|
On July 05 2013 17:51 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 16:48 NarutO wrote:On July 05 2013 16:40 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. The problem is that ... Are they the most valid to ask though? Because they are pros they can deal with more "spit second stuff" than Joe Bronzeleague. I dont think it is a good idea to balance the game around the very very top and basically tell anyone of roughly Master league "you have to live with losing to somewhat overpowered stuff (for your level of play)". It is ok to try and make the game good for eSport, BUT that does not exclude balancing it for all levels of play. It isnt a "one or the other" thing ... On July 05 2013 16:38 iky43210 wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. from their perspective, but not necessary better for overall health of the game. As an example, for WoW blizz used to gathered feedback and implemented suggestions from reckful and his crew, because they are the best and most dedicated in their league. Fast forward 3 months, WoW balance was at the worst it has ever been (cataclysm) and they have killed pvp for many. Let the pro players do their things, and developers design balance based on tangible data and statistics. Balancing the classes of WoW around PvP was a big reason why I lost interest in the game. It seriously made the classes "samey" because they tried to get rid of any required classes. The example of why it might be a bad idea to ask competitors for help in balancing a game is good though and quite appropriate, because many players are not that objective and see the game from their own race's eyes only. Awesome examples were given by IdrA's outbursts ... even though I think he can be more objective when he wants to. Balancing takes a lot of thought though and I doubt progamers have the time to do such though experiments. yes, that is essentially what it is. Balance needs to be achieved at the highest level. Up until a certain point you lose due to your own mistakes and I dare to say that even in a lesser % of games on pro-level , balance is the fault , but thats still the level you need to balance. No one cares about the lower levels. You can give a bronze person the strongest unit and he will still lose. If you dont care about the lower levels then you are a bit of an arrogant assh..., are you not? Because who gives you the right to say "you dont count anymore"? Oh and where do you make the cut for balance? Are you talking about "korean pros" or "all serious pros" or even (maybe) "semi-pros"? I hope you realize that not caring about balancing the game for anyone less than a pro will make it nearly impossible to get to pro level, because you will lose to "not-balanced-tactic X" a whole lot of time. Oh and while you are at it ... EXPLAIN WHY A BALANCED GAME EXCLUDES LOWER LEVEL PLAYERS? Why cant it be balanced for all levels of play? It is a myth that it can not be done because BW did it pretty well (some people argue that it has been "Protoss favored at lower levels", but that is much better than what SC2 does atm). Oh and it isnt only about the end results which make SC2 "balancing" such a terrible thing atm, it is also about the way in which people lose games at lower levels. They are totally not fun, because at lower levels it is easy to get a Medivac and two Hellbats together, but defending against it is hard to impossible. So such a loss is "automatic" and thus not fun. Losing is fine, but it should be because you made mistakes and used your units badly and not because your opponent chose to go straight for Hellbats and drops you before anything is ready to defend against them. SC2 is a GAME first and foremost and should be about a FUN EXPERIENCE, but leaving "hard to defend against units" in the game does not make it fun ...
I usually don't agree with Rabiator's comments and even this time they sounded more aggressive than what I believe is appropriate, but this time I have to agree with the gist of it, even though Naruto is more knowledgeable about the game as a ex-pro player. It all comes down to value here as to what balance you should target, and being pro gives you (not you personally) no more weight in putting that value into the game.
I agree that pro balance is more important than balance at lower levels, but that doesn't mean lower level balance carries no weight. I mean, I support introducing a change that will make pro level balance becoming 1% point closer towards 50% at the cost of a 2% distortion (away from 50%) for diamond level balance. However, I would strongly oppose sacrificing diamond balance by 10% points to achieve the same 1% point improvement at the pro level.
The goal here is to make things fair for all players, and all players matter, because they play the game and have emotional stakes in the game. True, they may get over certain imbalances by improving, but it is still unfair that race X have to improve more than race Y to achieve the same results. Pro players have larger stakes, but that doesn't mean that other people don't matter. That is all.
|
I don't see why it couldn't be ok for widow mines to replace tanks. Most are ok with this, and so are blizzard.
And besides, tanks are not absolutely obsolete. They still have roles in the game (TvT) and is making appearances in TvZ as well
widow mines produces better games than tanks overall. There really is no reason to prefer tanks over widow mines outside of past glories.
|
On July 05 2013 17:51 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 16:48 NarutO wrote:On July 05 2013 16:40 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. The problem is that ... Are they the most valid to ask though? Because they are pros they can deal with more "spit second stuff" than Joe Bronzeleague. I dont think it is a good idea to balance the game around the very very top and basically tell anyone of roughly Master league "you have to live with losing to somewhat overpowered stuff (for your level of play)". It is ok to try and make the game good for eSport, BUT that does not exclude balancing it for all levels of play. It isnt a "one or the other" thing ... On July 05 2013 16:38 iky43210 wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. from their perspective, but not necessary better for overall health of the game. As an example, for WoW blizz used to gathered feedback and implemented suggestions from reckful and his crew, because they are the best and most dedicated in their league. Fast forward 3 months, WoW balance was at the worst it has ever been (cataclysm) and they have killed pvp for many. Let the pro players do their things, and developers design balance based on tangible data and statistics. Balancing the classes of WoW around PvP was a big reason why I lost interest in the game. It seriously made the classes "samey" because they tried to get rid of any required classes. The example of why it might be a bad idea to ask competitors for help in balancing a game is good though and quite appropriate, because many players are not that objective and see the game from their own race's eyes only. Awesome examples were given by IdrA's outbursts ... even though I think he can be more objective when he wants to. Balancing takes a lot of thought though and I doubt progamers have the time to do such though experiments. yes, that is essentially what it is. Balance needs to be achieved at the highest level. Up until a certain point you lose due to your own mistakes and I dare to say that even in a lesser % of games on pro-level , balance is the fault , but thats still the level you need to balance. No one cares about the lower levels. You can give a bronze person the strongest unit and he will still lose. If you dont care about the lower levels then you are a bit of an arrogant assh..., are you not? Because who gives you the right to say "you dont count anymore"? Oh and where do you make the cut for balance? Are you talking about "korean pros" or "all serious pros" or even (maybe) "semi-pros"? I hope you realize that not caring about balancing the game for anyone less than a pro will make it nearly impossible to get to pro level, because you will lose to "not-balanced-tactic X" a whole lot of time. Oh and while you are at it ... EXPLAIN WHY A BALANCED GAME EXCLUDES LOWER LEVEL PLAYERS? Why cant it be balanced for all levels of play? It is a myth that it can not be done because BW did it pretty well (some people argue that it has been "Protoss favored at lower levels", but that is much better than what SC2 does atm). Oh and it isnt only about the end results which make SC2 "balancing" such a terrible thing atm, it is also about the way in which people lose games at lower levels. They are totally not fun, because at lower levels it is easy to get a Medivac and two Hellbats together, but defending against it is hard to impossible. So such a loss is "automatic" and thus not fun. Losing is fine, but it should be because you made mistakes and used your units badly and not because your opponent chose to go straight for Hellbats and drops you before anything is ready to defend against them. SC2 is a GAME first and foremost and should be about a FUN EXPERIENCE, but leaving "hard to defend against units" in the game does not make it fun ...
I'm an arrogant ass, because I say the balance should take place at the highest level possible? (Note: Highest level possible means highest level achieved by a good % of players there). That means there are players that are exceptional and can 'break' even balance issues, as they outdo other players in terms of mechanical skill or strategy. The best example from the past probably would be FruitDealer as he won relying on mechanics that were superior to the other players. Nowadays Terran does underperform on the highest level (Korea) but INnoVatioN and Flash for example do very well. They do so because they are outstanding.
Balance cannot be given on every level. You will never balance it out that every strategy and unit in non-symmetrical design will be as strong as the "counterpart". There is a new countersystem in Starcraft 2 and there are more hardcounters than softcounters. A strategy will never be as easy to defend as to execute. It happened to be that a bulldog bust PvT was easier to play than to defend in Broodwar. There are certain strategies in Starcraft 2 that show that as well.
I am not arrogant prick, just because I can point out the mistakes the lower-level players lose on. I do tons of mistakes and I'm already quiet high but I'd dare to say that I lose due to balance. My point being: LOWER LEVELS DO NOT LOSE DUE TO BALANCE. Get over it. Put any non-Bronze in Bronze, and he will crush a Hellbat only Terran with lings only. He has superior mechanics, superior strategy and superior understanding of the game.
I help players as much as I can here on Teamliquid (no matter their league) and I'll explain and give advice, but people like you that point out that players like me that speak their mind and are honest are arrogant makes me not want to contribute. In fact, you are an ignorant idiot if you believe the game can be balanced a) for everyone b) the fault for losing on lower levels would be BALANCE and not mistakes.
Balance should start at the highest level that a majority of pros can achieve (at least for me) and that level probably is a low-level to midlevel Korean progamer. Do you really believe non-Koreans lose to Koreans because of balance? They do lose because of mistakes and its often pointed out by casters. Lacking mechanical skill, and you really do want to make me believe a bronze player loses because he cannot beat 2 hellbats? Really?
|
On July 05 2013 18:21 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 17:51 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:48 NarutO wrote:On July 05 2013 16:40 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. The problem is that ... Are they the most valid to ask though? Because they are pros they can deal with more "spit second stuff" than Joe Bronzeleague. I dont think it is a good idea to balance the game around the very very top and basically tell anyone of roughly Master league "you have to live with losing to somewhat overpowered stuff (for your level of play)". It is ok to try and make the game good for eSport, BUT that does not exclude balancing it for all levels of play. It isnt a "one or the other" thing ... On July 05 2013 16:38 iky43210 wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. from their perspective, but not necessary better for overall health of the game. As an example, for WoW blizz used to gathered feedback and implemented suggestions from reckful and his crew, because they are the best and most dedicated in their league. Fast forward 3 months, WoW balance was at the worst it has ever been (cataclysm) and they have killed pvp for many. Let the pro players do their things, and developers design balance based on tangible data and statistics. Balancing the classes of WoW around PvP was a big reason why I lost interest in the game. It seriously made the classes "samey" because they tried to get rid of any required classes. The example of why it might be a bad idea to ask competitors for help in balancing a game is good though and quite appropriate, because many players are not that objective and see the game from their own race's eyes only. Awesome examples were given by IdrA's outbursts ... even though I think he can be more objective when he wants to. Balancing takes a lot of thought though and I doubt progamers have the time to do such though experiments. yes, that is essentially what it is. Balance needs to be achieved at the highest level. Up until a certain point you lose due to your own mistakes and I dare to say that even in a lesser % of games on pro-level , balance is the fault , but thats still the level you need to balance. No one cares about the lower levels. You can give a bronze person the strongest unit and he will still lose. If you dont care about the lower levels then you are a bit of an arrogant assh..., are you not? Because who gives you the right to say "you dont count anymore"? Oh and where do you make the cut for balance? Are you talking about "korean pros" or "all serious pros" or even (maybe) "semi-pros"? I hope you realize that not caring about balancing the game for anyone less than a pro will make it nearly impossible to get to pro level, because you will lose to "not-balanced-tactic X" a whole lot of time. Oh and while you are at it ... EXPLAIN WHY A BALANCED GAME EXCLUDES LOWER LEVEL PLAYERS? Why cant it be balanced for all levels of play? It is a myth that it can not be done because BW did it pretty well (some people argue that it has been "Protoss favored at lower levels", but that is much better than what SC2 does atm). Oh and it isnt only about the end results which make SC2 "balancing" such a terrible thing atm, it is also about the way in which people lose games at lower levels. They are totally not fun, because at lower levels it is easy to get a Medivac and two Hellbats together, but defending against it is hard to impossible. So such a loss is "automatic" and thus not fun. Losing is fine, but it should be because you made mistakes and used your units badly and not because your opponent chose to go straight for Hellbats and drops you before anything is ready to defend against them. SC2 is a GAME first and foremost and should be about a FUN EXPERIENCE, but leaving "hard to defend against units" in the game does not make it fun ... I usually don't agree with Rabiator's comments and even this time they sounded more aggressive than what I believe is appropriate, but this time I have to agree with the gist of it, even though Naruto is more knowledgeable about the game as a ex-pro player. It all comes down to value here as to what balance you should target, and being pro gives you (not you personally) no more weight in putting that value into the game. I agree that pro balance is more important than balance at lower levels, but that doesn't mean lower level balance carries no weight. I mean, I support introducing a change that will make pro level balance becoming 1% point closer towards 50% at the cost of a 2% distortion (away from 50%) for diamond level balance. However, I would strongly oppose sacrificing diamond balance by 10% points to achieve the same 1% point improvement at the pro level. The goal here is to make things fair for all players, and all players matter, because they play the game and have emotional stakes in the game. True, they may get over certain imbalances by improving, but it is still unfair that race X have to improve more than race Y to achieve the same results. Pro players have larger stakes, but that doesn't mean that other people don't matter. That is all.
I am active again, I play a ton, I cast a ton of pros and I see current metagame and watch every Korean game. I do not put myself above a low-level player in terms of being a fan/enjoy Starcraft or human being, but if you believe that the opinion of a bronze player that clearly doesn't understand the game as well is worth as much as the opinion of a pro player, sorry but thats just wrong.
I can name tons of examples to what low-level players lose, you can flood me with replays and I'll point out mistakes. It iwll never be a balance issue, but always an issue of their mistakes. Hell I can give my replays to a higher-level player like HeroMarine and he can point out my mistakes. He on the other hand could give his replays to for example I guess Ryung and he could point out mistakes. Ryung could give his replays to INnoVatioN and he could point out some mistakes.
Everyone has someone that he can learn from and its RARE to see players losing blatantly due to balance issues.
|
On July 05 2013 17:51 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 16:48 NarutO wrote:On July 05 2013 16:40 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. The problem is that ... Are they the most valid to ask though? Because they are pros they can deal with more "spit second stuff" than Joe Bronzeleague. I dont think it is a good idea to balance the game around the very very top and basically tell anyone of roughly Master league "you have to live with losing to somewhat overpowered stuff (for your level of play)". It is ok to try and make the game good for eSport, BUT that does not exclude balancing it for all levels of play. It isnt a "one or the other" thing ... On July 05 2013 16:38 iky43210 wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. from their perspective, but not necessary better for overall health of the game. As an example, for WoW blizz used to gathered feedback and implemented suggestions from reckful and his crew, because they are the best and most dedicated in their league. Fast forward 3 months, WoW balance was at the worst it has ever been (cataclysm) and they have killed pvp for many. Let the pro players do their things, and developers design balance based on tangible data and statistics. Balancing the classes of WoW around PvP was a big reason why I lost interest in the game. It seriously made the classes "samey" because they tried to get rid of any required classes. The example of why it might be a bad idea to ask competitors for help in balancing a game is good though and quite appropriate, because many players are not that objective and see the game from their own race's eyes only. Awesome examples were given by IdrA's outbursts ... even though I think he can be more objective when he wants to. Balancing takes a lot of thought though and I doubt progamers have the time to do such though experiments. yes, that is essentially what it is. Balance needs to be achieved at the highest level. Up until a certain point you lose due to your own mistakes and I dare to say that even in a lesser % of games on pro-level , balance is the fault , but thats still the level you need to balance. No one cares about the lower levels. You can give a bronze person the strongest unit and he will still lose. If you dont care about the lower levels then you are a bit of an arrogant assh..., are you not? Because who gives you the right to say "you dont count anymore"? Oh and where do you make the cut for balance? Are you talking about "korean pros" or "all serious pros" or even (maybe) "semi-pros"? I hope you realize that not caring about balancing the game for anyone less than a pro will make it nearly impossible to get to pro level, because you will lose to "not-balanced-tactic X" a whole lot of time. Oh and while you are at it ... EXPLAIN WHY A BALANCED GAME EXCLUDES LOWER LEVEL PLAYERS? Why cant it be balanced for all levels of play? It is a myth that it can not be done because BW did it pretty well (some people argue that it has been "Protoss favored at lower levels", but that is much better than what SC2 does atm). Oh and it isnt only about the end results which make SC2 "balancing" such a terrible thing atm, it is also about the way in which people lose games at lower levels. They are totally not fun, because at lower levels it is easy to get a Medivac and two Hellbats together, but defending against it is hard to impossible. So such a loss is "automatic" and thus not fun. Losing is fine, but it should be because you made mistakes and used your units badly and not because your opponent chose to go straight for Hellbats and drops you before anything is ready to defend against them. SC2 is a GAME first and foremost and should be about a FUN EXPERIENCE, but leaving "hard to defend against units" in the game does not make it fun ...
I'm sorry, but this is a load of trash and you know it. The game is balanced at ALL levels. If you lost to a strategy at ANY level, it is because YOU DIDN'T PLAY WELL ENOUGH. If you are having trouble with a strategy, practice to beat it, don't whine about imbalance because YOU can't beat something while there is a legitimate key to overcoming it.
|
On July 05 2013 18:28 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 18:21 5unrise wrote:On July 05 2013 17:51 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:48 NarutO wrote:On July 05 2013 16:40 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. The problem is that ... Are they the most valid to ask though? Because they are pros they can deal with more "spit second stuff" than Joe Bronzeleague. I dont think it is a good idea to balance the game around the very very top and basically tell anyone of roughly Master league "you have to live with losing to somewhat overpowered stuff (for your level of play)". It is ok to try and make the game good for eSport, BUT that does not exclude balancing it for all levels of play. It isnt a "one or the other" thing ... On July 05 2013 16:38 iky43210 wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. from their perspective, but not necessary better for overall health of the game. As an example, for WoW blizz used to gathered feedback and implemented suggestions from reckful and his crew, because they are the best and most dedicated in their league. Fast forward 3 months, WoW balance was at the worst it has ever been (cataclysm) and they have killed pvp for many. Let the pro players do their things, and developers design balance based on tangible data and statistics. Balancing the classes of WoW around PvP was a big reason why I lost interest in the game. It seriously made the classes "samey" because they tried to get rid of any required classes. The example of why it might be a bad idea to ask competitors for help in balancing a game is good though and quite appropriate, because many players are not that objective and see the game from their own race's eyes only. Awesome examples were given by IdrA's outbursts ... even though I think he can be more objective when he wants to. Balancing takes a lot of thought though and I doubt progamers have the time to do such though experiments. yes, that is essentially what it is. Balance needs to be achieved at the highest level. Up until a certain point you lose due to your own mistakes and I dare to say that even in a lesser % of games on pro-level , balance is the fault , but thats still the level you need to balance. No one cares about the lower levels. You can give a bronze person the strongest unit and he will still lose. If you dont care about the lower levels then you are a bit of an arrogant assh..., are you not? Because who gives you the right to say "you dont count anymore"? Oh and where do you make the cut for balance? Are you talking about "korean pros" or "all serious pros" or even (maybe) "semi-pros"? I hope you realize that not caring about balancing the game for anyone less than a pro will make it nearly impossible to get to pro level, because you will lose to "not-balanced-tactic X" a whole lot of time. Oh and while you are at it ... EXPLAIN WHY A BALANCED GAME EXCLUDES LOWER LEVEL PLAYERS? Why cant it be balanced for all levels of play? It is a myth that it can not be done because BW did it pretty well (some people argue that it has been "Protoss favored at lower levels", but that is much better than what SC2 does atm). Oh and it isnt only about the end results which make SC2 "balancing" such a terrible thing atm, it is also about the way in which people lose games at lower levels. They are totally not fun, because at lower levels it is easy to get a Medivac and two Hellbats together, but defending against it is hard to impossible. So such a loss is "automatic" and thus not fun. Losing is fine, but it should be because you made mistakes and used your units badly and not because your opponent chose to go straight for Hellbats and drops you before anything is ready to defend against them. SC2 is a GAME first and foremost and should be about a FUN EXPERIENCE, but leaving "hard to defend against units" in the game does not make it fun ... I usually don't agree with Rabiator's comments and even this time they sounded more aggressive than what I believe is appropriate, but this time I have to agree with the gist of it, even though Naruto is more knowledgeable about the game as a ex-pro player. It all comes down to value here as to what balance you should target, and being pro gives you (not you personally) no more weight in putting that value into the game. I agree that pro balance is more important than balance at lower levels, but that doesn't mean lower level balance carries no weight. I mean, I support introducing a change that will make pro level balance becoming 1% point closer towards 50% at the cost of a 2% distortion (away from 50%) for diamond level balance. However, I would strongly oppose sacrificing diamond balance by 10% points to achieve the same 1% point improvement at the pro level. The goal here is to make things fair for all players, and all players matter, because they play the game and have emotional stakes in the game. True, they may get over certain imbalances by improving, but it is still unfair that race X have to improve more than race Y to achieve the same results. Pro players have larger stakes, but that doesn't mean that other people don't matter. That is all. I am active again, I play a ton, I cast a ton of pros and I see current metagame and watch every Korean game. I do not put myself above a low-level player in terms of being a fan/enjoy Starcraft or human being, but if you believe that the opinion of a bronze player that clearly doesn't understand the game as well is worth as much as the opinion of a pro player, sorry but thats just wrong. I can name tons of examples to what low-level players lose, you can flood me with replays and I'll point out mistakes. It iwll never be a balance issue, but always an issue of their mistakes. Hell I can give my replays to a higher-level player like HeroMarine and he can point out my mistakes. He on the other hand could give his replays to for example I guess Ryung and he could point out mistakes. Ryung could give his replays to INnoVatioN and he could point out some mistakes. Everyone has someone that he can learn from and its RARE to see players losing blatantly due to balance issues.
You are active again? good on you.
Now let's get onto your points. Firstly, I do believe that when it comes to the level at which Blizzard has to target balance issues, a pro player's opinion carries lesser weight than when you are actually talking about a specific strategy or a unit. A pro player should be more influential in this situation than a diamond, but only because he has more stakes in the game and not because of his superior knowledge. Put it this way, everyone's opinions matter when answering the question "should Blizzard care about the state of balance at your level of play?". It doesn't require any ingame knowledge to answer this question, but only your values.
I agree that players at lower levels lose, almost as a tautology, because of mistakes; there is no argument about this and is not something I wanted to discuss. I am saying that race X using strategy Y can be more forgiving of mistakes compared to race Z that has to defend this strategy. Given lower level players make more mistakes, strategy Y of race X is by definition imbalanced at this level of play. I don't think there's a discussion here on whether the situation is imbalanced, but rather whether this imbalance matters, which I have pointed out above to be dependant on your values and not on pro opinions. Thanks!
|
On July 05 2013 18:37 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 18:28 NarutO wrote:On July 05 2013 18:21 5unrise wrote:On July 05 2013 17:51 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:48 NarutO wrote:On July 05 2013 16:40 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. The problem is that ... Are they the most valid to ask though? Because they are pros they can deal with more "spit second stuff" than Joe Bronzeleague. I dont think it is a good idea to balance the game around the very very top and basically tell anyone of roughly Master league "you have to live with losing to somewhat overpowered stuff (for your level of play)". It is ok to try and make the game good for eSport, BUT that does not exclude balancing it for all levels of play. It isnt a "one or the other" thing ... On July 05 2013 16:38 iky43210 wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. from their perspective, but not necessary better for overall health of the game. As an example, for WoW blizz used to gathered feedback and implemented suggestions from reckful and his crew, because they are the best and most dedicated in their league. Fast forward 3 months, WoW balance was at the worst it has ever been (cataclysm) and they have killed pvp for many. Let the pro players do their things, and developers design balance based on tangible data and statistics. Balancing the classes of WoW around PvP was a big reason why I lost interest in the game. It seriously made the classes "samey" because they tried to get rid of any required classes. The example of why it might be a bad idea to ask competitors for help in balancing a game is good though and quite appropriate, because many players are not that objective and see the game from their own race's eyes only. Awesome examples were given by IdrA's outbursts ... even though I think he can be more objective when he wants to. Balancing takes a lot of thought though and I doubt progamers have the time to do such though experiments. yes, that is essentially what it is. Balance needs to be achieved at the highest level. Up until a certain point you lose due to your own mistakes and I dare to say that even in a lesser % of games on pro-level , balance is the fault , but thats still the level you need to balance. No one cares about the lower levels. You can give a bronze person the strongest unit and he will still lose. If you dont care about the lower levels then you are a bit of an arrogant assh..., are you not? Because who gives you the right to say "you dont count anymore"? Oh and where do you make the cut for balance? Are you talking about "korean pros" or "all serious pros" or even (maybe) "semi-pros"? I hope you realize that not caring about balancing the game for anyone less than a pro will make it nearly impossible to get to pro level, because you will lose to "not-balanced-tactic X" a whole lot of time. Oh and while you are at it ... EXPLAIN WHY A BALANCED GAME EXCLUDES LOWER LEVEL PLAYERS? Why cant it be balanced for all levels of play? It is a myth that it can not be done because BW did it pretty well (some people argue that it has been "Protoss favored at lower levels", but that is much better than what SC2 does atm). Oh and it isnt only about the end results which make SC2 "balancing" such a terrible thing atm, it is also about the way in which people lose games at lower levels. They are totally not fun, because at lower levels it is easy to get a Medivac and two Hellbats together, but defending against it is hard to impossible. So such a loss is "automatic" and thus not fun. Losing is fine, but it should be because you made mistakes and used your units badly and not because your opponent chose to go straight for Hellbats and drops you before anything is ready to defend against them. SC2 is a GAME first and foremost and should be about a FUN EXPERIENCE, but leaving "hard to defend against units" in the game does not make it fun ... I usually don't agree with Rabiator's comments and even this time they sounded more aggressive than what I believe is appropriate, but this time I have to agree with the gist of it, even though Naruto is more knowledgeable about the game as a ex-pro player. It all comes down to value here as to what balance you should target, and being pro gives you (not you personally) no more weight in putting that value into the game. I agree that pro balance is more important than balance at lower levels, but that doesn't mean lower level balance carries no weight. I mean, I support introducing a change that will make pro level balance becoming 1% point closer towards 50% at the cost of a 2% distortion (away from 50%) for diamond level balance. However, I would strongly oppose sacrificing diamond balance by 10% points to achieve the same 1% point improvement at the pro level. The goal here is to make things fair for all players, and all players matter, because they play the game and have emotional stakes in the game. True, they may get over certain imbalances by improving, but it is still unfair that race X have to improve more than race Y to achieve the same results. Pro players have larger stakes, but that doesn't mean that other people don't matter. That is all. I am active again, I play a ton, I cast a ton of pros and I see current metagame and watch every Korean game. I do not put myself above a low-level player in terms of being a fan/enjoy Starcraft or human being, but if you believe that the opinion of a bronze player that clearly doesn't understand the game as well is worth as much as the opinion of a pro player, sorry but thats just wrong. I can name tons of examples to what low-level players lose, you can flood me with replays and I'll point out mistakes. It iwll never be a balance issue, but always an issue of their mistakes. Hell I can give my replays to a higher-level player like HeroMarine and he can point out my mistakes. He on the other hand could give his replays to for example I guess Ryung and he could point out mistakes. Ryung could give his replays to INnoVatioN and he could point out some mistakes. Everyone has someone that he can learn from and its RARE to see players losing blatantly due to balance issues. You are active again? good on you. Now let's get onto your points. Firstly, I do believe that when it comes to the level at which Blizzard has to target balance issues, a pro player's opinion carries lesser weight than when you are actually talking about a specific strategy or a unit. A pro player should be more influential in this situation than a diamond, but only because he has more stakes in the game and not because of his superior knowledge. Put it this way, everyone's opinions matter when answering the question "should Blizzard care about the state of balance at your level of play?". It doesn't require any ingame knowledge to answer this question, but only your values. I agree that players at lower levels lose, almost as a tautology, because of mistakes; there is no argument about this and is not something I wanted to discuss. I am saying that race X using strategy Y can be more forgiving of mistakes compared to race Z that has to defend this strategy. Given lower level players make more mistakes, strategy Y of race X is by definition imbalanced at this level of play. I don't think there's a discussion here on whether the situation is imbalanced, but rather whether this imbalance matter, which I have pointed out above to be dependant on your values and not on pro opinions. Thanks!
Given your take on balance with values, you will never achieve balance. First of all, that would imply that you meet equally skilled players to base your opinion on a strategy being easier to execute than to defend. 4 Gate for example will rule supreme in lower leagues, as its a pretty strong strategy if executed right. Not so much on higher levels. Now balance would mean, that you need to change something. What do you change?
Early pools are no problem to a progamer in most cases (BO loss) but its very hard to beat on low levels. Are zerglings or the pool building time overpowered now? What do you change?
Do you see my point? I am not saying that a lower league player has no right to play the game or have fun with it, but basing balance on statements players from lower leagues make that have no grasp what balance would actually mean is dumb. They lose against things they think are good or too strong, while in reality they lose because they play horribly.
If you think I'm player bashing, I can give you an example of myself.
I am terrible against blink allin and especially on star station I personally would say its next to impossible to get out of the situation with either a win or an advantage if the game continues. Protoss can blink up everywhere and if you walled off to begin with, 2 supplies will be gone. He can put so much pressure on you that you either crumble, lose or don't get out of it with an advantage or "even". To prevent the situation all together, I choose to play double rax reaper as it 'counters' or at least delays the timing by a lot, but that is about me. I have seen MVP and other Terrans hold it off against superior players (compared to the Protoss I face).
Now my question to you again - what is to blame? Balance? Mistakes? If its balance and I value it imbalanced, what do you change?
|
On July 05 2013 18:33 shockaslim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 17:51 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:48 NarutO wrote:On July 05 2013 16:40 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. The problem is that ... Are they the most valid to ask though? Because they are pros they can deal with more "spit second stuff" than Joe Bronzeleague. I dont think it is a good idea to balance the game around the very very top and basically tell anyone of roughly Master league "you have to live with losing to somewhat overpowered stuff (for your level of play)". It is ok to try and make the game good for eSport, BUT that does not exclude balancing it for all levels of play. It isnt a "one or the other" thing ... On July 05 2013 16:38 iky43210 wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. from their perspective, but not necessary better for overall health of the game. As an example, for WoW blizz used to gathered feedback and implemented suggestions from reckful and his crew, because they are the best and most dedicated in their league. Fast forward 3 months, WoW balance was at the worst it has ever been (cataclysm) and they have killed pvp for many. Let the pro players do their things, and developers design balance based on tangible data and statistics. Balancing the classes of WoW around PvP was a big reason why I lost interest in the game. It seriously made the classes "samey" because they tried to get rid of any required classes. The example of why it might be a bad idea to ask competitors for help in balancing a game is good though and quite appropriate, because many players are not that objective and see the game from their own race's eyes only. Awesome examples were given by IdrA's outbursts ... even though I think he can be more objective when he wants to. Balancing takes a lot of thought though and I doubt progamers have the time to do such though experiments. yes, that is essentially what it is. Balance needs to be achieved at the highest level. Up until a certain point you lose due to your own mistakes and I dare to say that even in a lesser % of games on pro-level , balance is the fault , but thats still the level you need to balance. No one cares about the lower levels. You can give a bronze person the strongest unit and he will still lose. If you dont care about the lower levels then you are a bit of an arrogant assh..., are you not? Because who gives you the right to say "you dont count anymore"? Oh and where do you make the cut for balance? Are you talking about "korean pros" or "all serious pros" or even (maybe) "semi-pros"? I hope you realize that not caring about balancing the game for anyone less than a pro will make it nearly impossible to get to pro level, because you will lose to "not-balanced-tactic X" a whole lot of time. Oh and while you are at it ... EXPLAIN WHY A BALANCED GAME EXCLUDES LOWER LEVEL PLAYERS? Why cant it be balanced for all levels of play? It is a myth that it can not be done because BW did it pretty well (some people argue that it has been "Protoss favored at lower levels", but that is much better than what SC2 does atm). Oh and it isnt only about the end results which make SC2 "balancing" such a terrible thing atm, it is also about the way in which people lose games at lower levels. They are totally not fun, because at lower levels it is easy to get a Medivac and two Hellbats together, but defending against it is hard to impossible. So such a loss is "automatic" and thus not fun. Losing is fine, but it should be because you made mistakes and used your units badly and not because your opponent chose to go straight for Hellbats and drops you before anything is ready to defend against them. SC2 is a GAME first and foremost and should be about a FUN EXPERIENCE, but leaving "hard to defend against units" in the game does not make it fun ... I'm sorry, but this is a load of trash and you know it. The game is balanced at ALL levels. If you lost to a strategy at ANY level, it is because YOU DIDN'T PLAY WELL ENOUGH. If you are having trouble with a strategy, practice to beat it, don't whine about imbalance because YOU can't beat something while there is a legitimate key to overcoming it.
Learn to THINK ... it isnt only about "balance" but also about "how did he win?" and "is that way fun?". Sure enough if you give every race a "Hellbat drop strategy" which will let him win (at lower levels you do that if it succeeds) you turn the game into a western style gun duel ... whoever draws first (and hits) wins. That isnt fun and fun is the point of a computer game. Such a way of "balancing and designing" the game is a COINFLIP and - yes, you guessed it - COINFLIPS ARE BALANCED.
The current trend of Blizzard to go "full speed game mode" is really dangerous, because reaction time is the one thing which makes the game hard AND that skill isnt easily improvable. In my opinion the reaction time for a lot of things are far too short and that started with Banelings already, which also put the requirement for microing on the defender and not the attacker (where it should be). Hellbat drops are just the current "flavour of the month", but there are also Protoss warp-in shenanigans (with Sentry-ramp-block or just a simple warping in in a dark corner of your base).
Sure enough you lost because you didnt play well enough, BUT did the Terran at low level really win because he played better OR was the Hellbat drop just far easier to execute than the necessary defense? The "level of required attention" for Banelings and Hellbat drops are FAR LOWER than the effort to defend against them and that is the problem.
|
very well put Naruto.
Just want to add one thing because that example of yours illustrates it so well.
I am terrible against blink allin and especially on star station I personally would say its next to impossible to get out of the situation with either a win or an advantage if the game continues. Protoss can blink up everywhere and if you walled off to begin with, 2 supplies will be gone. He can put so much pressure on you that you either crumble, lose or don't get out of it with an advantage or "even". To prevent the situation all together, I choose to play double rax reaper as it 'counters' or at least delays the timing by a lot, but that is about me. I have seen MVP and other Terrans hold it off against superior players (compared to the Protoss I face).
If you are not capable of executing a strategy or defend against a strategy due to mechanical limitations, the best solution is to just circumvent that situation from your side.
Furthermore, you guys keep on telling that the game should be balanced on low levels if possible to achieve. At this point this is a theoretical discussion because the balance is extremely close at all levels. It's not like a gold player of race X would be a bronze if he had instead always played race Y. He' d most likely be in gold as well.
|
On July 05 2013 18:24 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 17:51 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:48 NarutO wrote:On July 05 2013 16:40 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. The problem is that ... Are they the most valid to ask though? Because they are pros they can deal with more "spit second stuff" than Joe Bronzeleague. I dont think it is a good idea to balance the game around the very very top and basically tell anyone of roughly Master league "you have to live with losing to somewhat overpowered stuff (for your level of play)". It is ok to try and make the game good for eSport, BUT that does not exclude balancing it for all levels of play. It isnt a "one or the other" thing ... On July 05 2013 16:38 iky43210 wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. from their perspective, but not necessary better for overall health of the game. As an example, for WoW blizz used to gathered feedback and implemented suggestions from reckful and his crew, because they are the best and most dedicated in their league. Fast forward 3 months, WoW balance was at the worst it has ever been (cataclysm) and they have killed pvp for many. Let the pro players do their things, and developers design balance based on tangible data and statistics. Balancing the classes of WoW around PvP was a big reason why I lost interest in the game. It seriously made the classes "samey" because they tried to get rid of any required classes. The example of why it might be a bad idea to ask competitors for help in balancing a game is good though and quite appropriate, because many players are not that objective and see the game from their own race's eyes only. Awesome examples were given by IdrA's outbursts ... even though I think he can be more objective when he wants to. Balancing takes a lot of thought though and I doubt progamers have the time to do such though experiments. yes, that is essentially what it is. Balance needs to be achieved at the highest level. Up until a certain point you lose due to your own mistakes and I dare to say that even in a lesser % of games on pro-level , balance is the fault , but thats still the level you need to balance. No one cares about the lower levels. You can give a bronze person the strongest unit and he will still lose. If you dont care about the lower levels then you are a bit of an arrogant assh..., are you not? Because who gives you the right to say "you dont count anymore"? Oh and where do you make the cut for balance? Are you talking about "korean pros" or "all serious pros" or even (maybe) "semi-pros"? I hope you realize that not caring about balancing the game for anyone less than a pro will make it nearly impossible to get to pro level, because you will lose to "not-balanced-tactic X" a whole lot of time. Oh and while you are at it ... EXPLAIN WHY A BALANCED GAME EXCLUDES LOWER LEVEL PLAYERS? Why cant it be balanced for all levels of play? It is a myth that it can not be done because BW did it pretty well (some people argue that it has been "Protoss favored at lower levels", but that is much better than what SC2 does atm). Oh and it isnt only about the end results which make SC2 "balancing" such a terrible thing atm, it is also about the way in which people lose games at lower levels. They are totally not fun, because at lower levels it is easy to get a Medivac and two Hellbats together, but defending against it is hard to impossible. So such a loss is "automatic" and thus not fun. Losing is fine, but it should be because you made mistakes and used your units badly and not because your opponent chose to go straight for Hellbats and drops you before anything is ready to defend against them. SC2 is a GAME first and foremost and should be about a FUN EXPERIENCE, but leaving "hard to defend against units" in the game does not make it fun ... I'm an arrogant ass, because I say the balance should take place at the highest level possible? (Note: Highest level possible means highest level achieved by a good % of players there). That means there are players that are exceptional and can 'break' even balance issues, as they outdo other players in terms of mechanical skill or strategy. The best example from the past probably would be FruitDealer as he won relying on mechanics that were superior to the other players. Nowadays Terran does underperform on the highest level (Korea) but INnoVatioN and Flash for example do very well. They do so because they are outstanding. Balance cannot be given on every level. You will never balance it out that every strategy and unit in non-symmetrical design will be as strong as the "counterpart". There is a new countersystem in Starcraft 2 and there are more hardcounters than softcounters. A strategy will never be as easy to defend as to execute. It happened to be that a bulldog bust PvT was easier to play than to defend in Broodwar. There are certain strategies in Starcraft 2 that show that as well. I am not arrogant prick, just because I can point out the mistakes the lower-level players lose on. I do tons of mistakes and I'm already quiet high but I'd dare to say that I lose due to balance. My point being: LOWER LEVELS DO NOT LOSE DUE TO BALANCE. Get over it. Put any non-Bronze in Bronze, and he will crush a Hellbat only Terran with lings only. He has superior mechanics, superior strategy and superior understanding of the game. I help players as much as I can here on Teamliquid (no matter their league) and I'll explain and give advice, but people like you that point out that players like me that speak their mind and are honest are arrogant makes me not want to contribute. In fact, you are an ignorant idiot if you believe the game can be balanced a) for everyone b) the fault for losing on lower levels would be BALANCE and not mistakes. Balance should start at the highest level that a majority of pros can achieve (at least for me) and that level probably is a low-level to midlevel Korean progamer. Do you really believe non-Koreans lose to Koreans because of balance? They do lose because of mistakes and its often pointed out by casters. Lacking mechanical skill, and you really do want to make me believe a bronze player loses because he cannot beat 2 hellbats? Really?
I am really confused ...
On one side you talk about "Highest level possible means highest level achieved by a good % of players there" (thus it should be for 50%+ of all players, right?) but then you blabber on about Innovation, Flash and whoever else and say that "Balance should start at the highest level that a majority of pros can achieve".
You are sort of correct in that balance is the wrong word to use for describing the discrepancy between low level and high level players. Low level players lose because certain units are designed so terribly that they are becoming too hard to defend against while being very easy to use. Thus these units are becoming imbalanced at lower levels ... and there we are back at balance. This is very terrible design and should be changed.
I wasnt talking about progamer vs progamer, only about units that are clearly imbalanced at lower levels because of the discrepancy between using and defending against.
|
Not 50% of all players.
x% of the % of progamers in total. Means you cannot balance the game around only Flash/INnoVation/SoulKey but you also do not balance it around bad plaayers. Balance it somewhere in the middle ground of the highest level. Is that more understandable to you?
I don't blabber, I discuss and I don't see a reason to discuss that topic any further with you, as you simply do not understand that matter and also have an aggressive tone that I don't appreciate. Simply the statement that the game should be balanced around (and) fun should be the most important matter disqualifies you from any balance discussion.
|
On July 05 2013 18:24 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 17:51 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:48 NarutO wrote:On July 05 2013 16:40 Rabiator wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. The problem is that ... Are they the most valid to ask though? Because they are pros they can deal with more "spit second stuff" than Joe Bronzeleague. I dont think it is a good idea to balance the game around the very very top and basically tell anyone of roughly Master league "you have to live with losing to somewhat overpowered stuff (for your level of play)". It is ok to try and make the game good for eSport, BUT that does not exclude balancing it for all levels of play. It isnt a "one or the other" thing ... On July 05 2013 16:38 iky43210 wrote:On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?
It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all. from their perspective, but not necessary better for overall health of the game. As an example, for WoW blizz used to gathered feedback and implemented suggestions from reckful and his crew, because they are the best and most dedicated in their league. Fast forward 3 months, WoW balance was at the worst it has ever been (cataclysm) and they have killed pvp for many. Let the pro players do their things, and developers design balance based on tangible data and statistics. Balancing the classes of WoW around PvP was a big reason why I lost interest in the game. It seriously made the classes "samey" because they tried to get rid of any required classes. The example of why it might be a bad idea to ask competitors for help in balancing a game is good though and quite appropriate, because many players are not that objective and see the game from their own race's eyes only. Awesome examples were given by IdrA's outbursts ... even though I think he can be more objective when he wants to. Balancing takes a lot of thought though and I doubt progamers have the time to do such though experiments. yes, that is essentially what it is. Balance needs to be achieved at the highest level. Up until a certain point you lose due to your own mistakes and I dare to say that even in a lesser % of games on pro-level , balance is the fault , but thats still the level you need to balance. No one cares about the lower levels. You can give a bronze person the strongest unit and he will still lose. If you dont care about the lower levels then you are a bit of an arrogant assh..., are you not? Because who gives you the right to say "you dont count anymore"? Oh and where do you make the cut for balance? Are you talking about "korean pros" or "all serious pros" or even (maybe) "semi-pros"? I hope you realize that not caring about balancing the game for anyone less than a pro will make it nearly impossible to get to pro level, because you will lose to "not-balanced-tactic X" a whole lot of time. Oh and while you are at it ... EXPLAIN WHY A BALANCED GAME EXCLUDES LOWER LEVEL PLAYERS? Why cant it be balanced for all levels of play? It is a myth that it can not be done because BW did it pretty well (some people argue that it has been "Protoss favored at lower levels", but that is much better than what SC2 does atm). Oh and it isnt only about the end results which make SC2 "balancing" such a terrible thing atm, it is also about the way in which people lose games at lower levels. They are totally not fun, because at lower levels it is easy to get a Medivac and two Hellbats together, but defending against it is hard to impossible. So such a loss is "automatic" and thus not fun. Losing is fine, but it should be because you made mistakes and used your units badly and not because your opponent chose to go straight for Hellbats and drops you before anything is ready to defend against them. SC2 is a GAME first and foremost and should be about a FUN EXPERIENCE, but leaving "hard to defend against units" in the game does not make it fun ... I'm an arrogant ass, because I say the balance should take place at the highest level possible? (Note: Highest level possible means highest level achieved by a good % of players there). That means there are players that are exceptional and can 'break' even balance issues, as they outdo other players in terms of mechanical skill or strategy. The best example from the past probably would be FruitDealer as he won relying on mechanics that were superior to the other players. Nowadays Terran does underperform on the highest level (Korea) but INnoVatioN and Flash for example do very well. They do so because they are outstanding. Balance cannot be given on every level. You will never balance it out that every strategy and unit in non-symmetrical design will be as strong as the "counterpart". There is a new countersystem in Starcraft 2 and there are more hardcounters than softcounters. A strategy will never be as easy to defend as to execute. It happened to be that a bulldog bust PvT was easier to play than to defend in Broodwar. There are certain strategies in Starcraft 2 that show that as well. I am not arrogant prick, just because I can point out the mistakes the lower-level players lose on. I do tons of mistakes and I'm already quiet high but I'd dare to say that I lose due to balance. My point being: LOWER LEVELS DO NOT LOSE DUE TO BALANCE. Get over it. Put any non-Bronze in Bronze, and he will crush a Hellbat only Terran with lings only. He has superior mechanics, superior strategy and superior understanding of the game. I help players as much as I can here on Teamliquid (no matter their league) and I'll explain and give advice, but people like you that point out that players like me that speak their mind and are honest are arrogant makes me not want to contribute. In fact, you are an ignorant idiot if you believe the game can be balanced a) for everyone b) the fault for losing on lower levels would be BALANCE and not mistakes. Balance should start at the highest level that a majority of pros can achieve (at least for me) and that level probably is a low-level to midlevel Korean progamer. Do you really believe non-Koreans lose to Koreans because of balance? They do lose because of mistakes and its often pointed out by casters. Lacking mechanical skill, and you really do want to make me believe a bronze player loses because he cannot beat 2 hellbats? Really?
I totally agree with the need to balance the game at the highest level , but
Nowadays Terran does underperform on the highest level (Korea) but INnoVatioN and Flash for example do very well. They do so because they are outstanding.
Wait, what? Terran Underperform in Korea? This seems completely wrong.
|
In any case units need to be HARD TO USE so they reward a good player when they use them to win instead of punishing a player for not being good enough to be able to defend against these "super efficient units". Hellbat drops are the current "easy to use, hard to defend against" strategy.
On July 05 2013 19:14 NarutO wrote:
Not 50% of all players.
x% of the % of progamers in total. Means you cannot balance the game around only Flash/INnoVation/SoulKey but you also do not balance it around bad plaayers. Balance it somewhere in the middle ground of the highest level. Is that more understandable to you?
I don't blabber, I discuss and I don't see a reason to discuss that topic any further with you, as you simply do not understand that matter and also have an aggressive tone that I don't appreciate. Simply the statement that the game should be balanced around (and) fun should be the most important matter disqualifies you from any balance discussion.
So if you balance the game for 70% of progamers you basically screw up the remaining 30% and add an artificial wall which they cant cross if they are playing in a tournament against other progamers who have mastered "balanced at top top level only strategy X".
I would rethink that judgement ... seriously.
You did seem to blabber, because your descriptions of who you want to balance for are very very vague ... as they are in this post again. You are also one of the group of people who dont even try to answer the important "cant it be balanced for all levels of play?" question.
|
Rabiator, do you actually play the game? Did you play WOL? Do you play HOTS? This is not to discount your opinion on SC simply because you do not play (and no-one can doubt your passion for the game). After all, you can learn plenty by observation and analysis and plenty seem to play who post nonsense about the game. But, I'm genuinely curious.
These scenarios you talk about at the lower levels happen from time to time, but by and large they do not. Sure, a player can try a Hellbat drop and every so often it may work in a game deciding way - similar to being 6 pooled or roach-ling all-in or baneling busted or 4 gated. When they do, you learn from it and use it for the next time. In the case of Hellbat drops, at the lower levels, you can be sure that player is not macro-ing properly and has not expanded. The defending player would have more probes, more army and (likely) another base. Most times, these fundamentals will be sufficient for him to win.
Like I said, I don't get where you derive these scenarios from. I played WOL and all those scenarios above were hard to face the first time. They were hard to face every time after that, and you'd still lose, but it was a little easier everytime. I've started laddering again (when my schedule allows) in HOTS working my way up from the bottom (I auto-lost all my placements) and I remember anticipating with trepidation for my first encounter with speedivacs. It was not a problem. My opponent was too concerned with drops and I had defended up attack paths with cannons. My army size was way bigger than his in the end (better macro!) and I rolled him over. This will change as I go up the leagues and I will encounter better players - similar to how difficult it was for me to handle split Terran drops in WOL for the first time (and heck every time thereafter). But this is the challenge of the game. Even if, at least from a P perspective, it seems easier for Terran to drop than Protoss to defend.
As to SC2 being fun. You are right and not right. SC2 is not intrinsically a fun game. Not if you are playing it competitively and on ladder (they way it is meant to be played). It is stressful. But I enjoy playing it (and enjoy thinking and talking about it). I enjoy it mainly because it is challenging and engrossing and deep and it stills my mind when I play it. And that is fun. It may not be the kind of fun you seem to be thinking about. If I want that kind of fun, I play some 3v3 or 4v4. As do a large number of the player population who enjoy the game in this format - along with the social aspect this format provides.
I just had to say that, because when I read your posts on this particular issue (and you have been saying it for a while), it seems to me that you could not be more wrong. Lower level players simply do not generally lose for the reasons you say they do. At least not usually. Every so often an obviously imbalanced unit/strategy may come along. That may have an effect across all the leagues and may necessitate a major patch. However, personally, I doubt that Hellbats fall into this category (at least not right now). And currently, I don't think any unit or strategy in SC2 is obviously or badly imbalanced. It is all on the players.
|
On July 05 2013 18:22 iky43210 wrote:
I don't see why it couldn't be ok for widow mines to replace tanks. Most are ok with this, and so are blizzard.
And besides, tanks are not absolutely obsolete. They still have roles in the game (TvT) and is making appearances in TvZ as well
widow mines produces better games than tanks overall. There really is no reason to prefer tanks over widow mines outside of past glories.
Tanks still have several disadvantages which they do not make up for with their power.
1. They are still immobile while dealing their maximum damage and since the game is based around mobility for everything else this is twice as bad as it was in BW.
2. Siege Tanks are relatively hard to reproduce compared to anything in a Zerg swarm, Marines, Protoss Gateway and even chronoboosted Colossi. Reproduction is really really important in such an economy focused game as SC2.
Widow Mines can not replace the tanks because they arent really an "army unit" but rather a spellcaster. You need a more consistent rate of fire to be useful in an army. Widow Mines have a different role from the Siege Tank, so replacing one with the other isnt really a question.
|
The game is balanced when two races can play a macro game and still be 50% and you cant do that now so the game is still far from balanced. Mules are to op and hellbats,but mules are worse in my opinion.
|
Imho it is delusional to expect mule nerf.
Now I won´t argue if mules are op.
But do you really think Blizzard would EVER consider to nerf mules ?
Even if mules would be op, there won´t be any "huge" changes like a mule nerf before Legacy of the Void.
|
Mules are actually a very good topic to bring up. Here at least haha. A while ago I couldn't stand them, since they make Terran so resilient to economic damage. But I realized they allow for much more interesting games because they give a Terran great comeback chances. Some recent comebacks by Terrans where they go down to single digit SCVs and then crawl back into the game with some very focused micro and eventually pull off a win. That kind of scrappy game is only possible because of mules.
I just wish the other races had similar comeback potential. (Mainly protoss, since zerg does have larva inject to get back drones quickly) It's so rare for a toss to make a comeback in a game where they are at a disadvantage. For example, getting off some good storms vs Terran can accomplish this. But, and maybe I'm somewhat biased, I can count the number of times I've seen a Protoss make one of these scrappy comebacks on just my hands. And I don't mean being at a lower supply as toss being a definite disadvantage, since their units cost so much more per supply, it is expected to be down in supply most midgames.
You could argue that additions like the mothership core have given protoss great initial defense so that this comeback potential is not as necessary for protoss. But from watching, I've found that the most interesting games are not when harass fails and defenses hold, but when there is back and forth and comebacks are made. Which could be why many consider the toss matchups not as fun to watch: either defend and win, or succumb to harass and continue declining from there.
|
On July 05 2013 23:26 Fig wrote:
Mules are actually a very good topic to bring up. Here at least haha. A while ago I couldn't stand them, since they make Terran so resilient to economic damage. But I realized they allow for much more interesting games because they give a Terran great comeback chances. Some recent comebacks by Terrans where they go down to single digit SCVs and then crawl back into the game with some very focused micro and eventually pull off a win. That kind of scrappy game is only possible because of mules.
I just wish the other races had similar comeback potential. (Mainly protoss, since zerg does have larva inject to get back drones quickly) It's so rare for a toss to make a comeback in a game where they are at a disadvantage. For example, getting off some good storms vs Terran can accomplish this. But, and maybe I'm somewhat biased, I can count the number of times I've seen a Protoss make one of these scrappy comebacks on just my hands. And I don't mean being at a lower supply as toss being a definite disadvantage, since their units cost so much more per supply, it is expected to be down in supply most midgames.
You could argue that additions like the mothership core have given protoss great initial defense so that this comeback potential is not as necessary for protoss. But from watching, I've found that the most interesting games are not when harass fails and defenses hold, but when there is back and forth and comebacks are made. Which could be why many consider the toss matchups not as fun to watch: either defend and win, or succumb to harass and continue declining from there.
I actually had a very similar thought process.
I just want to point out 2 details, which I still believe a perfectly designed mule should not have:
-) mass mules in late-/endgame scenarios make harassment against Terrans inefficient
-) mules can only mine minerals, which makes Terran mineralheavy units overly necessary in design and which is one of the reasons why gasheavy styles are very rare.
I think it's not an accident that the race with the mules got a 1:0 and a 3:1 mineral/gas ratio unit, while the other races got 2:1, 1:2, 1:1, 3:2 and 1:1 ratio units in HotS. It makes sense in terms of inherent setup viability.
|
On July 06 2013 00:15 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:26 Fig wrote:
Mules are actually a very good topic to bring up. Here at least haha. A while ago I couldn't stand them, since they make Terran so resilient to economic damage. But I realized they allow for much more interesting games because they give a Terran great comeback chances. Some recent comebacks by Terrans where they go down to single digit SCVs and then crawl back into the game with some very focused micro and eventually pull off a win. That kind of scrappy game is only possible because of mules.
I just wish the other races had similar comeback potential. (Mainly protoss, since zerg does have larva inject to get back drones quickly) It's so rare for a toss to make a comeback in a game where they are at a disadvantage. For example, getting off some good storms vs Terran can accomplish this. But, and maybe I'm somewhat biased, I can count the number of times I've seen a Protoss make one of these scrappy comebacks on just my hands. And I don't mean being at a lower supply as toss being a definite disadvantage, since their units cost so much more per supply, it is expected to be down in supply most midgames.
You could argue that additions like the mothership core have given protoss great initial defense so that this comeback potential is not as necessary for protoss. But from watching, I've found that the most interesting games are not when harass fails and defenses hold, but when there is back and forth and comebacks are made. Which could be why many consider the toss matchups not as fun to watch: either defend and win, or succumb to harass and continue declining from there. I actually had a very similar thought process. I just want to point out 2 details, which I still believe a perfectly designed mule should not have: -) mass mules in late-/endgame scenarios make harassment against Terrans inefficient -) mules can only mine minerals, which makes Terran mineralheavy units overly necessary in design and which is one of the reasons why gasheavy styles are very rare.I think it's not an accident that the race with the mules got a 1:0 and a 3:1 mineral/gas ratio unit, while the other races got 2:1, 1:2, 1:1, 3:2 and 1:1 ratio units in HotS. It makes sense in terms of inherent setup viability.
Good fucking job they can only mine minerals, double mule on gas would break the game completely
Edit - k just realized what you meant. I thought you said that mules should be able to mine gas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
