On April 28 2011 23:23 infinity2k9 wrote: It has harder unit counters than BW for sure. Vultures vs Dragoons anyone?
If a group of vultures attack moves into a group of Dragoons also attack moving then yes you are correct.
The difference is that a group of well controlled Vultures planting mines in the right spots and flanking the Dragoons will win. On the other hand the opposing player with Dragoons can also micro his face off - defusing mines, spreading out and pulling back weak Dragoons.
It becomes a battle of who has better control rather than who has the better army composition. The winner is always the better player.
How exactly do you do the same thing when it is Thor vs Immortal?
This is simply a lie. If it was true why would flash ever build tanks? Apparently the better player always wins with vultures vs goons, yet he makes tanks? Is it because he doesn't know?
The sole reason terrans make tanks is to beat goons. You simply ain't going to win with vultures vs goons without an army advantage or a big blunder from the toss. Just because you can see mostly vultures in early pushes that rely on hitting when toss has fewer units, doesn't mean that vultures are actually even vs goons and it's all about control.
That isn't really what I was trying to make a point about so I don't understand your argument, sorry. I didn't say anything about never using tanks.
It was just a very specific example of Vultures vs Dragoons. With good Vulture control you can overcome a group of Dragoons. With good Dragoon control you can overcome a group of well controlled Vultures. The winner is always the better player because it comes down to skill.
It was a simple explanation of how good unit design can make battles much more dynamic. Hopefully so that people understand even if they have not played Brood War.
So you don't understand what was your own point? "The winner is always the better player because it comes down to skill" is a lie. In order for that to be true vultures have to be even vs goons, while in fact they are obviously weaker. I even explained why is it so obvious in my previous post. Just because you can make them suck less vs goons with good control doesn't mean it isn't about "who has the better army composition" or that "the better player always wins" in such an enagement.
On April 28 2011 23:28 -Archangel- wrote: Dustin has no clue what he is talking about when he talks about balance or units (he manages to say stupid stuff in each interview). He should also answer those with "it is better to direct that question to the balance department".
The balance team consists of Dayvie, Browder and Matt Cooper. I'm curious to see what their statistical analysis would find about BW, because I'm almost certain it's a terrible system for establishing top level balance.
On April 29 2011 11:54 ampson wrote: If you are losing at your level, there is almost certainly something that you can do better. Let the pros and the balance team balance the game, they know a heck of a lot more than you do.
Here's the problem with this statement, the balance team is not just balanced off pros. He said in the interview that they're relying on metrics from the masters and GM ladder, which means their entire data set is incredibly flawed. Even if you look at BW, winning as Protoss is easier than the other races but once you get to the top, things even out. If you were to balance based on the top 1,000 P players' win %, you'd end up nerfing the race and they'd be shit at the A/S class level.
we do not have a specific plan or timing to go into this, and we are unable to give you any specific details. Only one thing can be sure, that this is the direction we want to head towards in the future.
Just how hard is it to integrate clan feature into the game? Just how hard is it to allow people to watch replays together with the host controlling speed? Aren't these two features pretty much unanimously wanted by the fans? It pisses me off that they've been saying "oh yeah, we will bring that into the game sometime later" since all the way back in beta and they're still saying the exactly same thing 9 months into release.
Dustin: This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit.
I've watched quite a number of tournaments. We have lots of situations where player A wins the first game, and player B comes back to win the second game. Within the games themselves, we also see the advantage keep swinging from one player to another. This shows that the state of Starcraft 2 is not that one sided. Perhaps, the situation in these tournaments are not completely accurate, but from what I see now in the top tournaments, unit counters are actually quite relative.
For example, let's look at a situation where we have banelings fighting against marines. If they were to just clash against each other without any micro, the banelings will definitely kill off a lot of marines. However, if the marines have stim, I believe you can use micro to come out ahead in the engagement. Let's look at another situation, where we have banshees against marines. In a straight up fight, the marines will definitely win the fight. Yet, if the banshee has cloak, the situation would be different. Let's look at yet another situation, marauders against stalkers. If both sides a-move, clearly the marauder will win. However, if the stalker has blink, and uses blink well, the situation might turn out different as well.
These are some of the most absurd statements I've ever heard about BW and SC2. It's unfathomable how he is the lead designer. There is also no sort of logic in his player A/B statement. I don't understand how winning a game a piece and swinging advantages relates to unit counters at all. It only relates to mistakes, if anything.
Everyone should read this. It's quite unbelievable.
On April 28 2011 23:28 -Archangel- wrote: Dustin has no clue what he is talking about when he talks about balance or units (he manages to say stupid stuff in each interview). He should also answer those with "it is better to direct that question to the balance department".
The balance team consists of Dayvie, Browder and Matt Cooper. I'm curious to see what their statistical analysis would find about BW, because I'm almost certain it's a terrible system for establishing top level balance.
On April 29 2011 11:54 ampson wrote: If you are losing at your level, there is almost certainly something that you can do better. Let the pros and the balance team balance the game, they know a heck of a lot more than you do.
Here's the problem with this statement, the balance team is not just balanced off pros. He said in the interview that they're relying on metrics from the masters and GM ladder, which means their entire data set is incredibly flawed. Even if you look at BW, winning as Protoss is easier than the other races but once you get to the top, things even out. If you were to balance based on the top 1,000 P players' win %, you'd end up nerfing the race and they'd be shit at the A/S class level.
I remember an old thread with data about pro BW win % and protoss was statistically the worst race, because of PvZ(they did have a small advantage in PvT), until Bisu showed up + maps with more easily wallable nats, then toss actually had a bit of an advantage in both matchups.
you can't just look at overall win-loss ratios as a way to claim the game is balanced. lets look at the win-loss for when PvZs reach the late game against a collosus deathball. a balanced game should allow any race to win (each player having equal levels of skill) at any stage of the game. no race should be able to win just because they get to the late game.
I feel it makes sense to make small nerfs/buffs until win %tages even out, and then give space for play to develop. The game is still far too young to be making any sort of comments on balance as the proscene is still quite weak.
Logically, it makes sense to keep up with the metagaming every quarter or so to keep most of the customer/competitive base happy, and then work on from there.
However, Browder does not even seem to know how his game plays out. That is the problem, and it isn't about balance. If you didn't tell me who made those statements, my first guess would be a random gold league player.
It's incredibly disheartening to hear Browder say balance is fine based on Master League win percentages. They need to paying so much attention to the very top level of pro play and it's incredibly annoying that they aren't basically at all. I wanted at least a question about PvZ or the difficulty of killing a Protoss army. And then he goes on to talk about how unit micro changes the outcome of battles like the interviewer represents Gold League players whining about banelings. I don't even think he understands the cognitive dissonance there.
On April 28 2011 23:28 -Archangel- wrote: Dustin has no clue what he is talking about when he talks about balance or units (he manages to say stupid stuff in each interview). He should also answer those with "it is better to direct that question to the balance department".
The balance team consists of Dayvie, Browder and Matt Cooper. I'm curious to see what their statistical analysis would find about BW, because I'm almost certain it's a terrible system for establishing top level balance.
On April 29 2011 11:54 ampson wrote: If you are losing at your level, there is almost certainly something that you can do better. Let the pros and the balance team balance the game, they know a heck of a lot more than you do.
Here's the problem with this statement, the balance team is not just balanced off pros. He said in the interview that they're relying on metrics from the masters and GM ladder, which means their entire data set is incredibly flawed. Even if you look at BW, winning as Protoss is easier than the other races but once you get to the top, things even out. If you were to balance based on the top 1,000 P players' win %, you'd end up nerfing the race and they'd be shit at the A/S class level.
Just a note, Blizzard's balance goals do not necessarily revolve around pro play. Pro play often skews skill differentials because whereas it might be much easier to play one race at the top level than another, pro play itself would tend to mask this discrepancy because the only pros surviving at the top level would be those who possess the skill to play their respective races. Only by taking into account the number of pros who play a race can you start accounting for skill differentials, but then that factor can be significantly confounded by preference.
By focusing on the masters and GM ladder, it's possible that what they're really looking to do is to maintain the perception of balance at the level most above average players play. In other words, they're saying, "holding the level of skill constant at the tier of good ladder players, are Z, P, and T doing equally well?" Such a balance scheme would skew balance at the pro level in favor of balance at the more accessible levels on ladder which, frankly, is not very representative of pro play because people use ladder for practice more than they do for competition and many pro players do not do much laddering in the first place.
Whether you agree with this decision is a different issue, but keep in mind that Blizzard's focus is not necessarily in eSports, but in making their games enjoyable for "the masses."
I don't know of any blink micro that beats marauders, never seen it. Maybe he means FF so you only have to fight half of them or you can run from them before they rotflstomp you.
i would like to see blinked stalkers kill maraders....i hope they i will see it... but only way is by nerfing stim pack....stim pack all in are to strog agenst toss and if zerg dont have banglings that will also be case with em two...
On April 28 2011 23:23 infinity2k9 wrote: It has harder unit counters than BW for sure. Vultures vs Dragoons anyone?
If a group of vultures attack moves into a group of Dragoons also attack moving then yes you are correct.
The difference is that a group of well controlled Vultures planting mines in the right spots and flanking the Dragoons will win. On the other hand the opposing player with Dragoons can also micro his face off - defusing mines, spreading out and pulling back weak Dragoons.
It becomes a battle of who has better control rather than who has the better army composition. The winner is always the better player.
How exactly do you do the same thing when it is Thor vs Immortal?
This is simply a lie. If it was true why would flash ever build tanks? Apparently the better player always wins with vultures vs goons, yet he makes tanks? Is it because he doesn't know?
The sole reason terrans make tanks is to beat goons. You simply ain't going to win with vultures vs goons without an army advantage or a big blunder from the toss. Just because you can see mostly vultures in early pushes that rely on hitting when toss has fewer units, doesn't mean that vultures are actually even vs goons and it's all about control.
That isn't really what I was trying to make a point about so I don't understand your argument, sorry. I didn't say anything about never using tanks.
It was just a very specific example of Vultures vs Dragoons. With good Vulture control you can overcome a group of Dragoons. With good Dragoon control you can overcome a group of well controlled Vultures. The winner is always the better player because it comes down to skill.
It was a simple explanation of how good unit design can make battles much more dynamic. Hopefully so that people understand even if they have not played Brood War.
So you don't understand what was your own point? "The winner is always the better player because it comes down to skill" is a lie. In order for that to be true vultures have to be even vs goons, while in fact they are obviously weaker. I even explained why is it so obvious in my previous post. Just because you can make them suck less vs goons with good control doesn't mean it isn't about "who has the better army composition" or that "the better player always wins" in such an enagement.
Of course army composition matters. I never claimed it didn't. Again, my example was kept very simple by only including 2 units. You could write an essay on the role of each unit in BW TvP and how each could be used to effect the outcome of a battle in a different way. It's a huge topic.
When units are well designed the ensuing battle is more exciting because the outcome is uncertain.
Army composition is given too much emphasis in SC2. The units need to be redesigned to reward better army control, positioning and micro. As a result SC2 will be more fun to play and watch.
On April 30 2011 05:16 thebole1 wrote: i would like to see blinked stalkers kill maraders....i hope they i will see it... but only way is by nerfing stim pack....stim pack all in are to strog agenst toss and if zerg dont have banglings that will also be case with em two...
In this case, he's actually right - if you Blink to dodge the first volley, and Blink again to dodge the last one (ie Blink while the projectile is in mid air) you can actually win 1 vs 1 (and 2 vs 2, but my micro is not good enough to test it solo beyond this) with the Blink Stalkers, even without an upgrade advantage (ie even upgrades).
Thanks for the translation, not sure what the rage is about. Seems rather childish to me, but, meh. I can't wait for HoTS, going to be great to play with the new units and have more strats to use as a random player :D
It think he's right about balance, I think he dodged the comebacks question, so I will completely disregard that ridiculous answer. I expect more from the lead developer of a game on a leading game company.
The comeback question was a great one, and I think there's actually an issue here, and not so much on the balance thing. The problem is once a big battle occurs, most of the time the victor of that battle just A-moves and rolls to win the game. There's very few examples of games in which micro and good decision making have been able to reverse the inevitable. Actually only 2 I can think of right now:
-NaDa vs Drewbie was it??: NaDa is hard pressed and has lost most engagements, but realizes his enemy's main is vulnerable and proceeds to doom drop and own. Amazing stuff
-MC vs Thorzain game 4: At one point thorzain has the larger army, and has lots of energy on his ghosts. Awesome feedbacks make MC able to crush Thorzain even when at a disadvantage. Next battle, Thorzain crushes an overwhelming collossi/immortal army by ghost cloaking and EMPing, great stuff.
I think, the correct answer is maps, not units. Small, straightforward maps with no key defense points make comebacks impossible to stage. Larger maps, with winding paths and key defense points available to all races make comebacks possible. Also, adding units that exert area control, such as lurkers and reavers did on BW, make it possible to stage heroic defenses against overwhelming odds. Units that make expansions dissapear such as marauders, go against this,
All in all, terrible answer by Browder. I'm unimpressed.
Dustin : That is actually not the case. This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1.
Dustin : That is actually not the case. This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1.
And I don't see why games just like that are not posible in SC2. The reaver holding off a stream of hydra would basically be 3 sentries + 1 colossus frying off legions of zerg, and the second game is a stalker and probes holding off a bunch of marines.
What's funny is that those games are barely 3 years old. So you are comparing the skill level of a 9 year old game at the time with the skill level of a one year old game.
There will be plenty of games just like those to in SC2 soon enough, then I hope that all the whining can stop, but I doubt it.
EPT
