if the corruption ability of the corruptors wouldn't be a spell but rather a side-effect of the attack, similar as to how the acid spores of the devourers worked. The corruption could, for example, be an upgrade of the greater spire. A side effect of this would be that corruption would only affect air units (as corruptors can't should ground) and collosis. I don't think this would be a problem as nobody actually uses corruption on ground units. If the corruption should also stack up is a good question, this would require some testing for balancing reasons. Perhaps this could also be an upgrade of the greater spire. And yes, I know, some of you might go like "omg, yet another make-sc2-more-bw-like post, gtfo!". Well, sorry for that ... it's just an idea. | ||
|
CoupDeGrace
United States7 Posts
Idra/Artosis just wanted to say thanks for some insight to how the pros feel the match ups play out at right now. Also a big thanks for all the content you both produce. The videos/vods/replays/streams really help out me and I'm sure many others. Looking forward to the next episode! Also Idra, I'm counting on you to come to more MLG events next year. GSL is to far away to cheer for you in person. | ||
|
FarbrorAbavna
Sweden4856 Posts
| ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
On February 04 2011 17:23 Rabiator wrote: When you call a show "IMBALANCED" (in all caps) you are suggesting that a) there is such a thing as "balance" at all and b) that there is some gross unfairness to yell and complain about. The whole first sentence "... the show about IMbalance" shows what the intention behind it is: to whine and yell and rage about supposedly bad things in SC2. It is NOT about seeking ways to make the game more fair for each matchup! Why isnt it a show for those with overinflated egos? Arent those the ones who cry "IMBALANCE" first when they cant seem to win against certain things? After this the two hosts go on and give a ton of examples - which may or may not be relevant because they add a lot of conditionals in there ("which may be imbalanced") - to "define imbalance", but with NO WORD are they mentioning maps at all. No word about rush distances on Steppes of War and Scrap Station and those do affect the game balance. FAIL #1 of the show: The impact of maps on balance is sooo important and yet they fail to mention them in their "definition" of imbalance - which simply consisted of a lot of examples with conditional phrases. Does anyone think you can talk about balance and pick just one unit from a whole army? Sure the Colossus is strong, BUT it isnt strong without support, so talking about "Colossus" is a stupid idea. The example of the "beta Roach" was different, because that unit was the only thing the Zerg needed to produce at the time to win easily. In the example "ZvP" the guys arent talking about the Colossus but rather "whining" that the "Corruptor isnt as strong as the Viking". FAIL #2 of the show: They give the Colossus as the "motto" but then talk about inadequacies of "their own units" (as 1.5 Zerg players). Further on they say "the Colossus dictates the game", but is that really true? Does the Zerg have no choice to "dictate the game" himself? I am no Zerg player, but that seems highly unlikely and again Artosis and IdrA are "whining" about no existent tactics to beat a strong Colossus army. But isnt it more important to kill the opponents economy than the opponents army? Later on the maps get mentioned, but 15 minutes of whining are just wasting time of all the viewers. The imbalance of tiny Blizzard maps is so ridiculously obvious that it doesnt warrant a show and in any case the whole show is structured badly and not well thought out. Even Artosis says "a lot of it is map based", but then they continue to whine again about the units. On larger maps the matchups are fine and fair and we just need to get rid of small maps. FAIL #3 of the show: They have the right idea (maps create imbalance or remove it) but fail to talk about it. My judgement on the show: B for the concept F- for effort It is a good thing to try to look at the "fairness" of the game, but the way they do it is simply biased and done in a "whiney tabloid style" without any concept whatsoever. Most of it is just random talk with a lot of phrases like "may be too strong" in it. That does not help proving anything. We also need a good definition for "balance" and which elements of the game figure into it. Artosis and IdrA have only talked about one small aspect and that usually creates whining. + Show Spoiler + FAIL #1 of the show: The impact of maps on balance is sooo important and yet they fail to mention them in their "definition" of imbalance - which simply consisted of a lot of examples with conditional phrases. The impact of maps on balance is later brought up. You even address this in your post. Might as well edit #1 out of your post. + Show Spoiler + FAIL #2 of the show: They give the Colossus as the "motto" but then talk about inadequacies of "their own units" (as 1.5 Zerg players). Further on they say "the Colossus dictates the game", but is that really true? Does the Zerg have no choice to "dictate the game" himself? I am no Zerg player, but that seems highly unlikely and again Artosis and IdrA are "whining" about no existent tactics to beat a strong Colossus army. But isnt it more important to kill the opponents economy than the opponents army? I don't know, IS that really true? "that seems highly unlikely" is not really a good base for your #2. Have you not noticed that if the game goes past any kind of blink stalker or 4 gate or stargate play the game -almost- ALWAYS ends up with Colossi? Have you seen carriers? Maybe you'll see templars played once in a while. The only other option would be templars and they are used mainly against mutas. Also how would you propose the zergs kill the opponents' economy? Please enlighten us to the replays/VODs you've seen recently of consistent econ harass. Maybe you can hope to live long enough with some mutas but that's about it. + Show Spoiler + Later on the maps get mentioned, but 15 minutes of whining are just wasting time of all the viewers. The imbalance of tiny Blizzard maps is so ridiculously obvious that it doesnt warrant a show and in any case the whole show is structured badly and not well thought out. Even Artosis says "a lot of it is map based", but then they continue to whine again about the units. On larger maps the matchups are fine and fair and we just need to get rid of small maps. FAIL #3 of the show: They have the right idea (maps create imbalance or remove it) but fail to talk about it. Their argument about the unit/map imbalance is that it is basically impossible to have the Colossus as a balanced unit in its current state unless you have a HUGE arc around the Protoss army. Even if you flank in a 2 sided attack force fields can still block the back half. | ||
|
oesis
117 Posts
All this hate, if you don't like the video don't watch it. CoupDeGrace I agree with you, people should know whether they are going to like a video before seeing it. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
Plus Idra is a pretty controversial player -- no matter what you or he says to some members of the starcraft community will automatically express an emotional response to him that fundamentally affects whatever he says. I think it would help Artosis/Idra to try to splice commentary from guys like Nestea or Fruitdealer, as they dont have whole, specially made, youtube videos called 'Nestea rage' or 'fruitdealer rage.' I realize that will obviously harder due but it will also come off as a much more polished pov. | ||
|
Bayyne
United States1967 Posts
Keep up the good work! | ||
|
Hopkingreenfrog
Australia144 Posts
| ||
|
Syben
United States512 Posts
| ||
|
DND_Enkil
Sweden598 Posts
On February 04 2011 17:56 Zips wrote: Their most legitimate complaint, which I agree with, is the preeminent role of the colossus. That may or may not be due to balance issues; but in this case, balance issues don't matter. The grievance is that colossus' play too central a role in nearly every protoss army composition. It shouldn't be THE staple unit (other than stalker) that protoss cranks out in order to win. Even if it's not imbalanced, maybe protoss should still be re-tuned, in order to add viable options to army composition. As they said many times, it may simply be a matter of figuring out how to counter it efficiently -- meaning its efficacy may be embellished, at the moment. If that's the case, then eventually we'll see an organic switch to more diverse army compositions. However, if it is imbalanced, we'll continue to see more and more colossus play (which would be a real shame, because protoss is more than just stalker/colossus). And i disagree with the preeminent role of the collossus means it is "imbalanced". They are focusing on a P unit from a Z perspective an how hard it is for Z to deal with it. I feel that muta is pretty dominant in ZvT and ZvZ, does this mean Mutalisk is imbalanced? And we have already started seeing an organic switch out of collosus focused play with players mixing in Voids, Archons and Motherships in PvZ and PvP. Collosus is still the most common mid-game unit but i do not feel it dominates the matchup as much as they make it sound like. And P does not dominate Z either... PvZ had a winrate of 45% in GSL 4, granted it is a much to small number to draw any solid conclusions about but i still feel it is an good indicator that things arent completely bonkers. And PvZ statistics for all GSL's are also 45% with a larger sample size. In the end i feel this show is pretty much the definition of a circle-jerk, two guys with the same opinion finding arguments to back that opinion up without anyone to argue against it or provide a different view. | ||
|
Nurfie
Sweden24 Posts
I'm also blown away by the ignorance of some posters in this thread. If you're gonna throw shit their way AT LEAST have the decency to double check if your shit is even remotely valid. It seems that so many of them haters either hasn't watched the video at all, or just watched it with the mentality "lol more zerg whine" and completely ignored everything they said except for the words "imbalance" and "collussi are powerful units". Will zergs on ladder reference this video and blame their losses on imbalance? Yes Would these players have done so no matter what race they played and no matter how they lost? Yes Stop trying to kill valid discussions about balance just because people like to misinterpret to support their claims and beliefs. Also stop misinterpreting stuff to support your claims and beliefs. | ||
|
ABCSFirebird
Germany90 Posts
It is kinda silly and really suggests bias when they say: "mutas are not imbalanced anymore because protoss have figured out 6 gate timing attacks", but they do not talk about how fine protoss has to tune its army composition in order to survive certain zerg timing attacks (which are definetely stronger on close position). Sitting on your 3gate expansion as toss involves constant scouting and hoping to find the clue to zergs timing and then hoping to get the right unit composition in time. Some examples: really early ling attacks -> delays expansion, early roach/ling timing attack -> more cannons, more sentries (delays tech), 3base roach ta -> need to get more VRs or immortals (delays tech to colossi aswell), mutas -> forces toss to throw down more gateways and hope to still get the right timing with the attack before mutas do too much damage roach/hydra ta when toss is taking 3rd and only has <=2 colossi If they don't take that dynamic of the game into account their discussions are worthless, because they aren't better than the zerg who already lose the game in their mind, because they are simply overthinking the possibilities of their opponents and just wait for the toss deathball to be finished. | ||
|
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
No one is prepared to talk about the real problem with P - the horrible late game scaling of gateway units. Roach and hydra scale insanely well late game, but zealot and stalker are just like wet paperbags in late game, acting like meatshields to allow collossi/ HT to do their job. Pure roach just rips through stalker zealot SO HARD after +2/+2, even though the stalker costs almost TWICE as much as a roach. I'm pretty much giving this show a skip next time, unless they want to offer possible solutions and ideas instead of whining for half an hour. | ||
|
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
| ||
| ||
