|
On April 29 2011 00:23 awesomoecalypse wrote:lots of intelligent things
Just wanted to thank you for giving a little bit of perspective in this thread. SC2 hasn't even been released for 12 months yet and all people can do is bitch. There hasn't even been one expansion. The game will change. New units will be implemented. And the metagame a year from now won't look like the metagame does currently. It's fine to think constructively about how weak some things are, but to think you know enough about the game now to say definitively that it's horribly imbalanced (a position lots of people in this thread seem to take) is absurd.
|
Also I see a lot of people arguing about counters and hard counters. For the sake of this forum, please remember Day9's teachings. Even Dustin seemed like "wtf" when the interviewers asked him that question about counters.
|
On April 29 2011 00:02 gnutz wrote:
It makes all sense for me.
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.
you dont see huge imbalance in tournaments? really? i do. and i played random @ 3400 master league up until a few months ago. did you see july get steamrolled by mc in the finals lasts season? MC 4-1d the best zerg player in the world - made him look like a chump. i could not have possibly imagined a more one-sided series.
how could you, or browder, actually say the game is perfectly balanced when zerg has been consistently under-performing in tournaments since october. and no i dont want to hear about nestea or fruitdealer, because those players were from a very small group of zergs who even made it into code S.
look at NASL, TSL, GSL over the past months and what do you see? zerg has roughly a 20% representation in those upper tier brackets, but browder and the rest of the dev. team are ignoring that and using ladder race appropriation as hard data that the game is balanced???
WTF.
|
GLAD to see the data saying zerg is no UP. Data always trump loud mouths like idra.
|
On April 28 2011 23:44 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This is wrong, Blizzard's stats are adjusted for the effect the matchmaking has. They showed how the math worked last blizzcon if I recall correctly.
And geeh, what's wrong with you people, I thought we had gotten over the Dustin Browder hate a while ago. He pretty much can't answer a question related to Brood War without people attacking him. Bio play wasn't viable in TvP, queens are hardly viable in Zv anything (maybe they're used occasionally nowadays, but do you want to wait 6 years before the game has developed that far?), scouts aren't useful, valkyries and ghosts don't see much use either, in fact neither do devourers and guardians. I think if you look at the unit balance, then in some ways sc2 is in a better place than sc1.
Comebacks are about micro potential of certain units, I guess, about the ability to do risky things and through amazing execution pull them off. Those require a lot of skill and understanding of the game, so I'm not sure it's already a definite problem, as players might still develop more of them. I guess units like the colossi do make this annoying, but still, it's just unfair to compare immortals v tanks with vultures vs dragoons, when you could also compare them to marines vs banelings.
|
On April 29 2011 01:09 GeorgeForeman wrote:Just wanted to thank you for giving a little bit of perspective in this thread. SC2 hasn't even been released for 12 months yet and all people can do is bitch. There hasn't even been one expansion. The game will change. New units will be implemented. And the metagame a year from now won't look like the metagame does currently. It's fine to think constructively about how weak some things are, but to think you know enough about the game now to say definitively that it's horribly imbalanced (a position lots of people in this thread seem to take) is absurd.
New units won't be implemented
|
On April 29 2011 01:16 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 01:09 GeorgeForeman wrote:On April 29 2011 00:23 awesomoecalypse wrote:lots of intelligent things Just wanted to thank you for giving a little bit of perspective in this thread. SC2 hasn't even been released for 12 months yet and all people can do is bitch. There hasn't even been one expansion. The game will change. New units will be implemented. And the metagame a year from now won't look like the metagame does currently. It's fine to think constructively about how weak some things are, but to think you know enough about the game now to say definitively that it's horribly imbalanced (a position lots of people in this thread seem to take) is absurd. New units won't be implemented
He's probably talking about new units being implemented in the expansion packs.
|
On April 28 2011 23:32 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 23:26 xixecal wrote:Furthermore, you have to understand that the players of the different races are saying different things about the situation. Terran players are also complaining that Terran is hard to play. Similarly, Protoss players are also complaining about their own race. We do not acknowledge that there are signs of imbalance in the game. Our view is that the balance situation in the game is quite good as of now. If everyone is bitching then the game is pretty balanced. That actually sort of makes sense. Sure, but Zergs are complaining about not having a way to beat a lategame Protoss, and the response to that is usually that there might be a way and Zergs should keep trying. Dustin over here though doesn't even seem to recognize that lategame ZvP is pretty L-O-L atm.
That's because it's not, it's pretty much completely balanced. Everytime I see a zerg die to protoss without infestors, I facepalm as hard as I do when a protoss dies to mass MMM without splash damage.
Great interview, I agree with everything he said.
On April 29 2011 01:13 TENTHST wrote:
you dont see huge imbalance in tournaments? really? i do. and i played random @ 3400 master league up until a few months ago. did you see july get steamrolled by mc in the finals lasts season? MC 4-1d the best zerg player in the world - made him look like a chump. i could not have possibly imagined a more one-sided series.
You answered your own question. MC beat july. Not protoss beat zerg lol
On April 29 2011 01:13 TENTHST wrote:
how could you, or browder, actually say the game is perfectly balanced when zerg has been consistently under-performing in tournaments since october. and no i dont want to hear about nestea or fruitdealer, because those players were from a very small group of zergs who even made it into code S.
look at NASL, TSL, GSL over the past months and what do you see? zerg has roughly a 20% representation in those upper tier brackets, but browder and the rest of the dev. team are ignoring that and using ladder race appropriation as hard data that the game is balanced???
WTF.
Might want to check the results of GSL may (both A and S) before you start whining. I'm pretty convinced you don't even watch pro games with comments like this lol
|
On April 29 2011 01:16 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 01:09 GeorgeForeman wrote:On April 29 2011 00:23 awesomoecalypse wrote:lots of intelligent things Just wanted to thank you for giving a little bit of perspective in this thread. SC2 hasn't even been released for 12 months yet and all people can do is bitch. There hasn't even been one expansion. The game will change. New units will be implemented. And the metagame a year from now won't look like the metagame does currently. It's fine to think constructively about how weak some things are, but to think you know enough about the game now to say definitively that it's horribly imbalanced (a position lots of people in this thread seem to take) is absurd. New units won't be implemented
New units will be implemented at expansions, I don't remember ever reading that this wasn't the case, and I'm pretty sure Blizzard themselfs said they would/could do that, I'm not sure where you got that information.
|
On April 29 2011 01:13 TENTHST wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:02 gnutz wrote:
It makes all sense for me.
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. you dont see huge imbalance in tournaments? really? i do. and i played random @ 3400 master league up until a few months ago. did you see july get steamrolled by mc in the finals lasts season? MC 4-1d the best zerg player in the world - made him look like a chump. i could not have possibly imagined a more one-sided series.
Good job. You looked at one tournament and judge balance based off the score? Have you ever watched the OSL/MSL finals before? There have been numerous occasions of 3-0 victories, but that doesn't mean BW is unbalanced. The game changes so much and so quickly that whoever comes up with a new working strategy will have a bigger advantage than in BW because standard play still needs to be tweaked and felt out. Do you not remember GOM Open 2 where Fruitdealer won? Yeah, 4-1. Does that mean zerg was OP? Of course not. The game is just as volatile as it has been for the past few months. The best zerg in the world does NOT have to have a 50% ratio with the best P and best T player to mean a balanced game.
|
Concepts in the game are balanced. Blings beat marines. Stim Marines beat Blings. Speed+ Blings eat on creep eat stim marines. Micro is where you can pick apart and split your marines to not let all or any of them die to blings. Micro then again is pinching the terran and not letting 4 blings blow up 2 marines.
The part that isn't balanced is "Numbers" thats why you see build times tweaked, damage tweaked, ranges tweaked. You won't see hydras go off hatch tech. You won't see marauders learn to shoot up. You will see marauders damage get changed and maybe hydra cost/hp change. Build times and warp in cooldowns will be tweaked, but the lurker won't be added. The concepts will stay the same, the only thing not "100% balanced" is the numbers.
edit: just removed the whole sc:bw/sc2 micro comparison, obviously it falls on deaf stubborn ears.
NASL Spoilers Example
+ Show Spoiler +TLO vs Rainbow last night shows Micro is alive, - TLO's marines vs Rainbows marines and hellions - beautiful, watching that i've forgiven him from going from r->t again :D
|
On April 28 2011 23:28 vek wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Uh yeah. That is the point i was making. It's a soft counter... SC2 has harder counters than that. By far. You can't overcome a direct counter with micro in SC2 in almost any situation.
On April 29 2011 01:09 GeorgeForeman wrote:Just wanted to thank you for giving a little bit of perspective in this thread. SC2 hasn't even been released for 12 months yet and all people can do is bitch. There hasn't even been one expansion. The game will change. New units will be implemented. And the metagame a year from now won't look like the metagame does currently. It's fine to think constructively about how weak some things are, but to think you know enough about the game now to say definitively that it's horribly imbalanced (a position lots of people in this thread seem to take) is absurd.
Since when did people get this attitude? The game has been out an entire year and you're response is just 'wait till it gets better'? This makes no sense. We are playing and watching the game right now. It's fair to criticize when the lead designer makes such weird comments, because if he is saying these things then its unlikely to change in any expansions.
|
On April 29 2011 01:32 infinity2k9 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 23:28 vek wrote: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? Uh yeah. That is the point i was making. It's a soft counter... SC2 has harder counters than that. By far. You can't overcome a direct counter with micro in SC2 in almost any situation.
150mm strike cannons thors > immortal.
|
On April 29 2011 01:20 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 01:16 loveeholicce wrote:On April 29 2011 01:09 GeorgeForeman wrote:On April 29 2011 00:23 awesomoecalypse wrote:lots of intelligent things Just wanted to thank you for giving a little bit of perspective in this thread. SC2 hasn't even been released for 12 months yet and all people can do is bitch. There hasn't even been one expansion. The game will change. New units will be implemented. And the metagame a year from now won't look like the metagame does currently. It's fine to think constructively about how weak some things are, but to think you know enough about the game now to say definitively that it's horribly imbalanced (a position lots of people in this thread seem to take) is absurd. New units won't be implemented New units will be implemented at expansions, I don't remember ever reading that this wasn't the case, and I'm pretty sure Blizzard themselfs said they would/could do that, I'm not sure where you got that information.
Then you read wrong...they won't be
|
On April 29 2011 01:15 TheResidentEvil wrote:
GLAD to see the data saying zerg is no UP. Data always trump loud mouths like idra.
funny you leave out nestea, losira, most pro gamers in korea when taking shots at zerg players.
|
Hey people, I editted the OP to include a second interview if you're interested 
|
On April 29 2011 01:37 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 01:20 SKC wrote:On April 29 2011 01:16 loveeholicce wrote:On April 29 2011 01:09 GeorgeForeman wrote:On April 29 2011 00:23 awesomoecalypse wrote:lots of intelligent things Just wanted to thank you for giving a little bit of perspective in this thread. SC2 hasn't even been released for 12 months yet and all people can do is bitch. There hasn't even been one expansion. The game will change. New units will be implemented. And the metagame a year from now won't look like the metagame does currently. It's fine to think constructively about how weak some things are, but to think you know enough about the game now to say definitively that it's horribly imbalanced (a position lots of people in this thread seem to take) is absurd. New units won't be implemented New units will be implemented at expansions, I don't remember ever reading that this wasn't the case, and I'm pretty sure Blizzard themselfs said they would/could do that, I'm not sure where you got that information. Then you read wrong...they won't be
Source?
|
On April 29 2011 01:38 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 01:15 TheResidentEvil wrote:
GLAD to see the data saying zerg is no UP. Data always trump loud mouths like idra. funny you leave out nestea, losira, most pro gamers in korea when taking shots at zerg players.
I said like idra. i dont know what koreans say. they speak korean. If they are like idra, then sure lump them in there too. Data always better than bias opinions.
|
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.
Have you ever even played Brood War? Firebats, queens, and Valkyries all have uses. You see Firebats in every non mech ZvT, You see queens in practicably every modern Mech ZvT. Valkaries are used vs mutas and mass wratih.
Also SC2 ZvZ Zergings/baneling is not a viable unit comp past 8 minutes into the game. Mutas are a complete joke in ZvZ and have been for sometime. Queens are a macro unit and I don't really see anyone going 10+ queens in ZvZ and winning. So you are left with Roach/Hydra(both are ranged with no really interesting abilities that can be used in battle) and Infestors. I find it funny that you list all the units that have been used in ZvZ even though how rare while ignoring all of the units made in SC1 that were rare. If I wanna just start listing off all the units that can be used in SC1 ZvZ just like you did with SC2 ZvZ I have, Zerglings, hydra, lurkers, defilers, mutas, devourers, ultras, scourge. From the way you formulated your arguments and pick and choosed I really can only interpret that your post is hilariously biased.
|
wow reading this is really depressing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
