EPT[D] Imbalance as a spectator. - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Chill: This thread is about how the perception of balance is not in-line with hard statistics. If you don't have a comment about that fact, DO NOT post in this thread. | ||
|
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
| ||
|
Crescend1
Poland108 Posts
 , but i often see really good terrans/protoss that deserved win over zergs. But somethimes it feels that worse player won, it's really dishearting. I cried after nearly all TSL zergs died one after another. And i don't say matchup is crazy imbalanced, i just feel that smth is wrong with it right now. | ||
|
Tschis
Brazil1511 Posts
[quote] Whenever a PvZ is being shoutcasted, doesn't it seem like all of the attention is on zerg? The shoutcaster will glance at the protoss' base just to make sure they aren't deviating in any way from the standard deathball build, but then the rest of the game, the focus is on zerg to see how zerg will stop this army that they've seen so many times, but have still failed to come up with a way to counter. Who am I, a gold league terran, to judge the overall balance of a game? It might be balanced, but I think the way it's balanced is incorrect/boring, and it would be super interesting to see a month of what protoss would do if the collossus just didn't exist. We would probably see carriers, definately high templar, probably much more hallucination tactics and harass that is just unnecessary for protoss to do in the current state of colossus but would make them so much more exciting as a race to watch.[/QUOTE] I thought I was the only one who felt like that. They really just wait to see what kind of strategy the zerg has came up with to stop the protoss. //tx | ||
|
KristianJS
2107 Posts
As a spectator only, I'd started to feel the same way, that no matter how well zergs seem to be playing, a good protoss can always nullify that lead with forcefields/collossus/whatever and win the game. It's been making the matchup very frustrating to watch as a spectator. But the statistics don't lie here I guess, which makes me hopeful! Let's see what happens at MLG! | ||
|
epoc
Finland1190 Posts
 | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
i think time will come until zerg adapts to it. every pvz i play, i've been doing 5gate pressure and i'm 3 for 3 with it in a very convincing way (i random so less chance of pvz). but give it some time and i think 5gate will become obsolete or not as OP as it looks now. i think scourge could be a huuuuge help, i kind of see as lurker vs bioball + vessel relationship in bw.' i think roach burrow is whats needed but at the same time, its easily "countered" by observers and its hard to take down observers without a unit like scourge. i'm excited to see what will happen next since who is OP seems to change every month. | ||
|
Horse...falcon
United States1851 Posts
| ||
|
Novalisk
Israel1818 Posts
When a spectator talks about imbalance, it's usually: 1. Hopping on an "imbalance bandwagon" when he senses more experienced and confident players talking about balance. 2. When his favorite players lose. 3. Looking at statistics like tournament results and jumping to conclusions. | ||
|
loltb
Canada10 Posts
On April 02 2011 01:37 Rob28 wrote: Or...OR (and bear with me on this)... Hydras shitting all over Voidrays Ultras and Broods shitting all over Colossus. Maybe just some radical idea for a zerg who doesn't totally suck ass at micro... Colossi shit over hydras faster than hydras shit over void rays. Colossi are also faster and longer range than hydras, and void rays are faster and can fly. | ||
|
Rob28
Canada705 Posts
On April 02 2011 04:05 loltb wrote: Colossi shit over hydras faster than hydras shit over void rays. Colossi are also faster and longer range than hydras, and void rays are faster and can fly. Baiting with broodlords, flanking, group splitting... all easy tasks for any masters+ level player. Lure in the ball with BLs, then close the distance with ultras to tank for the colossi and hydras just behind to focus fire the voids. Not complex at all really. | ||
|
Psychlone
Canada90 Posts
As Zerg, I smile whenever I see a Robotics Bay. By the time he gets 3-4 Colossi, I have Ultras and it's GG. Colossus rush is even easier, I kill all the ground army with upgraded banes and lings and then swarm the Colossi from underneath. | ||
|
Geiko
France1939 Posts
On April 02 2011 04:05 loltb wrote: Colossi shit over hydras faster than hydras shit over void rays. Colossi are also faster and longer range than hydras, and void rays are faster and can fly. or... OR ... Broods shit over Colossi faster than void rays shit over Ultras. Also Ultras have 5 armor and splash and Broods can fly. | ||
|
Psychlone
Canada90 Posts
or... OR ... Broods shit over Colossi faster than void rays shit over Ultras. Also Ultras have 5 armor and splash and Broods can fly. Yeah, and then the Colossi die but you have no anti-air and the Voids proceed to kill you? | ||
|
Sajuuk7
134 Posts
On April 01 2011 23:44 LittleKrums wrote: You know what really bugs me? The fact that every single zerg whines and complains about their race... yet blizzard does nothing about it (Bet you weren't expecting that). It really makes no sense that Zergs would actually whine so much if their race was balanced. After looking at the Starcraft 2 community, I now understand why politicians get nothing worthwhile done. Look at a collossus for instance. If the colossus is hitting 5 units then its doing 91 dps (excluding upgrades and armor). That's more DPS than any unit in the game. So what does blizzard and our excellent community tell zerg... that they need to make corrupters. Despite being terran, I've watched a lot of zerg vs protoss games and pretty much no matter what, zerg always come out on the bottom end of a final battle with the assurance that once they are on 5-6 bases to a protoss' 3 bases they can remax their army and then the fight is even again... But it never is, because a protoss deathball hard counters a practical zerg army at the loss of 30 food or less (practical, meaning an army that isnt super risky i.e. banelings). You look at that kind of balance, and say, "Oh, the zerg just haven't figured out how to counter it yet." Does that really matter? This game is balanced in such a way that protoss have one tier 3 unit that is so much better than the counterpart (carriers), and all of their other units, that players would be fools not to get them. And after you get colossus, then the entire ground army that has been mustered throughout the whole game is now just the colossus' meatshield because it does that much damage! Personally I find it ridiculous that protoss is built so colossus-centric. I think it makes them boring to watch, and definitely makes it look imbalanced when they're watched. That's actually something to think about also. Whenever a PvZ is being shoutcasted, doesn't it seem like all of the attention is on zerg? The shoutcaster will glance at the protoss' base just to make sure they aren't deviating in any way from the standard deathball build, but then the rest of the game, the focus is on zerg to see how zerg will stop this army that they've seen so many times, but have still failed to come up with a way to counter. Who am I, a gold league terran, to judge the overall balance of a game? It might be balanced, but I think the way it's balanced is incorrect/boring, and it would be super interesting to see a month of what protoss would do if the collossus just didn't exist. We would probably see carriers, definately high templar, probably much more hallucination tactics and harass that is just unnecessary for protoss to do in the current state of colossus but would make them so much more exciting as a race to watch. Awesome post. I rofl'd pretty hard @ "the whole game is now just the colossus' meatshield because it does that much damage!". It's so funny because it is so true. | ||
|
Arisen
United States2382 Posts
The problem for me is I never see a zerg breaking this composition, even though zerg win a decent amount of the time vs protoss. This is because zergs will put a ton of pressure when protoss wants to take his third and break him there, but he never reached that composition he wanted. That's what is so frustrating. It seems like once they do get that composition, there isn't a thing you can do. And once I see that composition as a spectator, I basically feel the game is over, and the rest is formality. I'm not saying the match is imbalanced, necissarily, just that I have yet to see satisfactory ways to kill an end game protoss as zerg, and I would like to see the stats reflecting how many of the zerg wins actually came from games where protoss reached their "perfect compositions" and remove data where zerg defended and won vs gateway all-ins, or broke the protoss early, etc | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
This was an imbalance so huge that it dominated the way everyone played and games became verry boring/predictable and annoying to watch It realy was impossible to win as zerg Atm i dont see such huge things when looking streams/tournaments Every games feels different to me (at least way more different then the reaper games)and i see all races winning games against eachoter Novalisk April 02 2011 03:52. Posts 178 PM Profile Quote # A spectator doesn't know nearly enough about the game to spot imbalance if he saw it. hmm i think you are right here and most spectators (like me) are probably only annoyed by HUGE imbalances | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
| ||
|
Psychlone
Canada90 Posts
On April 02 2011 04:19 Arisen wrote: I think if you want to do an analysis of the difference in percieved imbalance with actual gameplay, you have to remove false data. The percieved imbalanced is that a zerg can't kill a protoss if he plays safe and gets a maxed army, usually consisting of 3-4 colossus, sentry, stalker, and some void rays. How many of the games where Z won in your research did the protoss reach that composition? The problem for me is I never see a zerg breaking this composition, even though zerg win a decent amount of the time vs protoss. This is because zergs will put a ton of pressure when protoss wants to take his third and break him there, but he never reached that composition he wanted. That's what is so frustrating. It seems like once they do get that composition, there isn't a thing you can do. And once I see that composition as a spectator, I basically feel the game is over, and the rest is formality. I'm not saying the match is imbalanced, necissarily, just that I have yet to see satisfactory ways to kill an end game protoss as zerg, and I would like to see the stats reflecting how many of the zerg wins actually came from games where protoss reached their "perfect compositions" and remove data where zerg defended and won vs gateway all-ins, or broke the protoss early, etc It's not a perfect composition at all. It dies in 3 seconds to the right Zerg composition. It doesn't even require skill to beat it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=195058 | ||
|
tGhOeOoDry
United States48 Posts
On April 02 2011 04:19 Arisen wrote: I think if you want to do an analysis of the difference in percieved imbalance with actual gameplay, you have to remove false data. The percieved imbalanced is that a zerg can't kill a protoss if he plays safe and gets a maxed army, usually consisting of 3-4 colossus, sentry, stalker, and some void rays. How many of the games where Z won in your research did the protoss reach that composition? The problem for me is I never see a zerg breaking this composition, even though zerg win a decent amount of the time vs protoss. This is because zergs will put a ton of pressure when protoss wants to take his third and break him there, but he never reached that composition he wanted. That's what is so frustrating. It seems like once they do get that composition, there isn't a thing you can do. And once I see that composition as a spectator, I basically feel the game is over, and the rest is formality. I'm not saying the match is imbalanced, necissarily, just that I have yet to see satisfactory ways to kill an end game protoss as zerg, and I would like to see the stats reflecting how many of the zerg wins actually came from games where protoss reached their "perfect compositions" and remove data where zerg defended and won vs gateway all-ins, or broke the protoss early, etc It's amusing that exactly what you're complaining about is what I enjoy. I like watching the Zerg pressure the Protoss and the Protoss struggling to stay safe until he can get his ideal comp. It requires thoughtful play. And once the deathball is formed we all know that the Zerg loses if he engages it head on, so I get excited about what the Zerg might do to creatively handle it. HDWT spoiler: + Show Spoiler + like iNcontroL against Zelniq in the HDWT g3: yes, iNcontroL got the deathball and won but I was really excited to watch Zelniq's counterattack to see if it would work. It didn't, but it was fun. Maybe I'm looking at the game through rose-colored glasses, but I'd prefer to look for things to enjoy than look for things to hate on. | ||
|
VGhost
United States3616 Posts
On April 01 2011 23:33 Miketorreza wrote: ...Some characters are actually better than others! Hard to believe, huh? I don't understand the nay saying, blatant denial, and willful ignorance from this community... As a guy who watches a lot of Starcraft, BW and II, and a ton of other competetive games, this definitely puts a damper on things and makes me feel weird about how open Blizzard is to making drastic changes to this game, and nervous about how much money is on the line for something that could potentially be unfair. A few things. First, I'm not sure exactly where you're coming from, so I'm just going to say consider SC1 balance changes: 1.02: minor changes only. Hatchery 300 -> 350; Photon Cannon explosive -> normal damage 1.04 (BroodWar) a whole bunch of things changed, summed up here. More than half the units got tweaked to fit in with the new game. (This is what I expect to happen with HotS.) 1.08 in 2001: Terran was buffed, Protoss was nerfed (especially storm, still bitter about this, went from 224 damage (I think) to 112), and Zerg got a mixed bag. That was the last balance patch. By contrast, SC2 has had a massive professional scene since beta, which does seem to force Blizzard's hand a little bit. If you compare the SC2 patch notes, you'll notice that this has resulted in faster and more balance patches. I count four so far, and while they change less than either of the two major BW patches, the cumulative change is greater. I think. I also think BW shows this is misguided: long-term, if the game is more or less playable now (which I would define as no one race averaging > 55% win rate across both its non-mirrors), Blizzard should just leave the game alone and see what happens - and if we've got balance problems, nerf/buff the obvious imbalance cause and see what happens. (However, Blizzard's not dumb. We've got to realize - however obnoxious the short-term is - that they've got two expansions coming out which may (or likely may not) add new units, or at least upgrades, which will throw balance off. Essentially, with the business scheme they've set in place, long-term balance isn't a goal right now, so even though I think the current patch mindset is a long-term bad thing, I'm not worried because long-term isn't the goal yet, short-term (till the next expansion) is.) The next question is balance itself. Obviously, if PvT is 60% P and PvZ is 56% P, Protoss looks imbalanced statistically and Blizzard should fix it even by my own "playable" criterion above. This doesn't say anything about the long-run, and can't adjust for factors like new (and better) maps coming out in the future, possible "revolutions", etc., but even from a spectator position (perhaps especially from a spectator position, as OP says) it looks bad. However, you're completely right in saying balance does matter. Even from BW, while as best I can tell, 1.08 came out right after Boxer won his first OSL, things haven't been the same since, with a string of Terran bonjwas and so forth down to Flash today. (Try to beat Jaedong with 100 mineral turrets, mwahaha... sorry.) Whether you're arguing for patch ("this is imbalanced, please admit it") or against patch ("don't change things till we know how they'll work") it is important to recognize that the stats affect the game, not just pure skill. The thing is, and to get to your main point, I don't thing TL is really in denial. I think 90 out of 100 people questioned would say there's something imbalanced somewhere in the game (and the other 10 are Protoss players (I kid! I kid!)). It's more an attitude that they're trying to encourage: play the game as-is, don't clutter the forum with complaints. Not been here long, but I don't think I've seen more than a few balance discussion threads that actually discussed e.g. 10-20 replays from different servers pointing out a common build (or unit composition at a given time) that was beating everything; even those that try rarely propose either current or patch solutions. Most balance threads seem to be more "OMG MC beat July and those damn forcefields are imba and I lose to it too Blizzard should nerf ff so I can win". From my impression I'd say it seems like attitude is almost as important as content, and most people considering balance aren't looking at it with the attitude TL wants. (A trivial point, but: also, there isn't a balance forum. Strategy, yes, but balance falls under "general" here, and cluttering this forum up with balance threads would be, well, clutter.) | ||
| ||
