EPTIMBALANCED! - Introduction - Page 59
| 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. | ||
|
Cush
United States646 Posts
| ||
|
BadManner
71 Posts
| ||
|
Dice.
United States78 Posts
Somebody mentioned about the damage a stalker can tank, or the effect of forcefields giving you a hard time advancing on colossus. If these things are altered, many other things in the game could potentially be thrown off, when you're really ignoring the problem at hand. IdrA and Artosis do not deserve any crap from the community. I would love for this thread to stay on track and keep intelligently discussing the issue of imbalance. I do agree with posting clips and such, but this will require more work... Perhaps some people who are really interested in discussion can bring up examples and provide links to the games or replays. Not flaming or trolling just trying to throw in my two cents and offer some advice... | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
Just because someone is great at a game doesn't make them unbiased. Idra is known for being extremely whiny about balance and Artosis was known for BM and whining in SC1 and being zerg biased in his casting. Some people feel that these two guys (who both play the same race) are not the best setup for determining what is imbalanced and what is not. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On February 08 2011 13:23 BattRoll wrote: Depending on the situation, I find that teching up to Ultras is usually a good solution to Collosus. When I transition into late game - take my third base/4th and I meet a collosus/gateway army with 4 or 5 ultralisks, it's usually "gg, i don't see that very often". I think a lot of zerg players struggle with staying on tier 2 units and don't realize that once robo units start coming out, they're basically being out tech'd by the protoss player and corruptors are not meant to be the counter to collosus. They are a good counter to phoenixes/void rays and a passable counter to collosus but obviously if you're going up against a heavy collosus army and getting rolled by forcefields, and you're sitting there with 20 corruptors, YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. It's not a big deal to throw down an infestation pit and go to tier 3. The cost is minimal and you can basically do this on 2 and a half bases saturated and meet a protoss army with ultralisks when they're ready to push on you. upgraded lings with a ready roach warren can pretty much hold off any gateway pushes in the meantime if you want to tech straight to ultras. I'm not saying this is a fullproof plan but it kinda owns the protoss meta game right now. and if you're playing some cookbooking newbie doing gateway timing push followed by expansion into collosus, it will rip them apart. The deal is that Hive takes forever to build, plus ultralisk cavern, plus 5 ultras. By the time you have them, you are supposed to be dead. A good protoss player can have colossi at 12 to 14 min. It is really (and I mean really) hard to get ultras at 18min without loosing like a shit. Ultra cannot be the "counter colossi unit", get your fact straight, it's not the same timing at all. Terran is not weakest on "big maps". Proof ? shakuras plateau is not "anti" terran map like steppes of war and jungle basin can be a "anti" zerg maps. Idra and Artosis are jut passing by the most important thing about SC2 balance, that some guys already mention on this forum: it's the tech tree. A zerg cannot rush to high tech because this is not safe. We will always be stuck with t1 & t2 units against t3 units. A terran can pop out his first thor at the 8 minute mark in a relatively safe fashion, a protoss can pull out his first colossus at 12 with an expand and a nice gateway army: still safe. And in this both cases the zerg cannot do anything about it: he can scout, he can build some units and harass, he can prepare for that kind of unit composition, but he cannot really systematically punish the protoss or terran players for rushing his high tech units. Colossi are not imbalance, what is imbalance is that a good protoss player will have colossi fast, safe, and you will be stuck to tier 1/2 units to fight it for at least 4-5 minutes, if not the entire game if the protoss continue with his pressure. Hell even going for fast muta and some harass would be a great way to punish this kind of greedy eco tech build, but Spire is so long to build that it is not viable: a normal fast expand into lair and spire will pop out his first muta at the 9 or 10th minute mark (after a 6 gate push that just crush this fast spire build), not to mention that going for straight Lair and muta in 1base in not viable in long term and can be easily punished by a good protoss. All in all, SC2 tech tree is a wack, protoss and terran can do almost everything, switch early from one unit to another (void ray gateway army colossi anyone ?). | ||
|
fraktoasters
United States617 Posts
On February 08 2011 12:27 Starcraftmazter wrote: The arguments I gave are pretty basic, there is no need to prove them. The question is, do they imply without question that the maps are imbalanced for terran. I certainly believe so, I don't know how they can be considered balanced when zerg and protoss both have significant aspects to deal with larger maps and can be very mobile on them, while terran is extremely immobility and has no macro/mobility traits at all. OK is this serious? Your arguments are so simple so they're correct? There's no need in proving them? That "logic" actually hurts my head. There is always a need to prove your arguments. Sorry but you don't get to just say your arguments are correct without proof. And yes, you're right Zerg, Protoss and Terran are all different. Please tell Blizzard to patch the game so everything is the same in every way. I get that Zerg is fast and Protoss can warp but how does that spell imbalanced? This game isn't all about mobility. Mobility =/= auto win. By the way, when you've been hit by hellions, banshees, multi-pronged attacks with drops--you're not exactly thinking, oh thank god I'm playing against the immobile Terran. | ||
|
Durn
Canada360 Posts
I maintain that this show is a good way to see opinions of high level player and nothing else. | ||
|
Cranberries
Wales567 Posts
| ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
| ||
|
GeForceFX
Lithuania101 Posts
On February 08 2011 19:51 bkrow wrote: Any idea when episode 2 is coming out? Is it a weekly thing or just at whim? Im also wondering about that. I REALLY want this to become frequent. Really nice to get an inside look on how the game works in super high level! | ||
|
ihavetofartosis
1277 Posts
| ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On February 08 2011 19:50 Cranberries wrote: I don't understand why people would quote Day9's opinions as if they're anymore valid than IdrAs, or Artosis' opinion. If anything, IdrA's opinions (and to a lesser extent Artosis') are more valid, and have more validity, purely because both these players have seemed to accomplish "much more" than Day9 in SC2. I guess if people are mindless tools though, this is what happens. Thank you for your post for it shows basicly what's wrong with esports today. Everybody and their grandmother somehow thinks that you need to "play good" to be entitled to an opinion. When everywhere in each and every other sports or even other "activities" this doesn't matter. Think about it, the best sports analyzers have sometimes not even played themselves. Or do you think the people involved in the financial industry know best how to resolve the problem which is the current global economic crisis? Obviously the problem is: BIAS. Yes Day9's opinion is much more valuable. Why? Because he is NOT a player but a "unbiased" bystander. He doesn't play a "race" at competitive level, therefore he really should be taken much more seriously when talking about balance. To be honest, if anything, then I'm much more interested in what people like Day9 think about balance. The only players I'd really listen to concerning balance would be random players. Although they too have their "favourite" races and are sometimes hugely biased; just to be seen from the "random" zerg Nerchio with his anti-terran BM in each game he loses a ZvT. | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On February 08 2011 19:50 Cranberries wrote: I don't understand why people would quote Day9's opinions as if they're anymore valid than IdrAs, or Artosis' opinion. If anything, IdrA's opinions (and to a lesser extent Artosis') are more valid, and have more validity, purely because both these players have seemed to accomplish "much more" than Day9 in SC2. I guess if people are mindless tools though, this is what happens. A unbiased random player with alot of insight and known for not engaging in any kind of balance whine compared to two zerg players - both known for bm, whining and being biased in favor of one specific race. Also being great at a game DOES NOT mean that you are great at game balance. Every single game with competitive play will have a majority of pro players that believe that opposing classes/races/units are OP in some way. I'll rather listen to Day9, thank you very much. | ||
|
unoriginalname
England380 Posts
| ||
|
Torpedo.Vegas
United States1890 Posts
On February 08 2011 20:44 sleepingdog wrote: Thank you for your post for it shows basicly what's wrong with esports today. Everybody and their grandmother somehow thinks that you need to "play good" to be entitled to an opinion. When everywhere in each and every other sports or even other "activities" this doesn't matter. Think about it, the best sports analyzers have sometimes not even played themselves. Or do you think the people involved in the financial industry know best how to resolve the problem which is the current global economic crisis? Obviously the problem is: BIAS. Yes Day9's opinion is much more valuable. Why? Because he is NOT a player but a "unbiased" bystander. He doesn't play a "race" at competitive level, therefore he really should be taken much more seriously when talking about balance. To be honest, if anything, then I'm much more interested in what people like Day9 think about balance. The only players I'd really listen to concerning balance would be random players. Although they too have their "favourite" races and are sometimes hugely biased; just to be seen from the "random" zerg Nerchio with his anti-terran BM in each game he loses a ZvT. But you don't need to play many other activities at 200 APM and manage an economy as well as applying various strategies with minimal information. We can theorycraft at that level if AI's were playing, but the human perspective at the level is really whats required. We can say "all you have to do is X,Y,Z" but for a pro to do that while balancing other activities like harass/scouts/economy/etc. May not be realistically feasible. Not many of us experience games where 1 hex or a couple seconds divide victory and defeat. We can put our opinion out there on what balance should be, but those that actually play at the upper levels of the game has opinions that carry more weight. Do you listen to a former pro-player turned commentator for ESPN for a sport, or Joe down the block who never actually played the sport but has spent a lot of time in front of the T.V. Both have an opinion, one just carries more weight. Also, bias my ass. Yeah, people tend to main a certain race so their understanding is better in those match ups then with off races, but do you honestly have such a cynical and jaded attitude that you think that they would intentionally slant the argument in order to favor one race over the other? Push some propaganda? No, when it comes to Zerg, I think Idra knows balance for that race as good as anyone else. I think his Protoss and Terran is also above average, but I would take Incontrols/MC's/Huk or MvP/Jinro's for Protoss and Terran respectively over his in a heartbeat. Use some viewer discretion. Simple as that. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On February 08 2011 21:09 Torpedo.Vegas wrote: Yeah, people tend to main a certain race so their understanding is better in those match ups then with off races, but do you honestly have such a cynical and jaded attitude that you think that they would intentionally slant the argument in order to favor one race over the other? Simple question, simple answer: yes People have always cried imbalance in order to buff their race. Since they make money out of it, you could even call this "rational", because a buffed race would guarantee them more money. Also it doesn't even matter if it's intentional. As a protoss-player, I'm 100% convinced that stimmed marauders are OP. Am I trying to troll or intentionally trying to buff my race against common sense? No. I'm I biased? Hell, of course I am. | ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
| ||
|
BarC
United States78 Posts
On February 08 2011 21:27 Fa1nT wrote: By that logic, does it not seem weird that no terran has ever complained about being too weak? avilo. | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
| ||
|
Cranberries
Wales567 Posts
On February 08 2011 20:44 sleepingdog wrote: Thank you for your post for it shows basicly what's wrong with esports today. Everybody and their grandmother somehow thinks that you need to "play good" to be entitled to an opinion. When everywhere in each and every other sports or even other "activities" this doesn't matter. Think about it, the best sports analyzers have sometimes not even played themselves. Or do you think the people involved in the financial industry know best how to resolve the problem which is the current global economic crisis? Obviously the problem is: BIAS. Yes Day9's opinion is much more valuable. Why? Because he is NOT a player but a "unbiased" bystander. He doesn't play a "race" at competitive level, therefore he really should be taken much more seriously when talking about balance. To be honest, if anything, then I'm much more interested in what people like Day9 think about balance. The only players I'd really listen to concerning balance would be random players. Although they too have their "favourite" races and are sometimes hugely biased; just to be seen from the "random" zerg Nerchio with his anti-terran BM in each game he loses a ZvT. Playing at the highest level, regardless of race, means you play against the best that race has to offer. It means you play against the best harassers, the best pressurisers of the game, the best macro players, the best micro players out there: someone who hasn't played against great players doesn't have an insight into the game as great as someone who does. Sorry, but Day9 is not the be all and end all of 'balance' discussion: he's just one intelligent person - as is IdrA, Artosis and others who claim the game may be imbalanced in some way. I personally think the worst thing about SC2 is the dominance Terran can have on maps where the range 13 siege tanks control so much of an area you're pinned and unable to escape which allows the Terran to sail to an easy win due to macro ease, and the inability to need to micro Siege tanks but float Vikings back and forth. | ||
| ||
