|
On June 18 2011 09:32 huddo38 wrote:
Good Interview JP cheers
JP failed in the followup question category.
The interviewee says all but two matchups are unbalanced. There are only 3 non-mirror matchups. JP happily moves to his next question while glancing at the camera awkwardly.
The interviewee says some units, like the mothership, are not a concern if they are seldom used because they are aimed at more casual players. JP moves to his next question when he could have asked what other units also fall into the "we don't care about being used in high-level play" category.
And, as others have noted, he could have asked about the tendency to remove content rather than rebalance it or add new content.
|
On June 18 2011 10:10 MeatlessTaco wrote:JP failed in the followup question category. The interviewee says all but two matchups are unbalanced. There are only 3 non-mirror matchups. JP happily moves to his next question while glancing at the camera awkwardly. The interviewee says some units, like the mothership, are not a concern if they are seldom used because they are aimed at more casual players. JP moves to his next question when he could have asked what other units also fall into the "we don't care about being used in high-level play" category. And, as others have noted, he could have asked about the tendency to remove content rather than rebalance it or add new content.
The hell you think this is, an interview with Halliburton on their Middle East oil contracts? JP isn't here to 'ask tough questions,' and David Kim said that those two imbalanced matchups were only slightly imbalanced. You also misunderstood, because that was from data from ALL THREE REGIONS individually, meaning two matchups from a single region were imbalanced, aka Korean TvT stats are different from North American TvT stats.
|
On June 18 2011 10:23 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2011 10:10 MeatlessTaco wrote:On June 18 2011 09:32 huddo38 wrote:
Good Interview JP cheers JP failed in the followup question category. The interviewee says all but two matchups are unbalanced. There are only 3 non-mirror matchups. JP happily moves to his next question while glancing at the camera awkwardly. The interviewee says some units, like the mothership, are not a concern if they are seldom used because they are aimed at more casual players. JP moves to his next question when he could have asked what other units also fall into the "we don't care about being used in high-level play" category. And, as others have noted, he could have asked about the tendency to remove content rather than rebalance it or add new content. The hell you think this is, an interview with Halliburton on their Middle East oil contracts? JP isn't here to 'ask tough questions,' and David Kim said that those two imbalanced matchups were only slightly imbalanced. You also misunderstood, because that was from data from ALL THREE REGIONS individually, meaning two matchups from a single region were imbalanced, aka Korean TvT stats are different from North American TvT stats.
Relax.
On another note, it isn't clear whether he meant that he was grouping the statistics for all three regions for 3 separate match ups or looking at 9 different match ups and making a difference between each region. Given that he included tournaments as well, I'd say you're being the optimist in trying to excuse him by saying that there are actually 9 different MUs.
It really just comes down to whether you're trying to be optimistic (and thus defending Blizz) or pessimistic (and assaulting them) because both sides are putting words in his mouth. Once again though, to me it sounds like he was only talking about 3 different matchups given that he included tournaments that include foreigners and koreans alike.
And you're right. The questions don't have to be incredibly tough, but I for one am a little tired of Blizzard's constant excuses. "Oh, that ability doesn't work? Remove it." "Oh, that unit doesn't work? Well we never really intended for THAT unit to work. That's just for fun! God!"
Lots of excuses... and just to reinforce the point. It's no surprise that Kim is wearing a Terran shirt.
|
On June 18 2011 10:23 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2011 10:10 MeatlessTaco wrote:On June 18 2011 09:32 huddo38 wrote:
Good Interview JP cheers JP failed in the followup question category. The interviewee says all but two matchups are unbalanced. There are only 3 non-mirror matchups. JP happily moves to his next question while glancing at the camera awkwardly. The interviewee says some units, like the mothership, are not a concern if they are seldom used because they are aimed at more casual players. JP moves to his next question when he could have asked what other units also fall into the "we don't care about being used in high-level play" category. And, as others have noted, he could have asked about the tendency to remove content rather than rebalance it or add new content. The hell you think this is, an interview with Halliburton on their Middle East oil contracts? JP isn't here to 'ask tough questions,' and David Kim said that those two imbalanced matchups were only slightly imbalanced. You also misunderstood, because that was from data from ALL THREE REGIONS individually, meaning two matchups from a single region were imbalanced, aka Korean TvT stats are different from North American TvT stats.
Ahhh, I get the race balance thing now, my bad. Second point still stands. The point this was an opportunity to find out something interesting, rather than stuff we already knew.
edit: I work for Halliburton, lol
|
Nice interview JP.
Good to hear that there is going to be new maps having a large map diversity is awesome can’t wait to see what new tactics may evolve on the new maps.
Hopefully a good range from macro games to cheese games (just not to many) it does make it more interesting.
|
lol at the haliburton stuff.. pretty funny.
I kinda feel bad for Kim.. thats not a job I would like to have.
|
On June 18 2011 10:33 Protein wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 18 2011 10:23 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2011 10:10 MeatlessTaco wrote:On June 18 2011 09:32 huddo38 wrote:
Good Interview JP cheers JP failed in the followup question category. The interviewee says all but two matchups are unbalanced. There are only 3 non-mirror matchups. JP happily moves to his next question while glancing at the camera awkwardly. The interviewee says some units, like the mothership, are not a concern if they are seldom used because they are aimed at more casual players. JP moves to his next question when he could have asked what other units also fall into the "we don't care about being used in high-level play" category. And, as others have noted, he could have asked about the tendency to remove content rather than rebalance it or add new content. The hell you think this is, an interview with Halliburton on their Middle East oil contracts? JP isn't here to 'ask tough questions,' and David Kim said that those two imbalanced matchups were only slightly imbalanced. You also misunderstood, because that was from data from ALL THREE REGIONS individually, meaning two matchups from a single region were imbalanced, aka Korean TvT stats are different from North American TvT stats. Relax. On another note, it isn't clear whether he meant that he was grouping the statistics for all three regions for 3 separate match ups or looking at 9 different match ups and making a difference between each region. Given that he included tournaments as well, I'd say you're being the optimist in trying to excuse him by saying that there are actually 9 different MUs.
Why are you guys still confused about this issue. David Kim explained it quite clearly and I broke it down for everyone on page 18 of this thread.
Let me reiterate that point quickly. The following is the direct quote from David Kim followed by a brief explanation.
David Kim: 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.
So, number of matchups using this metric (assuming "skill" == "league") is ( (7 leagues * 3 MUs) * 3 regions) = 63.
TLDR; dayvie made it clear that they look at matchups as a function of skill and regions (7 x 3 x 3 = 63)
|
David Kim wearing a terran shirt... IMBAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
"Minus the biases from the players aside, overall I think the balance of the game is pretty solid."
Isn't Kim the guy who should marry the rine-SCV since he spends all his time with it on ladder?
A better answer would have been "we balance for high-end play, you can cheese to a high ladder level but you'll get stomped after reaching it."
|
On June 17 2011 06:27 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 06:21 imareaver3 wrote: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. There are 15 Protoss units, 13 Zerg units, and 13 Terran units. (Excluding "special" units like PDD, changeling, interceptor, etc.) Are you seriously complaining about P having less units? Unit numbers aside the protoss shouldn't be giving up something for nothing. If having 2 more unit options was that important protoss wouldn't have a much higher winning % than they do now. Ultimately the mothership is there b/c it is supposed to fill a role, which could have gone to a better unit if it wasn't there (arbiter  ). Looking past any of that, I just think it is sad to think they put a unit into multiplayer with basically no intention of it being a serious unit. Those units should stay in single player. Just fundamentally bad design.
No it's not bad design. Using Mothership in pro matches can be absolutely viable. The situations are just very rare. Only thing he said is that it isnt as bad as not seeing smaller units more often. Who cares about the mothership if it isnt used much? Noone! Buffing it would be absolutely ridiculous and stupid. R
the rest of the protoss units is fine
|
On June 17 2011 06:08 GwSC wrote:
Good interviews
A little strange to me that he specifically mentions broodlord+infestor vs T as something they are looking at.
It seems that especially Korean Terrans with their crazy drop play are able to roll over that comp, being that its so slow.
Edit: Would like to add, I'm all for brood+infestor being less prominent. Slow powerful units as the center of the unit comp just doesn't feel zergy
...which is why they're looking at fixing it, so it's not the dominant strategy.
|
If find it disturbing that they seem to feel a match-up is balanced based upon the win percentages being close to 50%. Isn't it also possible that as Idra has stated many times, that match-ups are full of coin flips with various all-ins, weak scouting and the ridiculous production potential given by the mule, chrono, warpgate and larve mechanics. While the gameplay would be weak and fragile, coinflips would lead to 50% win rates over many iterations? Does this make sense. I feel like there should be more to altering the game that just getting the win percentages to 50%.
|
On June 17 2011 07:06 ahbeez wrote:
why are people so angry about the mothership?
- Intention: a unit for low level players to enjoy
- Doesn't replace ANYTHING. It's not like there was an arbiter and they removed it for the mothership.
- It literally doesn't affect anyone if theres a gimmick unit for low level players to enjoy, this game is a great esport but it can have fun stuff too. You guys have such warped logic to think that if it doesn't add to the competitive side of the game then its worthless...I can't believe anyone can be upset about it.
Agreed, people fail to understand most of the SC players are not hardcore, and likely don't even know who the hell Idra is, or about this website even. Blizzard is looking to please them too.
|
On June 18 2011 14:45 Yareq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 07:06 ahbeez wrote:
why are people so angry about the mothership?
- Intention: a unit for low level players to enjoy
- Doesn't replace ANYTHING. It's not like there was an arbiter and they removed it for the mothership.
- It literally doesn't affect anyone if theres a gimmick unit for low level players to enjoy, this game is a great esport but it can have fun stuff too. You guys have such warped logic to think that if it doesn't add to the competitive side of the game then its worthless...I can't believe anyone can be upset about it. Agreed, people fail to understand most of the SC players are not hardcore, and likely don't even know who the hell Idra is, or about this website even. Blizzard is looking to please them too.
You're right, but the competitive side of Starcraft is pretty much the reason why it is such an enduring and popular game. Yes, many people are way too elitist about Starcraft but there are valid points behind it.
|
On June 18 2011 12:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +
"Minus the biases from the players aside, overall I think the balance of the game is pretty solid."
Isn't Kim the guy who should marry the rine-SCV since he spends all his time with it on ladder? A better answer would have been "we balance for high-end play, you can cheese to a high ladder level but you'll get stomped after reaching it."
BitByBit made it to the GSL. Think about that.
David Kim works for Blizzard's balance, it's his job to test balance. He's one of the top foreign random players.
They said at BlizzCon that they want rushing to be viable (which it should be), but designing maps to facilitate it is a bit too far. You can still cheese on macro maps, but forcing a macro player to be at a disadvantage on a 'rush map' is horrible.
|
WTF? give me back the arbiter from BW if you want the mother ship for "casual players" wtf is that BS...? why doesn't every race get one useless unit only protoss wtf...
|
The mothership for casuals argument sounds like an excuse for failed design, because pleasing the casuals happens in single player. Multi-player doesn't have to have redundant units by design - "and here are some hobbits for the LOTR fans..."
Today again zerg showed that if there's a problem with it, it's rather in early-mid game than in late game. I have to conclude that Blizzard just continues deliberately to design SC2, so that games are short, mostly played on lower tiers - something they went for, since beta.
|
On June 18 2011 15:20 Dr.FuzzyBallz wrote:
WTF? give me back the arbiter from BW if you want the mother ship for "casual players" wtf is that BS...? why doesn't every race get one useless unit only protoss wtf...
yeah, because reapers and battlecruisers are used all the time in every MU
overseer spells rock hardcore
why does zerg just have less units? Because that's how the game is designed. Not every unit is designed to be incredible useable all the time. That doesn't mean the mothership is BS, it means that getting it should have a very specific reason! (unlike getting marines...)
|
Can someone explain why the mothership is a great unit for casuals anyways? Is a mothership rush super powerful in lower leagues or do they often get to the long macro game to use it? The mothership won't destroy lots of units at the casual level it will die just as quickly or are casuals going to have some super effective pro vortex or recalls. (and if they like recalls might as well have the arbiter you don't need a superweapen for it)
Really the nuke is a better thing for casuals since it has the potential to do a lot and be super fun and make you feel good for nuking the army. Mothership doesn't really have anything like that it just dies quickly in the late game the casual might die if you rush for it early game and feel sad so they won't use it anymore if it doesn't do anything fun or effective.
If you want something for casuals give it a ridiculous cost like 2000 2000 and make it very powerful and tough with some cool spells (like they showed in it's original reveal)
|
On June 18 2011 19:04 coolcor wrote:
Can someone explain why the mothership is a great unit for casuals anyways? Is a mothership rush super powerful in lower leagues or do they often get to the long macro game to use it? The mothership won't destroy lots of units at the casual level it will die just as quickly or are casuals going to have some super effective pro vortex or recalls. (and if they like recalls might as well have the arbiter you don't need a superweapen for it)
Really the nuke is a better thing for casuals since it has the potential to do a lot and be super fun and make you feel good for nuking the army. Mothership doesn't really have anything like that it just dies quickly in the late game the casual might die if you rush for it early game and feel sad so they won't use it anymore if it doesn't do anything fun or effective.
If you want something for casuals give it a ridiculous cost like 2000 2000 and make it very powerful and tough with some cool spells (like they showed in it's original reveal)
It's a big unit that is incredibly strong.(maybe the best unit in a 1v1situation in the game)
It was balanced in a way so that it is not important for the Protoss army to have it, yet you have the choice of building it.
There a 4ways to approach this mothership issue:
a) make it so strong, that u need it in your army as Protoss (therefore nerf all other compositions)
b) make it so weak, that u have the opportunity of adding it to your composition, but only as support unit (like right now)
c) make a unit, that has exactly the same role (support caster), which is massable but weaker (arbiter)
d) remove it
hm... so:
a) wouldn't it be funny if a Protoss had to get and protect a mothership everygame in the lategame? No it wouldn't! It would just be bad gamedesign (note, if the mothership was strong, but the other units were the same strenght as now, a usual lategame composition+mothership would just be too powerful)
b) yeah, Protoss has an extra unit, that might have a use sometime. Why not?
c) oh, I have a unit that is exactly the same/costs exactly the same once I have (let's say) 3 of them. I doesn't look impressive and it doesn't do the job any better. So, why the heck did we change the game for it?
d) so there is no mothership. It doesn't hurt a lot, but we could have left it in the game, couldn't we? (for all the players who like it, and still experiment with it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
