|
On June 17 2011 07:11 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 06:55 crms wrote:
i like the balance more or less besides 1 thing...
rushes having no real economic impact.
A terran can 2 rax (proxy or not) pull SCV's and have it fail vs Z and still end up being basically even. This is a complete joke. There needs to be a choice, go for cheese win, play greedy or play standard. There shouldn't be this 'im going for cheese oh well it failed, time to play standard." I hate that, I want actually risks to being cheesy just like there are risks to playing greedy. The way the game is setup it's stupid to not 2 rax cheese, bunker rush etc., 20% free win 70% end up even, 10% end up slightly behind.*
*obviously numbers pulled out of my ass but I hope you get my point. Then apparently it's not a cheese, huh? It's pressure.. How is it a complete joke, should zerg be allowed to stay ahead in the early game and continue on into the late game with the advantage when they already have the best macro mechanic? What about zergs like July and MorroW who baneling bust terrans at least once every bo3 and it works like 95% of the time, and if it doesn't they still end up ahead? Is that fair? I've seen terrans double layer their wall and banelings still get in because of the insane amount of damage they do to buildings and their splash. I've seen them just baneling bust through barracks walloffs and still have plenty of lings left over. 60% free win, 30% end p even, 10% end up slightly behind. Stop whining. Early pressure is not cheese. SCVs can be pulled because of the mule mechanic and because there is no melee unit for the terran they act as a meatshield, it's not cheese or exploitative when the unit is designed to be able to do that. Looks like zergs will continue to whine until they effortlessly win anything and are granted map hacks to be able to see everything.
And yet, you failed to prove the zerg equivalent of terran early pressure. If an early baneling bust fails zerg will almost 100% of the time be behind in harvesters (unless for some reason T stopped making SCVs). If you fail a baneling bust you have to catch up economically, and until you do you make yourself very vulnerable to any of T's many timing attacks.
2 rax? You can keep SCV production up during as well as even teching up to hellions once you force lings.
|
On June 17 2011 23:24 price wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 23:09 keeblur wrote:On June 17 2011 22:28 Highways wrote:On June 17 2011 22:22 AsnSensation wrote:On June 17 2011 21:13 n0ise wrote:
Did he just say
"Almost every matchup is balanced, with the exception of two"? ;d i love ppl who rip comments out of context... he said the other 7 are about 50:50 and the mentioned 2 are pretty close, which i guess means 55:45 or max 60:40 There are only 3 matchups in terms of balance: ZvT ZvP TvP Or he was talking about between regions as well, since he mentioned the regions. So let's say E is Europe. A is America. K is Korea. Then it would be EZvET, EZvAT, EZvKT, EZvEP, EZvAP, EZvKP, ETvEP, ETvAP, ETvKP, AZvAT, AZvKT, AZvAP, AZvKP, ATvAP, ATvKP. So 15 matchups? That obviously doesn't include mirror matches of regions, which would be EZvEZ, EZvAZ, EZvKZ, AZvKZ, ETvET, ETvAT, ETvKT, ATvKT, EPvEP, EPvAP, EPvKP, APvKP. Which is 12 more matchups, but if you want to eliminate each region fighting the same region, it would only be 9 more. So it's either 15, 24 or 27 match ups depending on how you look at it that way. between regions? lol. all korean vs nonkorean matchups would be imba then. also latency :\ he means the 3 matchups (zvt, tvp, pvz) in each of the 3 regions. 9 matchups. mirrors dont affect balance.
Yeaahhh, it's early, I tried to be smart, but just turned out to be stupid. Forgot regions don't even play each other, except in like tournaments.
|
I definitely don't like the geared towards casual player approach...If the games are balanced in pro level then there's no problem for the casual player as they mostly copied the pro plays in a lesser degree.
|
On June 17 2011 23:32 keeblur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 23:24 price wrote:On June 17 2011 23:09 keeblur wrote:On June 17 2011 22:28 Highways wrote:On June 17 2011 22:22 AsnSensation wrote:On June 17 2011 21:13 n0ise wrote:
Did he just say
"Almost every matchup is balanced, with the exception of two"? ;d i love ppl who rip comments out of context... he said the other 7 are about 50:50 and the mentioned 2 are pretty close, which i guess means 55:45 or max 60:40 There are only 3 matchups in terms of balance: ZvT ZvP TvP Or he was talking about between regions as well, since he mentioned the regions. So let's say E is Europe. A is America. K is Korea. Then it would be EZvET, EZvAT, EZvKT, EZvEP, EZvAP, EZvKP, ETvEP, ETvAP, ETvKP, AZvAT, AZvKT, AZvAP, AZvKP, ATvAP, ATvKP. So 15 matchups? That obviously doesn't include mirror matches of regions, which would be EZvEZ, EZvAZ, EZvKZ, AZvKZ, ETvET, ETvAT, ETvKT, ATvKT, EPvEP, EPvAP, EPvKP, APvKP. Which is 12 more matchups, but if you want to eliminate each region fighting the same region, it would only be 9 more. So it's either 15, 24 or 27 match ups depending on how you look at it that way. between regions? lol. all korean vs nonkorean matchups would be imba then. also latency :\ he means the 3 matchups (zvt, tvp, pvz) in each of the 3 regions. 9 matchups. mirrors dont affect balance. Yeaahhh, it's early, I tried to be smart, but just turned out to be stupid. Forgot regions don't even play each other, except in like tournaments.
i just thought you were thinking creatively. i would like to think all those matchups are balanced ...
|
On June 17 2011 23:26 Zdrastochye wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 07:11 Heavenly wrote:On June 17 2011 06:55 crms wrote:
i like the balance more or less besides 1 thing...
rushes having no real economic impact.
A terran can 2 rax (proxy or not) pull SCV's and have it fail vs Z and still end up being basically even. This is a complete joke. There needs to be a choice, go for cheese win, play greedy or play standard. There shouldn't be this 'im going for cheese oh well it failed, time to play standard." I hate that, I want actually risks to being cheesy just like there are risks to playing greedy. The way the game is setup it's stupid to not 2 rax cheese, bunker rush etc., 20% free win 70% end up even, 10% end up slightly behind.*
*obviously numbers pulled out of my ass but I hope you get my point. Then apparently it's not a cheese, huh? It's pressure.. How is it a complete joke, should zerg be allowed to stay ahead in the early game and continue on into the late game with the advantage when they already have the best macro mechanic? What about zergs like July and MorroW who baneling bust terrans at least once every bo3 and it works like 95% of the time, and if it doesn't they still end up ahead? Is that fair? I've seen terrans double layer their wall and banelings still get in because of the insane amount of damage they do to buildings and their splash. I've seen them just baneling bust through barracks walloffs and still have plenty of lings left over. 60% free win, 30% end p even, 10% end up slightly behind. Stop whining. Early pressure is not cheese. SCVs can be pulled because of the mule mechanic and because there is no melee unit for the terran they act as a meatshield, it's not cheese or exploitative when the unit is designed to be able to do that. Looks like zergs will continue to whine until they effortlessly win anything and are granted map hacks to be able to see everything. And yet, you failed to prove the zerg equivalent of terran early pressure. If an early baneling bust fails zerg will almost 100% of the time be behind in harvesters (unless for some reason T stopped making SCVs). If you fail a baneling bust you have to catch up economically, and until you do you make yourself very vulnerable to any of T's many timing attacks. 2 rax? You can keep SCV production up during as well as even teching up to hellions once you force lings.
You must be one of those zergs that want to be able to 14 hatch greedily with no consequences. If you saw a Terran opponent trying to 14 CC on Xel Naga Caverns, you wouldn't try to punish him? All you have to do to stop a bunker rush is pool first and stop trying to get by the first 5-6minutes of the game building no army.
|
I think I made myself stupider by reading through this thread.
|
I think the most perfect scenario is that all race stats are equal regardless of big or small maps. I do like to see games on smaller maps like Xel'naga carvens. Now almost all the maps are 4 players.
|
On June 17 2011 23:39 Rumok wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 23:26 Zdrastochye wrote:On June 17 2011 07:11 Heavenly wrote:On June 17 2011 06:55 crms wrote:
i like the balance more or less besides 1 thing...
rushes having no real economic impact.
A terran can 2 rax (proxy or not) pull SCV's and have it fail vs Z and still end up being basically even. This is a complete joke. There needs to be a choice, go for cheese win, play greedy or play standard. There shouldn't be this 'im going for cheese oh well it failed, time to play standard." I hate that, I want actually risks to being cheesy just like there are risks to playing greedy. The way the game is setup it's stupid to not 2 rax cheese, bunker rush etc., 20% free win 70% end up even, 10% end up slightly behind.*
*obviously numbers pulled out of my ass but I hope you get my point. Then apparently it's not a cheese, huh? It's pressure.. How is it a complete joke, should zerg be allowed to stay ahead in the early game and continue on into the late game with the advantage when they already have the best macro mechanic? What about zergs like July and MorroW who baneling bust terrans at least once every bo3 and it works like 95% of the time, and if it doesn't they still end up ahead? Is that fair? I've seen terrans double layer their wall and banelings still get in because of the insane amount of damage they do to buildings and their splash. I've seen them just baneling bust through barracks walloffs and still have plenty of lings left over. 60% free win, 30% end p even, 10% end up slightly behind. Stop whining. Early pressure is not cheese. SCVs can be pulled because of the mule mechanic and because there is no melee unit for the terran they act as a meatshield, it's not cheese or exploitative when the unit is designed to be able to do that. Looks like zergs will continue to whine until they effortlessly win anything and are granted map hacks to be able to see everything. And yet, you failed to prove the zerg equivalent of terran early pressure. If an early baneling bust fails zerg will almost 100% of the time be behind in harvesters (unless for some reason T stopped making SCVs). If you fail a baneling bust you have to catch up economically, and until you do you make yourself very vulnerable to any of T's many timing attacks. 2 rax? You can keep SCV production up during as well as even teching up to hellions once you force lings. You must be one of those zergs that want to be able to 14 hatch greedily with no consequences. If you saw a Terran opponent trying to 14 CC on Xel Naga Caverns, you wouldn't try to punish him? All you have to do to stop a bunker rush is pool first and stop trying to get by the first 5-6minutes of the game building no army.
15 hatch isn't greedy and pool first vs terran puts you miles behind.
|
so have they confirmed when season 3 starts? I know that hots is getting its own ladder, so I imagine that will be a new ladder season whenever that comes out. I guess my thoughts would be if they waited for hots for season 3 then we can expect a ladder season to be a year on average... I dont know, any rumors or confirmation on release date?
|
On June 17 2011 22:28 Highways wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 22:22 AsnSensation wrote:On June 17 2011 21:13 n0ise wrote:
Did he just say
"Almost every matchup is balanced, with the exception of two"? ;d i love ppl who rip comments out of context... he said the other 7 are about 50:50 and the mentioned 2 are pretty close, which i guess means 55:45 or max 60:40 There are only 3 matchups in terms of balance: ZvT ZvP TvP
Why are you all so fail at math and listening to what David Kim said? He said the following:
We have a way of judging win percentages with skill factored into them. And, judging from those in the 3 major regions: Korea, US and EU, every single matchup was almost close to 50% balanced umm except for 2 and even those 2 weren't off by too much.
Which is to say:
Bronze: 3 MUs
Silver: 3 MUs
Gold: 3 MUs
Platnium: 3 MUs
Diamond: 3 MUs
Masters: 3 MUs
GM: 3 MUs
(Pro/Tourneys?): 3 MUs
That makes the MU pool, factoring in skill levels, 21 per region (excluding tournament level). Since he mentioned they compare MU percentages for all 3 regions that gives a total of 63 MUs in the pool used for comparsion (3 MUs per skill level, 7 different levels, 3 different regions).
To have 2 matchups out of 63 that aren't "off by too much" is pretty good. And in all likelihood, the MUs that are off are at the lower skill levels since they've stated in the past that at lower level PvT tends to favor P -- I can find the reference if you need it.
|
lol he said zerg was better then protoss atm :D (blush)
great interview sir!!!
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 17 2011 23:09 keeblur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 22:28 Highways wrote:On June 17 2011 22:22 AsnSensation wrote:On June 17 2011 21:13 n0ise wrote:
Did he just say
"Almost every matchup is balanced, with the exception of two"? ;d i love ppl who rip comments out of context... he said the other 7 are about 50:50 and the mentioned 2 are pretty close, which i guess means 55:45 or max 60:40 There are only 3 matchups in terms of balance: ZvT ZvP TvP Or he was talking about between regions as well, since he mentioned the regions. So let's say E is Europe. A is America. K is Korea. Then it would be EZvET, EZvAT, EZvKT, EZvEP, EZvAP, EZvKP, ETvEP, ETvAP, ETvKP, AZvAT, AZvKT, AZvAP, AZvKP, ATvAP, ATvKP. So 15 matchups? That obviously doesn't include mirror matches of regions, which would be EZvEZ, EZvAZ, EZvKZ, AZvKZ, ETvET, ETvAT, ETvKT, ATvKT, EPvEP, EPvAP, EPvKP, APvKP. Which is 12 more matchups, but if you want to eliminate each region fighting the same region, it would only be 9 more. So it's either 15, 24 or 27 match ups depending on how you look at it that way.
I don't think that's what he was saying at all...
|
On June 17 2011 23:53 Ziktomini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 23:39 Rumok wrote:On June 17 2011 23:26 Zdrastochye wrote:On June 17 2011 07:11 Heavenly wrote:On June 17 2011 06:55 crms wrote:
i like the balance more or less besides 1 thing...
rushes having no real economic impact.
A terran can 2 rax (proxy or not) pull SCV's and have it fail vs Z and still end up being basically even. This is a complete joke. There needs to be a choice, go for cheese win, play greedy or play standard. There shouldn't be this 'im going for cheese oh well it failed, time to play standard." I hate that, I want actually risks to being cheesy just like there are risks to playing greedy. The way the game is setup it's stupid to not 2 rax cheese, bunker rush etc., 20% free win 70% end up even, 10% end up slightly behind.*
*obviously numbers pulled out of my ass but I hope you get my point. Then apparently it's not a cheese, huh? It's pressure.. How is it a complete joke, should zerg be allowed to stay ahead in the early game and continue on into the late game with the advantage when they already have the best macro mechanic? What about zergs like July and MorroW who baneling bust terrans at least once every bo3 and it works like 95% of the time, and if it doesn't they still end up ahead? Is that fair? I've seen terrans double layer their wall and banelings still get in because of the insane amount of damage they do to buildings and their splash. I've seen them just baneling bust through barracks walloffs and still have plenty of lings left over. 60% free win, 30% end p even, 10% end up slightly behind. Stop whining. Early pressure is not cheese. SCVs can be pulled because of the mule mechanic and because there is no melee unit for the terran they act as a meatshield, it's not cheese or exploitative when the unit is designed to be able to do that. Looks like zergs will continue to whine until they effortlessly win anything and are granted map hacks to be able to see everything. And yet, you failed to prove the zerg equivalent of terran early pressure. If an early baneling bust fails zerg will almost 100% of the time be behind in harvesters (unless for some reason T stopped making SCVs). If you fail a baneling bust you have to catch up economically, and until you do you make yourself very vulnerable to any of T's many timing attacks. 2 rax? You can keep SCV production up during as well as even teching up to hellions once you force lings. You must be one of those zergs that want to be able to 14 hatch greedily with no consequences. If you saw a Terran opponent trying to 14 CC on Xel Naga Caverns, you wouldn't try to punish him? All you have to do to stop a bunker rush is pool first and stop trying to get by the first 5-6minutes of the game building no army. 15 hatch isn't greedy and pool first vs terran puts you miles behind.
Nestea does it all the time. It doesn't put you as far behind as you think. Going hatch first back in the open seasons was considered extremely greedy (and it was punished hard via scv all ins). You don't think it's greedy for a zerg to not make any units for the first 6 minutes of the game, then make a 3rd at 8 minutes using only 6-8 lings to defend? People that play like this are the reason why terrans open aggressively.
|
I really don't like the idea of them putting garbage ("casual") units in the game or removing units. Sorry, it's quite clear the BW developers were better at this. Oh, this unit is too hard to balance and give it a role (no matter how niche) so let's make it a non-factor? Lazy much?
|
[QUOTE]On June 17 2011 07:12 Demonace34 wrote:
[QUOTE]On June 17 2011 06:59 crabz wrote:
and the zerg whine begins[/QUOTE]
ur right, the underpowered race tends to whine a lot...go figure
User was warned for this post
|
On June 18 2011 00:57 Ownos wrote:
I really don't like the idea of them putting garbage ("casual") units in the game or removing units. Sorry, it's quite clear the BW developers were better at this. Oh, this unit is too hard to balance and give it a role (no matter how niche) so let's make it a non-factor? Lazy much?
Scouts are even more useless than the mothership. I won't say anything about devourers as hivetech ZvZ is pretty rare but let's not kid ourselves, BW also had units that saw little to no use over 10 years.
|
I love Davies shirt XD
I think it's pretty hilarious that he's wearing a Terran badge, food for thought ^^
Thanks for these man, I love interviews with Mr. Kim.
|
only 1% beat WoL on brutal???? but how many ppl attempted it, they should give the % on that. And yea I agree Brutal was actually pretty easy once u've done the mission a couple times through on hard or w.e
|
On June 18 2011 01:25 OPKutty wrote:
only 1% beat WoL on brutal???? but how many ppl attempted it, they should give the % on that. And yea I agree Brutal was actually pretty easy once u've done the mission a couple times through on hard or w.e
Doesn't sound very easy when you say you had to attempt it a couple times. If it means anything, Tyler had to look up a walk-through; like what 50% of that 1% had to do. I like where the difficulty is for brutal. It feels very much like one of those old super hard games. Getting to diamond was way easier than brutal.
|
ur right, the underpowered race tends to whine a lot...go figure
You know what? I think we've finally gotten to the point that it is absolutely not okay to just refer to Zerg as underpowered without giving a single reason for it. There is absolutely NO consensus in the community whatsoever that Zerg is underpowered. Heck, even Idra himself has said he thinks the game is fairly balanced at the moment.
So cut it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
