On April 28 2011 23:35 Kipsate wrote: Either way I was wondering what kind of statistical data they use for the 50-55% winratio among the races, I mean do they leave mirror matches out?And doesn't the Bnet matchmaking system pretty much drive you to the 50%?Therefore the game will always look balanced?
The matchmaker pushes you to an overall winrate of 50%, yes. If a race consistently wins a matchup too much, their winrates will become lopsided - they'll win the other non-mirror less. So in the usual PvZ example, if that matchup is broken, then Protoss should be "inflating" their MMR by killing lots of Zergs, but conversely having a really poor PvT winrate. Of course, it's not the only thing you want to look at. That result could also be caused by PvT being Terran favored.
Anyway, occasionally I can see where the guy is coming from. Just wish they'd look more at the high level gameplay, and much less on raw statistics and unit abilities.
bw has just more comeback because it requires more skill. if someone with more skill is at a disadvantage, that person can come back from the situation. I think dustin is talking about comebacks in multiple games. win one game, lose another sort of thing.
also, its more difficult to micro effectively in sc2 IMO since your units don't move retarded like in SC2. bw units sometimes lag behind so dmg doesn't come that fast.
sc2 has a good number of splash dmg so I don't think deathball vs deathball is not a problem. sc2 is just more complicated in countering battles since there's more variety in army(like someone said, no one goes pure lings/muta).
On April 28 2011 23:37 Beef Noodles wrote: Oh I wasn't trying to argue, and I was just saying that having hard counters that don't die easily (the collosus) makes games kind of boring and hard to comeback from. I think SC2 has hard counters, but not in creative ways (if that makes since). They are all average health, average damage, ranged units (for the most part). It doesn't allow for crazy razor thin micro battles. I agree with you, I was just saying its better when the hard counters are glass cannons.
Well I'm not sure how you can say that TBH. Colossus doesn't die easily? They're total garbage against everything but a clumped up army of small units. They die to anything flying, or any of the "big" units - thors, ultras etc.
I understand what you're saying about uncreative counters, but a lot of those creative counters that BW has have been developed over the years. They certainly aren't obvious. At the start of SC, vultures WERE useless because of dragoons - to use the classic example. In fact Terran in general were considered crap...
On April 28 2011 23:41 WniO wrote: hmm i think people are getting the wrong idea of "the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in sc1." in bw certain matchups you could only make 1 or 2 unit types at most stages of the game until late game, where sc2 has more options. entire units didnt get made in broodwar.... scouts valkries firebats queens etc etc. or if you look at zvz the most basic match-up for both sc1 had basically zerglings and mutalisks, where sc2 has zerglings, banelings, mutas, roaches, hydras, infestors, queens... etc etc. theres just more options early on in sc2. granted people make a good point of dragoons vs vultures but thats something that took a few years to find out, who knows maybe marines could someday always come on top vs banelings.... oh wait.
Sorry but you are wrong... Pretty much all units get used in BW.
Firebats are very common in TvZ as part of the bio ball. Valkyries are fairly common in TvZ mech builds if zerg goes Mutas. Queens are seeing huge use in both ZvZ and ZvT against mech. + Show Spoiler +
Just today in the MSL, Jaedong had around 20 Queens Broodling a huge tank line to death, it was spectacular.
The only unit you are right about is the Scout which is pretty much just a BM unit. But, what would BW be without the Royal Stove?
I don't mean to attack you or anything but I had to point those things out.
I agree with you that that more options is pretty much always better. The issue I have is that although there are more units to choose from, those units have less options in regards to control which doesn't make them as fun to use.
Seems like the translation between the one that conducted the interview and Dustin Browder was very poor. Most of the questions and answers made little to no sense at all.
I suggest people wait for better interviews, that should be coming in the next few weeks.
On April 28 2011 23:36 Ohdamn wrote: kinda reminds me of:
lol..... this shows that dustin dont give a .... abouth as hi made game to make plenty of many of as... ofc that is point but lol man i have no respect for him what a joke....
only thing that now keep game alive and making game bether is comunity they simply act like they dont give a sh.... about it....i think the IDRA and some pro players will made 10 times better game then this ppl hire... lol :D
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.
if dustin think that blink stalker should conter maraders then nerf stim pack and that will maby hepend....
but simply all conters that he mentioned simply they dont exist comeback with hard conters in game simply dont work.....sry (if they nerf masive dps from game conter will exists but now not gona hepen)
On April 28 2011 23:18 R3N wrote: I thought first "well he's a game designer not the balance guru" then thought about that for about a minute until I realized how retarded that was.
This guy basically designed the game but can't even make a semi-decent comparison between two units? Not that it matters as what he says is bullocks. Units hard counter too much in SC2 compared to SC1 and he have no answer to why that is and doesn't want to understand.
SC2 doesn't have hard unit counters. If it did there would lots more swings and comebacks. Hard counters are what creates comeback situations....
YES, this what I was thinking too, and I don't get why people are upset regarding this point of the interview.
On May 12 2009 07:49 Aylear wrote: (...) And I want the designer who was brought in from Command & Conquer to be kept under close surveillance.
2009, bitches.
This is pretty much what I expected. This interview doesn't give me much hope for top level balance. The lead designer simply doesn't understand half the stuff the hardcore community is clamouring for, or he's a terrible, terrible PR guy.
Balance pretty good out of statistics - which is obviously correct - why should they care about every senseless whining? As long as they have no huge imbalance in the game, they need to switch nothing They actually watch tournaments ... if you look at all tournaments, you cannot see the huge imbalances everywhere for one race.
BW actually HAS harder unit counters. Am I the only one who played BW after Sc2? It's ridicolous in some cases as noob.
On May 12 2009 07:49 Aylear wrote: (...) And I want the designer who was brought in from Command & Conquer to be kept under close surveillance.
2009, bitches.
This is pretty much what I expected. This interview doesn't give me much hope for top level balance. The lead designer simply doesn't understand half the stuff the hardcore community is clamouring for, or he's a terrible, terrible PR guy.
Well, we do have David Kim, who is actually in charge of the balance of the game.
On April 28 2011 23:41 WniO wrote: hmm i think people are getting the wrong idea of "the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in sc1." in bw certain matchups you could only make 1 or 2 unit types at most stages of the game until late game, where sc2 has more options. entire units didnt get made in broodwar.... scouts valkries firebats queens etc etc. or if you look at zvz the most basic match-up for both sc1 had basically zerglings and mutalisks, where sc2 has zerglings, banelings, mutas, roaches, hydras, infestors, queens... etc etc. theres just more options early on in sc2. granted people make a good point of dragoons vs vultures but thats something that took a few years to find out, who knows maybe marines could someday always come on top vs banelings.... oh wait.
Sorry but you are wrong... Pretty much all units get used in BW.
Firebats are very common in TvZ as part of the bio ball. Valkyries are fairly common in TvZ mech builds if zerg goes Mutas. Queens are seeing huge use in both ZvZ and ZvT against mech. + Show Spoiler +
Just today in the MSL, Jaedong had around 20 Queens Broodling a huge tank line to death, it was spectacular.
The only unit you are right about is the Scout which is pretty much just a BM unit. But, what would BW be without the Royal Stove?
I don't mean to attack you or anything but I had to point those things out.
I agree with you that that more options is pretty much always better. The issue I have is that although there are more units to choose from, those units have less options in regards to control which doesn't make them as fun to use.
SC2 needs more fun!
I am a advid BW fan but you are wrong on a couple of points, Queens in ZvZ are as common as Hive ZvZ pretty much, and we all know how common Hive ZvZs are. Queens are however becoming more common in ZvT mech, in fact so common that it might be a revolution. Valkyries are NOT common in TvZ at all unless one goes the Fantasy build, usually valkyries are a nogo due to their vurtnablity to scourge and their explosive damage., they are however used in TvT whenever both players decide to go wraith. Firebats are common in TvZ though, due to their ability to sunken break and kill zerglings quickly.
Either way, not the place to discuss it.
So about the statistical data being used, does anyone know what sample size they use?Diamond and up?Platinum and up?Masters and up?
People at Blizzard are pretty ignorant it seems, good thing I changed from Zerg to Protoss few days ago. By-by frustration and random stupid losses all the time ( diamond leaque)
EPT
