|
On August 04 2013 08:49 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 02:26 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 04 2013 02:22 Rabiator wrote:
Are people still "discussing" which player is better in this thread about game balance? Individual players simply DO NOT MATTER - especially the really good ones - because they are usually not "the average" ... which is what statistics and things like balance are all about. Wrong. The absolute best players show what you can do with their respective race. The solution for everybody else is to get better, not to profit from changes. That may be true, but it doesnt really say anything about the racial balance. In any case people are discussing which player is better than which other player and not which cool moves player X showed against player Y. The solution you suggested is stupid, because "everyone else" (= 99.99999% of the people playing the game) do NOT have 8-10 hours a day to practice and get to the top professional level. Thus balance needs to be centered around the average playing level.
Tumescentpie is in the top 10% of players... if a game balances around players at his level or worse, it would not be a competitive game and I wouldn't want to play it.
If people are "casuals" or just don't play SC2 that much, I don't know how they can expect the game to be curtailed to them, compared to people that play this game 8+ hours a day and base their living on it.
|
On August 04 2013 08:57 Rhaegal wrote:
Tumescentpie is in the top 10% of players... if a game balances around players at his level or worse, it would not be a competitive game and I wouldn't want to play it.
If people are "casuals" or just don't play SC2 that much, I don't know how they can expect the game to be curtailed to them, compared to people that play this game 8+ hours a day and base their living on it.
I agree with what you said and I'd like to continue that it's not really a new phenomenon that the professional players get more out of certain types of units than the average players.
As an example, it's quite challenging to balance Marines and Medivacs vs Zealots or Banelings for all different types of players. A casual won't micro them at all and they will lose horribly or atleast trade inefficiently. A semi-casual will try to stutter step a little and perhaps even splits them in two. A professional when he's on his game will destroy the Zealots or Banelings with little or absolutely zero losses in return. As a side note, no such micro potential exists for Zealots. A professional can't 'play his Zealots better' and kill the Marines and Medivacs without losing anything.
So how would these units have to be balanced? If you balance the cost and damage and build times etc. according to the pros, the casuals and semi-casuals will be fighting an uphill battle and feel hopelessly underpowered. This will also affect ladder data and might make it look like the race is completely underpowered as a whole since it's losing more than winning on every level except of course the one that counts (the pro level). However, if you balance according to the casuals or semi-casuals, the pros will fight an easy battle and feel overpowered.
Since the unit and race designs are so different and the game is seemingly balanced around 'middle ground' players, it's no surprise that the race that is 'the hardest to play' is also the strongest at the pro level. This is simply because the mechanics are not hard at all for professionals. There's always an exception to every rule and balance has shifted more than once due to bad game design by Blizzard, but the one constant has been that casuals and ladder players are breaking even with Protoss or perhaps even winning a little more than they are losing, but at the very top the race doesn't compete equally. This is a simple result of not balancing according to the pros and what they can do and this ideology being reflected throughout the entire game. The only way to avoid different levels of the game being in different types of balance is to give each race similar units with similar potential. So far that hasn't been the case.
|
Northern Ireland25245 Posts
The more balanced towards the top of the scale the better for me.
I'm not a good player my any means, but I do enjoy the mechanical/control aspect of the game a lot.
|
My biggest pain in balance is just Terran's scan. It creates a 'perfectly safe' situation for T, and no other race. This is especially apparent late game.
Let's say there's three battles going on at the same time. The terran player performs a scan, and sees all the units (cloaked and non) within range of his units. He can safely look away for 3 or so seconds, knowing there's nothing in range to do damage.
For other races, looking away might mean your guys get kited into a widow mine, or EMP, or other threat that might be lying just out of your units' vision.
Without having that 100% knowledge of a full screen's vision, there's always the opportunity to lose everything to a surprise you didn't know about. Terran can make sure that his units are never surprised.
|
On August 04 2013 10:45 fdsdfg wrote:
My biggest pain in balance is just Terran's scan. It creates a 'perfectly safe' situation for T, and no other race. This is especially apparent late game.
Let's say there's three battles going on at the same time. The terran player performs a scan, and sees all the units (cloaked and non) within range of his units. He can safely look away for 3 or so seconds, knowing there's nothing in range to do damage.
For other races, looking away might mean your guys get kited into a widow mine, or EMP, or other threat that might be lying just out of your units' vision.
Without having that 100% knowledge of a full screen's vision, there's always the opportunity to lose everything to a surprise you didn't know about. Terran can make sure that his units are never surprised.
- Creep tumors
- Observers
- Pylons
- Overlords/overseers
- Few low cost units (lings, zealots, marines) spread out between your army and the opposing army
Besides, if you look away from your armies and the minimap during a battle for a long enough time to be damaged, you deserve to get damaged. And terran players do not scan to see if they can look away. They do the same thing zerg and protoss players do: scouting ahead with a few units, and paying attention to the minimap while macroing.
|
On August 04 2013 10:57 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 10:45 fdsdfg wrote:
My biggest pain in balance is just Terran's scan. It creates a 'perfectly safe' situation for T, and no other race. This is especially apparent late game.
Let's say there's three battles going on at the same time. The terran player performs a scan, and sees all the units (cloaked and non) within range of his units. He can safely look away for 3 or so seconds, knowing there's nothing in range to do damage.
For other races, looking away might mean your guys get kited into a widow mine, or EMP, or other threat that might be lying just out of your units' vision.
Without having that 100% knowledge of a full screen's vision, there's always the opportunity to lose everything to a surprise you didn't know about. Terran can make sure that his units are never surprised. - Creep tumors - Observers - Pylons - Overlords/overseers - Few low cost units (lings, zealots, marines) spread out between your army and the opposing army Besides, if you look away from your armies and the minimap during a battle for a long enough time to be damaged, you deserve to get damaged. And terran players do not scan to see if they can look away. They do the same thing zerg and protoss players do: scouting ahead with a few units, and paying attention to the minimap while macroing.
I'm not talking about awareness during the entire game, I'm talking about the 3-5 seconds during a battle where you look away to macro / micro another battle.
Terran is the only one who can do this safely. The other races are always 0.5 seconds away from death lying just off-screen.
Yes in an ideal situation you will be able to know every unit in their army and have detection in a wide radius around your army. This situation is very hard to accomplish as PZ though.
|
On August 04 2013 11:07 fdsdfg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 10:57 H0i wrote:On August 04 2013 10:45 fdsdfg wrote:
My biggest pain in balance is just Terran's scan. It creates a 'perfectly safe' situation for T, and no other race. This is especially apparent late game.
Let's say there's three battles going on at the same time. The terran player performs a scan, and sees all the units (cloaked and non) within range of his units. He can safely look away for 3 or so seconds, knowing there's nothing in range to do damage.
For other races, looking away might mean your guys get kited into a widow mine, or EMP, or other threat that might be lying just out of your units' vision.
Without having that 100% knowledge of a full screen's vision, there's always the opportunity to lose everything to a surprise you didn't know about. Terran can make sure that his units are never surprised. - Creep tumors - Observers - Pylons - Overlords/overseers - Few low cost units (lings, zealots, marines) spread out between your army and the opposing army Besides, if you look away from your armies and the minimap during a battle for a long enough time to be damaged, you deserve to get damaged. And terran players do not scan to see if they can look away. They do the same thing zerg and protoss players do: scouting ahead with a few units, and paying attention to the minimap while macroing. I'm not talking about awareness during the entire game, I'm talking about the 3-5 seconds during a battle where you look away to macro / micro another battle. Terran is the only one who can do this safely. The other races are always 0.5 seconds away from death lying just off-screen. Yes in an ideal situation you will be able to know every unit in their army and have detection in a wide radius around your army. This situation is very hard to accomplish as PZ though.
Observers and overseers actually make that quite easy to accomplish, not to mention the extraordinary amount of map awareness you can have in the first place by utilizing creep or placing stationary observers, or even pylons, all of which give you opportunity to see threats being set up ahead of time. Complaining about scan is pretty silly. Sure it's a very useful thing to have, but Zerg and Protoss have ample tools in the toolbox for detection and map awareness.
|
Problem: Biomine is too powerful/mobile against zerg pre-hive regardless of Zerg's tech.
a) If the zerg goes infestors, then it is very hard to deal with the medevac mobility. It is possible to remain close to the Terran in upgrades, but very hard (impossible) to keep bases.
b) If you go muta, then your hive is delayed and you will be left with 2-2 ling/bling and 1-0 muta against 3-3 biomine, which will just die.
Solution - allow Zerg to get to hive tech with either spire or infestation pit. Muta play will be viable without forfeiting your ground army.
|
Or you could just build a single building and then tech to hive anyway. There's no rule that says you have to build infestors just because you have an infestation pit.
|
On August 04 2013 09:11 xyzz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 08:57 Rhaegal wrote:
Tumescentpie is in the top 10% of players... if a game balances around players at his level or worse, it would not be a competitive game and I wouldn't want to play it.
If people are "casuals" or just don't play SC2 that much, I don't know how they can expect the game to be curtailed to them, compared to people that play this game 8+ hours a day and base their living on it. I agree with what you said and I'd like to continue that it's not really a new phenomenon that the professional players get more out of certain types of units than the average players. As an example, it's quite challenging to balance Marines and Medivacs vs Zealots or Banelings for all different types of players. A casual won't micro them at all and they will lose horribly or atleast trade inefficiently. A semi-casual will try to stutter step a little and perhaps even splits them in two. A professional when he's on his game will destroy the Zealots or Banelings with little or absolutely zero losses in return. As a side note, no such micro potential exists for Zealots. A professional can't 'play his Zealots better' and kill the Marines and Medivacs without losing anything. So how would these units have to be balanced? If you balance the cost and damage and build times etc. according to the pros, the casuals and semi-casuals will be fighting an uphill battle and feel hopelessly underpowered. This will also affect ladder data and might make it look like the race is completely underpowered as a whole since it's losing more than winning on every level except of course the one that counts (the pro level). However, if you balance according to the casuals or semi-casuals, the pros will fight an easy battle and feel overpowered. Since the unit and race designs are so different and the game is seemingly balanced around 'middle ground' players, it's no surprise that the race that is 'the hardest to play' is also the strongest at the pro level. This is simply because the mechanics are not hard at all for professionals. There's always an exception to every rule and balance has shifted more than once due to bad game design by Blizzard, but the one constant has been that casuals and ladder players are breaking even with Protoss or perhaps even winning a little more than they are losing, but at the very top the race doesn't compete equally. This is a simple result of not balancing according to the pros and what they can do and this ideology being reflected throughout the entire game. The only way to avoid different levels of the game being in different types of balance is to give each race similar units with similar potential. So far that hasn't been the case.
I agree alot with this
and i hope blizzard changes this now or when expansion is out, i prefer now but its doubtful.
If they do not fix this with lotv they suck as gamedesigners
|
I am a terran player and got into trouble more than once complaining about the rampant imbalance that was broodlord/infestor in the last year of WOL, but biomine is just too damn strong in TvZ. I think the solution of decreasing splash is a good solution to the biomine problem, or even rebuffing fungal (since the fungal debuff was a rushed balance change right before the release of HOTS to give the illusion blizzard gave a crap despite letting infestor/bl be dominant for almost a year already).
Letting zerg tech to hive with either infestor pit or spire also seems like an ok idea.
I'm watching a lot of soulkey versus innovation and I just think it's nonsense that a small mistake on soulkey's part against widow mines can cost him the game so easily. It's basically the exact same thing (but in reverse) that happened to Ryung in the RO4 against Sniper and caused him to spam "Imba Imba Imba." One small mistake and you lose a crap ton of units and the ability to get back into the game at a critical point.
Some changes need to happen. Biomine is exciting but I think it's gone too far. I think widow mines should be able to one shot anything but not be able to kill workers or zerglings in one hit with splash unless there is an upgrade lead (in terms of vehicle weapons). That is the same concept behind getting +1 to tanks in order to one shot lings/banelings. That or just decrease their splash. It's a little too much I think.
|
On August 04 2013 13:54 Diogenes wrote:
I am a terran player and got into trouble more than once complaining about the rampant imbalance that was broodlord/infestor in the last year of WOL, but biomine is just too damn strong in TvZ. I think the solution of decreasing splash is a good solution to the biomine problem, or even rebuffing fungal (since the fungal debuff was a rushed balance change right before the release of HOTS to give the illusion blizzard gave a crap despite letting infestor/bl be dominant for almost a year already).
Letting zerg tech to hive with either infestor pit or spire also seems like an ok idea.
I'm watching a lot of soulkey versus innovation and I just think it's nonsense that a small mistake on soulkey's part against widow mines can cost him the game so easily. It's basically the exact same thing (but in reverse) that happened to Ryung in the RO4 against Sniper and caused him to spam "Imba Imba Imba." One small mistake and you lose a crap ton of units and the ability to get back into the game at a critical point.
Some changes need to happen. Biomine is exciting but I think it's gone too far. I think widow mines should be able to one shot anything but not be able to kill workers or zerglings in one hit with splash unless there is an upgrade lead (in terms of vehicle weapons). That is the same concept behind getting +1 to tanks in order to one shot lings/banelings. That or just decrease their splash. It's a little too much I think.
Sniper went up a small choke into siege tanks, with equal army supply, and won crushingly. Hence Ryung's Imba. Innovation basically wins through better army control, and some of Soulkey's decisions regarding his army are kind of questionable-such as spending over 3k gas in mutas. So I don't think it's really a good idea to compare the two. Your proposed nerf requires Terrans to get a third upgrade-and get it before their opponent starts their first two-for widow mines to be at all useful. If widow mines can't one-hit zerglings, they suddenly become very bad at thinning out or deterring the zerg army, and become largely useless.
|
On August 04 2013 08:57 Rhaegal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 08:49 Rabiator wrote:On August 04 2013 02:26 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 04 2013 02:22 Rabiator wrote:
Are people still "discussing" which player is better in this thread about game balance? Individual players simply DO NOT MATTER - especially the really good ones - because they are usually not "the average" ... which is what statistics and things like balance are all about. Wrong. The absolute best players show what you can do with their respective race. The solution for everybody else is to get better, not to profit from changes. That may be true, but it doesnt really say anything about the racial balance. In any case people are discussing which player is better than which other player and not which cool moves player X showed against player Y. The solution you suggested is stupid, because "everyone else" (= 99.99999% of the people playing the game) do NOT have 8-10 hours a day to practice and get to the top professional level. Thus balance needs to be centered around the average playing level. Tumescentpie is in the top 10% of players... if a game balances around players at his level or worse, it would not be a competitive game and I wouldn't want to play it. If people are "casuals" or just don't play SC2 that much, I don't know how they can expect the game to be curtailed to them, compared to people that play this game 8+ hours a day and base their living on it.
It is a false belief that the game cant be competitive if the game is balanced for everyone. BW did it and it worked because controlling the units was HARD ... which meant you could use them more efficiently if you were good, but at lower levels they were just used at a lower level of power. In SC2 using the units has been made easy and this results in special abilities or indeed the general stats being "too much" for lower level players. The standard example is Banelings where you have to split your forces if you are faced with them and since the reaction time for low level players is higher they will kinda auto-lose against them.
It is just a question of design ... and expectation and your POV simply makes a false assumption and then is satisfied with that without checking if that assumption is true or not.
The point for a casual is to play a game and be entertained by it. Losing isnt a problem, BUT losing in one second is a bad experience and thus shouldnt be in the game. The massive armies and thus maximized dps makes it possible for someone to "instawin" ... that should be a clear indicator where changes have to be made to keep the game fun and balanced for all levels of play.
|
On August 04 2013 13:54 Diogenes wrote:
I am a terran player and got into trouble more than once complaining about the rampant imbalance that was broodlord/infestor in the last year of WOL, but biomine is just too damn strong in TvZ. I think the solution of decreasing splash is a good solution to the biomine problem, or even rebuffing fungal (since the fungal debuff was a rushed balance change right before the release of HOTS to give the illusion blizzard gave a crap despite letting infestor/bl be dominant for almost a year already).
Letting zerg tech to hive with either infestor pit or spire also seems like an ok idea.
I'm watching a lot of soulkey versus innovation and I just think it's nonsense that a small mistake on soulkey's part against widow mines can cost him the game so easily. It's basically the exact same thing (but in reverse) that happened to Ryung in the RO4 against Sniper and caused him to spam "Imba Imba Imba." One small mistake and you lose a crap ton of units and the ability to get back into the game at a critical point.
Some changes need to happen. Biomine is exciting but I think it's gone too far. I think widow mines should be able to one shot anything but not be able to kill workers or zerglings in one hit with splash unless there is an upgrade lead (in terms of vehicle weapons). That is the same concept behind getting +1 to tanks in order to one shot lings/banelings. That or just decrease their splash. It's a little too much I think.
WMs suck vs. anyone who masters the skill of cost effective mine disposal while taking fire.
WMs are the only counter to baneling/speedling comp for low APM Terran players.
Balancing a game around your entertainment is not a way to balance a game.
Creating a large player base via mechanics that take minutes to learn, a lifetime to master is.
WMs are currently the only counter against mass tier 1 units in the first 15min for metal tier Terran players.
If you see Agliiac(sp) you'll see only balanced populations (33%) of Terrans are either in bronze or masters, because by silver league up to diamond, players are already competent in mine sweeping.
This means the issue you brought up is moot.
WMs have become a pillar for the Terran race in HotS, to nerf it heavily now will do the opposite of your proposed balance as it will be a giant fuck you, Terrans by Blizzard
Edit: I forgot how to English.
|
On August 04 2013 02:26 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 02:22 Rabiator wrote:
Are people still "discussing" which player is better in this thread about game balance? Individual players simply DO NOT MATTER - especially the really good ones - because they are usually not "the average" ... which is what statistics and things like balance are all about. Wrong. The absolute best players show what you can do with their respective race. The solution for everybody else is to get better, not to profit from changes.
Wrong. The absolute best players we currently have don't even come close to utilizing the full theoretical potential of a race. Look at the micro for example Automaton bot can do. That is the micro you can do with a race. The absolute best SC2 players don't even come close to that. So should we just tell every pro to suck it up and get better?
No, because telling a pro to become as good as a bot in micro is completely unrealistic. Yet at the same time telling a gold player he should just become as good as a pro is also really stupid.
|
On August 04 2013 16:08 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 02:26 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 04 2013 02:22 Rabiator wrote:
Are people still "discussing" which player is better in this thread about game balance? Individual players simply DO NOT MATTER - especially the really good ones - because they are usually not "the average" ... which is what statistics and things like balance are all about. Wrong. The absolute best players show what you can do with their respective race. The solution for everybody else is to get better, not to profit from changes. Wrong. The absolute best players we currently have don't even come close to utilizing the full theoretical potential of a race. Look at the micro for example Automaton bot can do. That is the micro you can do with a race. The absolute best SC2 players don't even come close to that. So should we just tell every pro to suck it up and get better? No, because telling a pro to become as good as a bot in micro is completely unrealistic. Yet at the same time telling a gold player he should just become as good as a pro is also really stupid.
You take Automaton 2000 as a benchmark for human micro potential? Oh... bye for now, I'm gonna run a marathon on a speedbike. :D
|
On August 04 2013 16:08 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 02:26 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 04 2013 02:22 Rabiator wrote:
Are people still "discussing" which player is better in this thread about game balance? Individual players simply DO NOT MATTER - especially the really good ones - because they are usually not "the average" ... which is what statistics and things like balance are all about. Wrong. The absolute best players show what you can do with their respective race. The solution for everybody else is to get better, not to profit from changes. Wrong. The absolute best players we currently have don't even come close to utilizing the full theoretical potential of a race. Look at the micro for example Automaton bot can do. That is the micro you can do with a race. The absolute best SC2 players don't even come close to that. So should we just tell every pro to suck it up and get better? No, because telling a pro to become as good as a bot in micro is completely unrealistic. Yet at the same time telling a gold player he should just become as good as a pro is also really stupid.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
That is the micro YOU can not do with a race
hahahaha
|
On August 04 2013 16:03 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 13:54 Diogenes wrote:
I am a terran player and got into trouble more than once complaining about the rampant imbalance that was broodlord/infestor in the last year of WOL, but biomine is just too damn strong in TvZ. I think the solution of decreasing splash is a good solution to the biomine problem, or even rebuffing fungal (since the fungal debuff was a rushed balance change right before the release of HOTS to give the illusion blizzard gave a crap despite letting infestor/bl be dominant for almost a year already).
Letting zerg tech to hive with either infestor pit or spire also seems like an ok idea.
I'm watching a lot of soulkey versus innovation and I just think it's nonsense that a small mistake on soulkey's part against widow mines can cost him the game so easily. It's basically the exact same thing (but in reverse) that happened to Ryung in the RO4 against Sniper and caused him to spam "Imba Imba Imba." One small mistake and you lose a crap ton of units and the ability to get back into the game at a critical point.
Some changes need to happen. Biomine is exciting but I think it's gone too far. I think widow mines should be able to one shot anything but not be able to kill workers or zerglings in one hit with splash unless there is an upgrade lead (in terms of vehicle weapons). That is the same concept behind getting +1 to tanks in order to one shot lings/banelings. That or just decrease their splash. It's a little too much I think. WMs suck vs. anyone who masters the skill of cost effective mine disposal while taking fire. WMs are the only counter to baneling/speedling comp for low APM Terran players. Balancing a game around your entertainment is not a way to balance a game. Creating a large player base via mechanics that take minutes to learn, a lifetime to master is. WMs are currently the only counter against mass tier 1 units in the first 15min for metal tier Terran players. If you see Agliiac(sp) you'll see only balanced population (33%)of Terrans either in bronze or masters, because by silver league and up to diamond, other races are already competent in mine sweeping blunting the WMs edge. WMs have become a pillar for the Terran race in HotS, to nerf it heavily because you watched some T on VOD make it look broken does not make it so.
"WMs suck vs. anyone who masters the skill of cost effective mine disposal while taking fire." - Tell that to pretty much any top-level KR Zerg who's tried to play a straight-up game against Terran in the past couple months.
"WMs are the only counter to baneling/speedling comp for low APM Terran players." - Ever heard of siege tanks? And perhaps, instead of being handed the easy card that is *overpowered* WMs, it would be better to incur more motivation to increase APM/improve splitting capability?
"Balancing a game around your entertainment is not a way to balance a game." - Blizzard disagrees.
"Creating a large player base via mechanics that take minutes to learn, a lifetime to master is." - No shit. SC2 has already made considerable progress on this, and nerfing WM will not detract from said progress, so your comment is irrelevant.
"If you see Agliiac(sp) you'll see only balanced population (33%)of Terrans either in bronze or masters, because by silver league and up to diamond, other races are already competent in mine sweeping blunting the WMs edge." - Or maybe Zergs just Roach/Bling all-in a lot to win, because they realize it's the only way to win vT and that attempting to play a straight-up game against a competent T is a futile endeavor? Stop interpreting the winrates superficially, and also consider the nature of the wins.
"WMs have become a pillar for the Terran race in HotS, to nerf it heavily because you watched some T on VOD make it look broken does not make it so." - In their current overpowered state, WMs are not so much a "pillar", moreso a crutch for incompetent T-players, and the primary reason we aren't seeing top-level KR Z's win in straight-up games vT in OSL/GS(T)L/SPL.
|
On August 04 2013 17:13 F.O.A.D. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 16:03 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 04 2013 13:54 Diogenes wrote:
I am a terran player and got into trouble more than once complaining about the rampant imbalance that was broodlord/infestor in the last year of WOL, but biomine is just too damn strong in TvZ. I think the solution of decreasing splash is a good solution to the biomine problem, or even rebuffing fungal (since the fungal debuff was a rushed balance change right before the release of HOTS to give the illusion blizzard gave a crap despite letting infestor/bl be dominant for almost a year already).
Letting zerg tech to hive with either infestor pit or spire also seems like an ok idea.
I'm watching a lot of soulkey versus innovation and I just think it's nonsense that a small mistake on soulkey's part against widow mines can cost him the game so easily. It's basically the exact same thing (but in reverse) that happened to Ryung in the RO4 against Sniper and caused him to spam "Imba Imba Imba." One small mistake and you lose a crap ton of units and the ability to get back into the game at a critical point.
Some changes need to happen. Biomine is exciting but I think it's gone too far. I think widow mines should be able to one shot anything but not be able to kill workers or zerglings in one hit with splash unless there is an upgrade lead (in terms of vehicle weapons). That is the same concept behind getting +1 to tanks in order to one shot lings/banelings. That or just decrease their splash. It's a little too much I think. WMs suck vs. anyone who masters the skill of cost effective mine disposal while taking fire. WMs are the only counter to baneling/speedling comp for low APM Terran players. Balancing a game around your entertainment is not a way to balance a game. Creating a large player base via mechanics that take minutes to learn, a lifetime to master is. WMs are currently the only counter against mass tier 1 units in the first 15min for metal tier Terran players. If you see Agliiac(sp) you'll see only balanced population (33%)of Terrans either in bronze or masters, because by silver league and up to diamond, other races are already competent in mine sweeping blunting the WMs edge. WMs have become a pillar for the Terran race in HotS, to nerf it heavily because you watched some T on VOD make it look broken does not make it so. In their current overpowered state, WMs are not so much a "pillar", moreso a crutch for incompetent T-players, and the primary reason we aren't seeing top-level KR Z's win in straight-up games vT in OSL/GS(T)L/SPL.
Flash, Innovation, Bomber are patch Terrans? I'll leave this comment here for posterity for everyone to see your state of mind.
|
On August 04 2013 16:29 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 16:08 Sissors wrote:On August 04 2013 02:26 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 04 2013 02:22 Rabiator wrote:
Are people still "discussing" which player is better in this thread about game balance? Individual players simply DO NOT MATTER - especially the really good ones - because they are usually not "the average" ... which is what statistics and things like balance are all about. Wrong. The absolute best players show what you can do with their respective race. The solution for everybody else is to get better, not to profit from changes. Wrong. The absolute best players we currently have don't even come close to utilizing the full theoretical potential of a race. Look at the micro for example Automaton bot can do. That is the micro you can do with a race. The absolute best SC2 players don't even come close to that. So should we just tell every pro to suck it up and get better? No, because telling a pro to become as good as a bot in micro is completely unrealistic. Yet at the same time telling a gold player he should just become as good as a pro is also really stupid. You take Automaton 2000 as a benchmark for human micro potential? Oh... bye for now, I'm gonna run a marathon on a speedbike. :D
Wait, where did the human part come from? We were talking about the potential of a race, not human micro potential. Of course no human will ever be as good at pure micro as a bot. Although at the same time it is also stupid to think the current top of SC2 is the best a human can play.
On August 04 2013 16:33 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 16:08 Sissors wrote:On August 04 2013 02:26 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 04 2013 02:22 Rabiator wrote:
Are people still "discussing" which player is better in this thread about game balance? Individual players simply DO NOT MATTER - especially the really good ones - because they are usually not "the average" ... which is what statistics and things like balance are all about. Wrong. The absolute best players show what you can do with their respective race. The solution for everybody else is to get better, not to profit from changes. Wrong. The absolute best players we currently have don't even come close to utilizing the full theoretical potential of a race. Look at the micro for example Automaton bot can do. That is the micro you can do with a race. The absolute best SC2 players don't even come close to that. So should we just tell every pro to suck it up and get better? No, because telling a pro to become as good as a bot in micro is completely unrealistic. Yet at the same time telling a gold player he should just become as good as a pro is also really stupid. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That is the micro YOU can not do with a race hahahaha
Why can you not do it? It is theoretically posisble to do it, of course in practise not really for a human.
But then we are back to the question: Why isn't it okay to tell a pro to just become better, since he clearly hasn't reached the theoretical potential of his race, yet it is okay to tell noobslayer335, a 56 your old guy in gold league who likes to play a few games per week, that he should just become better if he wants a balanced game, since if innovation can do it so can he.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
