|
On June 18 2011 01:36 Captain Peabody wrote: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.
my thoughts exactly... many zergs just keep the "underpowered" card in their backpocket no matter what. They aren't even paying attention to the changes in the metagame and how much success zergs have been experiencing recently.
I forget who said this but...
Early Game Loss - Cheese
Mid Game Loss - All-in
Late Game Loss - Imbalance
-_-
|
On June 17 2011 06:48 Laurence wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 06:16 On_Slaught wrote:
"The mothership is more geared towards casual players." - David Kim
Holy shit that is a HORRIBLE explanation for why they keep a HORRIBLE unit in competitive play. How about give the terran all the units in the single player too for the bronze and gold league players?
They just told protoss that you get one less viable unit b/c its fun for some players who don't care about winning. I thought it seemed like a really good explanation, zerg have less units altogether than T and P and Terran have units that aren't used much either (raven is a good example). In BW there was at least 1 unit per race that wasn't used in competitive play, and it didn't make it a boring game or a bad spectator sport. Also the more useful units you put into the game it exponentially gets harder and harder to balance, so maybe buffing all these units might not be a good thing, as it would really make for a difficult time for Blizzard.
Yeah, in BW some units didn't have a lot of use. That's fine, at least they weren't designed as shit units as a beginner's trap and had their small role in pro play. Seemed alright to add more units for BW. It's just lazy design. Yeah, adding more units that is harder. So what? Try harder.
These units don't exactly have to be game changing. Niche roles for new units are fine. Devourers and valkyries and corsairs had very limited AtA roles. But they had their role and didn't mess up balance. Medics completely changed the way T was played. Lurkers added an interesting factor into Z play. DTs open up a few more possibilities for P. Chitinous plating + speed made ultras good. Charon boosters made goliaths not suck.
Yeah, like I said BW devs were better at this. They were able to add upgrades making previous shit units good, 6 units into the game and not worry OH NOES TEH BALANCE TOO HARD NAO!
I wonder if they'd add the level of content that was in BW over 2 expansions i.e. 3 new units for HOTS and 3 new units for LOTV. Actually they even talked about REMOVING units. Even lazier! What? They're going to remove the stalker and give us a dragoon that is basically a stalker with +2 on upgrades? Do they think they could fool us?
I just want every unit to have it's role; especially units that I like aesthetically/thematically, but can't use them because they're crap by design. Leaving in crap units that no one uses is a design flaw that's from other game developers. I remember distinctly during the BW days that the devs wanted every unit to have a purpose. Blizzard didn't want to be like those other developers that threw in 100 different unit types for marketing purposes and find out only 3 are worth building.
|
On June 18 2011 01:05 tangwhat wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Oh I remember the good old scout, they looked really cool in the protoss BW ending.
|
On June 18 2011 01:57 Ownos wrote:
Yeah, like I said BW devs were better at this. They were able to add upgrades making previous shit units good, 6 units into the game and not worry OH NOES TEH BALANCE TOO HARD NAO!
How do you know what's in HOTS?
|
Don't worry guys, if HOTS failed there's still Legacy Of Void. Which will be the most epic of all.
|
On June 17 2011 07:43 dde wrote:
dayvie trying to balance game just by looking at the result of top gamers i guess. Because between lower tier gamers terrans dominate while zergs kill both terran and toss between top gamers.
Honestly I don't think he should bother with the lower tier games as balance really doesn't matter much. I think knowledge and understanding is much more important. As a ex-Terran playing Zerg I find playing against Terran the easiest thing in the world, I know all the strengths, weaknesses and timings. Because the low tiers in their haste to get promoted often copy what higher levels are doing it's often extremely easy to read them and beat them. Only when a Terran understands the MU from a zerg point of view does he understand which units to get at a certain situation and not just continue to go for Banshees after I just scouted him building his early second gas.
Playing against Toss on the other hand I find extremely difficult because I just don't understand Toss and therefore need much more discipline in scouting my opponent. I've had my IdrA moments when the Toss push came and I got slaughtered. Only when you look at the replays you realize just how much you could have done to win or be better prepared of course instantly regretting your BM as well.
Anyway coming back to my point. I think balance talks in general should be kept to the high tier games precisely because of how important it is to have a better understanding in order to really become a better player. Therefore when a high level player faces a situation prepared and still loses you can think: "what could be wrong?" or with the expansion games in mind: "Which type of units could this race use to help him at this situation?".
|
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.
And yet, if a terran player don't aply pressure in the early game he will problably get behind in economy. I even saw some games where terran aplys a 2 rax builds and stills gets behind in the mid game economy.
|
On June 18 2011 01:35 Ownos wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Way to twist what he said, he said it's easy once you've done it (even) on a lower difficulty(because you know how the mission plays out).
There are only a few missions that may take a couple of tries, the rest are pretty easy for any decent player(for example I beat all-in on my first try, and I have no idea why people find massing 100 damage tanks hard).
I got in diamond right after they introduced it though, so my views might not represent the "average" player or whatever you use to base difficulty on.
|
He was talking about the 3 matchups on the 3 main servers, which makes 9 in total and 2 out of them are a bit off.
I'm afraid of the infestor broodlord nerf, I think we should wait for more ghost usage in ZvT, it's too early to judge. It might turn out that inf bl even needed a buff if ghosts murder that comp.
|
On June 18 2011 01:36 Captain Peabody wrote: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.
personally i think balance is okay, i was being sarcastic and pointing out that ppl who complain about whiners r just as bad as whiners. i wanted to bring to their attention that if Zerg whine is as prevalent as these ppl think, why do u think that is? the game is pretty balanced and there is a lot of QQ from all the races. if u actually think Zerg players really whine more than the other races, than the only logical explanation is that their race is actually UP.
|
The only reason I did not finish the game on brutal is because my computer was not good enough to handle it. Brutal mode wasnt that hard for most gamers but despite the fact that my computer meets the system requirments and is good enough for ladder play it is not good enough for brutal mode. I honestly felt deceived that even tho I met the specs needed when there is a lot on the screen my computer cant really handle it. I get the feeling that might be the case for a lot of people. I also get the feeling a lot of ladder players just don't care enough about single player to want to beat it on brutal. Like the WoW players who have very hihg arena rankings but have not killed any raid bossess.
|
The problem with broodlord/infestor combo, is that the broodlords become incredibly difficult to kill. The vikings die so fast to fungal growth, because they are considered armored. In order to fix this problem I think vikings should not take so much damage from fungal growth.
And to everyone saying make ghosts - It's not that easy. The broodlord/infestor combo is the core of the army, but the zerglings/banelings can just overrun all your ghosts very easily, as you cannot really siege your tanks under broodlord fire.
Thats how I see it.
|
On June 18 2011 01:35 Ownos wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Only level that required help was the last Protoss mission. That shit was impossible on brutal without abusing a glitch.
|
Mass void ray/carrier is a glitch? ^_^
|
make it so fungal can be dodged or something... or that it doesnt hold you in place...
|
On June 18 2011 04:25 skrzmark wrote:
make it so fungal can be dodged or something... or that it doesnt hold you in place...
So turn it into storm?.. no.
|
|
|
On June 17 2011 14:38 DeLoReAn wrote:
what about duran? What is going on with duran!?
I am asking myself the same question mate. I mean, Duran is the main reason for the existence of the hybrids according to BW :/
I will be sooooooooooooooo disappointed if they decide to not include him in HotS...
|
|
|
On June 18 2011 04:12 Yaotzin wrote:
Mass void ray/carrier is a glitch? ^_^
Apparently so is Mass DT + actively sniping all the overseers with a mob of phoenix (while massing VR Carrier)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
