|
On September 25 2014 05:22 xyzz wrote:
5 Terrans in the round of 8 in WCS EU.
6 Koreans in the round of 8 in WCS EU. Koreans imba !
|
On September 25 2014 05:49 imrusty269 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 05:22 xyzz wrote:
5 Terrans in the round of 8 in WCS EU. Should have been 6. Jjakji what a scrub.
It should have been 8, looking through this thread its obvious that they just are better then everybody else.
|
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
I don't think from their body of work it's too much of a stretch to say that they are, factoring in history ofc
|
On September 25 2014 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 04:14 Big J wrote:-is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. There is no track, there is no moon, there is no ideal state to aim for. The game evolves how it evolves, strategies develop on top of strategies, metas shift back and forth. The stupid notion that there is a happy place for us to guide the game to is absurd and belittles the whole concept of strategic evolution.
Of course there is an ideal state to aim for. It's making a good game. and keeping balance is a core concept for a good game.
Thank the man in the moon people who actually care about how good the game is are in charge and not people like you who sacrifice every designgoal for the sake of... well of what actually? Scientific interest to see what happens? I'm gonna tell that my boss the next time: "look at my new product. It's currently not doing what i wanted it to, but let's see what happens!"
|
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On September 25 2014 06:29 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 04:14 Big J wrote:-is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. There is no track, there is no moon, there is no ideal state to aim for. The game evolves how it evolves, strategies develop on top of strategies, metas shift back and forth. The stupid notion that there is a happy place for us to guide the game to is absurd and belittles the whole concept of strategic evolution. Of course there is an ideal state to aim for. It's making a good game. and keeping balance is a core concept for a good game. Thank the man in the moon people who actually care about how good the game is are in charge and not people like you who sacrifice every designgoal for the sake of... well of what actually? Scientific interest to see what happens? I'm gonna tell that my boss the next time: "look at my new product. It's currently not doing what i wanted it to, but let's see what happens!"
To be fair isn't that at least 50% of HoTS units and abilities?
|
On September 25 2014 06:29 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 04:14 Big J wrote:-is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. There is no track, there is no moon, there is no ideal state to aim for. The game evolves how it evolves, strategies develop on top of strategies, metas shift back and forth. The stupid notion that there is a happy place for us to guide the game to is absurd and belittles the whole concept of strategic evolution. Of course there is an ideal state to aim for. It's making a good game. and keeping balance is a core concept for a good game. Thank the man in the moon people who actually care about how good the game is are in charge and not people like you who sacrifice every designgoal for the sake of... well of what actually? Scientific interest to see what happens? I'm gonna tell that my boss the next time: "look at my new product. It's currently not doing what i wanted it to, but let's see what happens!"
I am not quite sure what you are even arguing about tbh.
That 2 rax is op? If it was op terran would do it literally every game against zerg.
A strategy being strong doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed".
|
On September 25 2014 06:22 kiLen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 05:49 imrusty269 wrote:On September 25 2014 05:22 xyzz wrote:
5 Terrans in the round of 8 in WCS EU. Should have been 6. Jjakji what a scrub. It should have been 8, looking through this thread its obvious that they just are better then everybody else.
But the game is imbalanced since DK doesn't know what he's doing. So some other races managed to get through.
Hopefully, Blizzcon will quickly fix this.
|
On September 25 2014 05:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 04:14 Big J wrote:-is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. Now you are being silly, ofc there is a huge difference between changing maps and changing the unit interaction themselves.
How so? When i remove all blinkable cliffs, I changed the ability for a stalker to blink onto a highground area. So it is completely equivalent to removing the ability to blink onto a highground area.
Sure, if i change the range of a unit it's not just going to affect one situation but all situations the unit is played in. So does changing maps. It's not like I only make the game less aggressive by increasing the mapsize, it may also mean that my superslow siege strategy just doesnt work.
The cool part with maps is that you can have many different ones in theory but you can always just have one unit balance. Thats also a reason why I believe in balance patching over mapmaking to deal with problems. It prevents that wr impose too many rules on maps making them all too similar. Which leaves more creative room for maps, since they arent immidiatly unplayavle if they have a blinkfriendly cliff or a doublewide ramp.
|
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On September 25 2014 06:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 05:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 04:14 Big J wrote:-is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. Now you are being silly, ofc there is a huge difference between changing maps and changing the unit interaction themselves. How so? When i remove all blinkable cliffs, I changed the ability for a stalker to blink onto a highground area. So it is completely equivalent to removing the ability to blink onto a highground area. Sure, if i change the range of a unit it's not just going to affect one situation but all situations the unit is played in. So does changing maps. It's not like I only make the game less aggressive by increasing the mapsize, it may also mean that my superslow siege strategy just doesnt work. The cool part with maps is that you can have many different ones in theory but you can always just have one unit balance. Thats also a reason why I believe in balance patching over mapmaking to deal with problems. It prevents that wr impose too many rules on maps making them all too similar. Which leaves more creative room for maps, since they arent immidiatly unplayavle if they have a blinkfriendly cliff or a doublewide ramp.
It's amazing how people forget that it was patched out of HoTS the very ability to warp up to the high ground.
I was kind of against it initially, but that is one pretty big change that seemed to do the job. Encourage Warp Prism use and prevented some of the more annoying cheese builds for no real detrimental effect.
|
On September 25 2014 06:33 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 06:29 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 04:14 Big J wrote:-is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. There is no track, there is no moon, there is no ideal state to aim for. The game evolves how it evolves, strategies develop on top of strategies, metas shift back and forth. The stupid notion that there is a happy place for us to guide the game to is absurd and belittles the whole concept of strategic evolution. Of course there is an ideal state to aim for. It's making a good game. and keeping balance is a core concept for a good game. Thank the man in the moon people who actually care about how good the game is are in charge and not people like you who sacrifice every designgoal for the sake of... well of what actually? Scientific interest to see what happens? I'm gonna tell that my boss the next time: "look at my new product. It's currently not doing what i wanted it to, but let's see what happens!" To be fair isn't that at least 50% of HoTS units and abilities?
I think it's only the SH and Oracle. I rather think that due to lack of adjustments some of them overdo what they are supposed to (e.g. Tempests vs BLs or Vipers vs tanks).
It's not an accident that the units that have gotten more attention after beta - hellbat, mine, Msc - are much more frequently useful than something like the Tempest or the SH. Because those units were actually fitted to actual jobs, not to some theoretical place where you may use a 15range unit, but in practice you are fighting against light marines and ghosts and vikings all game long.
|
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
Yeah for sure, I was factoring in Beta Warhounds into my thinking there too but agreed
|
On September 25 2014 06:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 05:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 04:14 Big J wrote:-is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. Now you are being silly, ofc there is a huge difference between changing maps and changing the unit interaction themselves. How so? When i remove all blinkable cliffs, I changed the ability for a stalker to blink onto a highground area. So it is completely equivalent to removing the ability to blink onto a highground area. Sure, if i change the range of a unit it's not just going to affect one situation but all situations the unit is played in. So does changing maps. It's not like I only make the game less aggressive by increasing the mapsize, it may also mean that my superslow siege strategy just doesnt work. The cool part with maps is that you can have many different ones in theory but you can always just have one unit balance. Thats also a reason why I believe in balance patching over mapmaking to deal with problems. It prevents that wr impose too many rules on maps making them all too similar. Which leaves more creative room for maps, since they arent immidiatly unplayavle if they have a blinkfriendly cliff or a doublewide ramp.
Nerfing blink means it sucks always
Nerfing map means blink sucks at a specific area I interest
For example.
Making air units free to build buffs air units. Making all maps island maps buffs air units. Does that make both changes equal? No, it wouldn't.
|
Does anyone feel that the rise of Terran lately is due to this season's smaller map size and not because of the Terran buffs that we got? A lot of players' play style hasn't really changed yet Terrans are winning a lot more.
|
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On September 25 2014 08:01 geokilla wrote:
Does anyone feel that the rise of Terran lately is due to this season's smaller map size and not because of the Terran buffs that we got? A lot of players' play style hasn't really changed yet Terrans are winning a lot more.
It's definitely a possibility. No Alterzim and that other huge map whose name escapes me can't have harmed the Terran cause
|
On September 25 2014 08:01 geokilla wrote:
Does anyone feel that the rise of Terran lately is due to this season's smaller map size and not because of the Terran buffs that we got? A lot of players' play style hasn't really changed yet Terrans are winning a lot more.
Definitely makes a pretty big difference... last season's map pool I was ecstatic to get Overgrowth in TvZ because I felt like I could actually attack, now it's just about my least favorite TvZ map because I can't attack the fourth without my army getting trapped. And the current map pool is even better for TvP than TvZ imo, because the bases are a lot more spread out / easy to drop (esp. Catallena, Foxtrot, Deadwing, Overgrowth).
But the buffs definitely made a significant difference too.
|
On September 24 2014 16:36 metroid composite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2014 15:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 23 2014 12:08 jojos11 wrote:On September 23 2014 10:40 FabledIntegral wrote:
They need to readd the siege mode upgrade, make the splash radius bigger, and add +shields dmg. Biggest downside is that they become notably stronger vs roach/hydra style, but we could also take back their increased fire rate.
They aren't supposed to be rapid fire, minor damaging units imo, but rather hard hitting, slow firing. Makes it more positional based and punishing if the enemy accidentally gets in range. by removing siege mode upgrade zerg will just roach allin every game & win.. The roach allin isn't any different than in WoL? The difference being that in WoL siege tanks were standard play. I wasn't aware of a roach bane allin in WoL (knew a few roach allins though). In other news, I was curious when Golden beat MMA to see if he had any top secret tech. Wasn't sure if he was doing the swarmhost style or what. Watched the games...roach bane allin every game.
Roach Bane all-in was very prevalent in WoL. It's not exclusive to HoTS.
Also, tanks are helpful but not mandatory in defending the all-in. If you know it's coming, you can stop it with a wall, bunkers, preemptive pulled scvs, etc. You just have to scout it ahead of time and prepare. WM help as well.
|
On September 25 2014 07:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 06:42 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 05:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 04:14 Big J wrote:-is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. Now you are being silly, ofc there is a huge difference between changing maps and changing the unit interaction themselves. How so? When i remove all blinkable cliffs, I changed the ability for a stalker to blink onto a highground area. So it is completely equivalent to removing the ability to blink onto a highground area. Sure, if i change the range of a unit it's not just going to affect one situation but all situations the unit is played in. So does changing maps. It's not like I only make the game less aggressive by increasing the mapsize, it may also mean that my superslow siege strategy just doesnt work. The cool part with maps is that you can have many different ones in theory but you can always just have one unit balance. Thats also a reason why I believe in balance patching over mapmaking to deal with problems. It prevents that wr impose too many rules on maps making them all too similar. Which leaves more creative room for maps, since they arent immidiatly unplayavle if they have a blinkfriendly cliff or a doublewide ramp. Nerfing blink means it sucks always Nerfing map means blink sucks at a specific area I interest For example. Making air units free to build buffs air units. Making all maps island maps buffs air units. Does that make both changes equal? No, it wouldn't.
They nerfed the Mothershipcore. It still doesn't suck always. It just is weaker in blink rushes.
And the last line is ridiculous, I have never said that every two changes are equal. Just that often you can do similar things with maps and balance changes. And that in general, map changes are balance changes.
|
On September 25 2014 08:01 geokilla wrote:
Does anyone feel that the rise of Terran lately is due to this season's smaller map size and not because of the Terran buffs that we got? A lot of players' play style hasn't really changed yet Terrans are winning a lot more.
I feel that is the case in TvP. In TvZ the mine buff is the obvious reason.
|
On September 25 2014 14:19 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 07:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 06:42 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 05:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 04:14 Big J wrote:-is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. Now you are being silly, ofc there is a huge difference between changing maps and changing the unit interaction themselves. How so? When i remove all blinkable cliffs, I changed the ability for a stalker to blink onto a highground area. So it is completely equivalent to removing the ability to blink onto a highground area. Sure, if i change the range of a unit it's not just going to affect one situation but all situations the unit is played in. So does changing maps. It's not like I only make the game less aggressive by increasing the mapsize, it may also mean that my superslow siege strategy just doesnt work. The cool part with maps is that you can have many different ones in theory but you can always just have one unit balance. Thats also a reason why I believe in balance patching over mapmaking to deal with problems. It prevents that wr impose too many rules on maps making them all too similar. Which leaves more creative room for maps, since they arent immidiatly unplayavle if they have a blinkfriendly cliff or a doublewide ramp. Nerfing blink means it sucks always Nerfing map means blink sucks at a specific area I interest For example. Making air units free to build buffs air units. Making all maps island maps buffs air units. Does that make both changes equal? No, it wouldn't. They nerfed the Mothershipcore. It still doesn't suck always. It just is weaker in blink rushes. And the last line is ridiculous, I have never said that every two changes are equal. Just that often you can do similar things with maps and balance changes. And that in general, map changes are balance changes.
But you did say it. Right when, you know, said this:
How so? When i remove all blinkable cliffs, I changed the ability for a stalker to blink onto a highground area. So it is completely equivalent to removing the ability to blink onto a highground area.
I even made bold the exact words you said that that they are completely equivalent just so you can see it for yourself.
And the mothership does suck now, when compared to what it was before. A map change without a mothership core change would make the mothership core still awesome. Now it is weaker. Nerfing the mothership core makes suck more than it did before. Players learned to accept this, players accept what they are given. But the mothership core does suck now comparatively.
Weakening a unit makes it weaker. Changing a map does not make it weaker. They are two completely different changes.
|
On September 25 2014 14:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 14:19 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 07:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 06:42 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 05:11 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 25 2014 05:00 Big J wrote:On September 25 2014 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2014 04:14 Big J wrote:-is less the issue than it is the fact that Zerg just don't know how to beat it yet This is what bothers me the most about these discussions. Zergs know how to beat it. But a) that doesn't mean they do so all the time; it's a damn strong build unless scouted the exact moment the raxes are started b) there is quite a portion of luck involved; if you are unlucky, you scout half of the map and see nothing, meanwhile in some corner of your natural a bunker gets up. It's just not possible to always find the raxes in time. c) the "blindcounters" and preparation that keep on being brought up are in no relation to how often 11/11 happens and to how much they put you behind in the other 89/100 games. Losing to stray for a few months does not mean the strat needs nerfing. That's a question of philosophy. Unless we have very good reasoning to believe that this will change on its own, patching now is better than patching later. e.g. Terrans lost to MLB for just a few months, just a little more than they won. We could wait another few months, but since the BOs were somewhat stale - the hellbat push aside - there was no good reason to wait longer. Waiting longer would just be unfair to the Terrans when after a few months there is still no improvment. I don't think 2rax needs patching. I just get annoyed by people backseat coaching zergs and pretending its just their fault and not that 11/11 is strong and sometimes also just gets lucky and there was nothing the Zerg could have done better under the assumption that the Terran could do any build (but it was a 2rax). Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I do not like patch changes for the sake of making things easier. If something is just really fucking hard to do, but doable, then we don't need a patch. If Maru, Soo, Zest can still fun ways to get the job done and we just haven't caught up to them yet--then there is no need to patch it. To me a patch is something done when the game is no longer possible to be played. Very rarely if ever has that kind of time come from sc2. We have too many patches. We have too many gut response reactionaries. Unless the imbalance hurts the GSL it's not even worth our time and attention. And even then I doubt it would be worth our time and attention. But it's the bare minimum I would want before even discussing patches. It's not for the sake of making things easier. It's for the sake of keeping the game on track. Creating a complex game like SC2 is like hand guiding a rocket to the moon. You will initially start into the right direction if you have done enough tests, but soon find out that you'd fly far past the moon if you don't keep on adjusting the closer you come to the moon. Obviously your first adjustments will be much larger than your later ones, but you will always have to adjust further after some time - unless you either reach the moon (=perfect play, everything is determined) or hit a technical ceiling (you find out that your rocket just cannot get any closer to the moon anymore). There's no other way, since our computers are (by far) not good enough to simulate all possible human play. That's at least my reasoning why I'm all for patching. Or balance-tinkering with maps, which is the exact same as patching. Whether we specifically nerf blink or make all maps anti-blink makes no difference, the result is that blink loses more often. Now you are being silly, ofc there is a huge difference between changing maps and changing the unit interaction themselves. How so? When i remove all blinkable cliffs, I changed the ability for a stalker to blink onto a highground area. So it is completely equivalent to removing the ability to blink onto a highground area. Sure, if i change the range of a unit it's not just going to affect one situation but all situations the unit is played in. So does changing maps. It's not like I only make the game less aggressive by increasing the mapsize, it may also mean that my superslow siege strategy just doesnt work. The cool part with maps is that you can have many different ones in theory but you can always just have one unit balance. Thats also a reason why I believe in balance patching over mapmaking to deal with problems. It prevents that wr impose too many rules on maps making them all too similar. Which leaves more creative room for maps, since they arent immidiatly unplayavle if they have a blinkfriendly cliff or a doublewide ramp. Nerfing blink means it sucks always Nerfing map means blink sucks at a specific area I interest For example. Making air units free to build buffs air units. Making all maps island maps buffs air units. Does that make both changes equal? No, it wouldn't. They nerfed the Mothershipcore. It still doesn't suck always. It just is weaker in blink rushes. And the last line is ridiculous, I have never said that every two changes are equal. Just that often you can do similar things with maps and balance changes. And that in general, map changes are balance changes. But you did say it. Right when, you know, said this: Show nested quote +How so? When i remove all blinkable cliffs, I changed the ability for a stalker to blink onto a highground area. So it is completely equivalent to removing the ability to blink onto a highground area. I even made bold the exact words you said that that they are completely equivalent just so you can see it for yourself. And the mothership does suck now, when compared to what it was before. A map change without a mothership core change would make the mothership core still awesome. Now it is weaker. Nerfing the mothership core makes suck more than it did before. Players learned to accept this, players accept what they are given. But the mothership core does suck now comparatively. Weakening a unit makes it weaker. Changing a map does not make it weaker. They are two completely different changes.
Yeah, I said it. In this scenario. Quote me when you find the quote that every change is equivalent.
However, just because your two completely arbitrary changes are not equivalent does not mean there are none that are equivalent. Basic logic.
And of course making a map bigger makes a SH weaker. There's a fucking huge difference whether I can attack you by sitting in my own natural, or whether I need to be all across some huge distance with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
