|
On August 04 2013 17:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 17:13 F.O.A.D. wrote: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.
Sick interpretation skills. Notice I said, "...a crutch for incompetent T-players." This obviously excludes the likes of Flash and Innovation. They are competent; top-level, in fact; the effect being that they are essentially unbeatable in TvZ.
|
On August 04 2013 18:02 F.O.A.D. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 17:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 04 2013 17:13 F.O.A.D. wrote: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. Sick interpretation skills. Notice I said, "...a crutch for incompetent T-players." This obviously excludes the likes of Flash and Innovation. They are competent; top-level, in fact; the effect being that they are essentially unbeatable in TvZ.
I actually don't think that mines are too much of a problem at all at the highest level in TvZ. Zergs can defuse/avoid them pretty well. Sometimes one loses to a minehit, but most minehits are only medium efficient against a Soulkey type of player. And even when those players lose to a minehit... you need to be in a quite commited BO early, or a rather bad situation generally, that 1-2mines can competetely destroy you.
E.g. watch the Innovation vs Soulkey series from yesterday. Innovation is countering zergling/baneling with marine kiting/splits and pickups and his victory has little to do with mine connections.
At the very toplevel, the mines are mostly there to force a zerg to slow down (heavily) in engagements and give Terran security from being overrun at hotspots. T/Zs there are just that good in dealing with each others units.
|
Innovation does indeed make TvZ look broken, most Terrans including Flash are still prone to losing clumps of 30 marines to banes - more devastating than any widow mine shot I've seen.
The sign of a truly great player is to make something balanced look imbalanced. When other Terrans go bio wm, they are good but they do not have the aura of invincibility innovation has. Take flash for example, he scraped a win over Hyvaa, far from the dominance that Innovation shows.
The game should not be balanced based on the top 2 players, ie innovation and Soulkey, Every pro (ie sponsored by a team) should be considered as top level, there is still a big gap between pros and any other grandmaster players, the game needs to be balanced among all pros and not the top 3.
|
On August 04 2013 18:31 Lock0n wrote:
Innovation does indeed make TvZ look broken, most Terrans including Flash are still prone to losing clumps of 30 marines to banes - more devastating than any widow mine shot I've seen.
The sign of a truly great player is to make something balanced look imbalanced. When other Terrans go bio wm, they are good but they do not have the aura of invincibility innovation has. Take flash for example, he scraped a win over Hyvaa, far from the dominance that Innovation shows.
The game should not be balanced based on the top 2 players, ie innovation and Soulkey, Every pro (ie sponsored by a team) should be considered as top level, there is still a big gap between pros and any other grandmaster players, the game needs to be balanced among all pros and not the top 3.
I agree with what you say but please, do not open again that discussion. Some smart guy could say that the game should be balanced around the casual player.
|
On August 04 2013 20:25 Karpfen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 18:31 Lock0n wrote:
Innovation does indeed make TvZ look broken, most Terrans including Flash are still prone to losing clumps of 30 marines to banes - more devastating than any widow mine shot I've seen.
The sign of a truly great player is to make something balanced look imbalanced. When other Terrans go bio wm, they are good but they do not have the aura of invincibility innovation has. Take flash for example, he scraped a win over Hyvaa, far from the dominance that Innovation shows.
The game should not be balanced based on the top 2 players, ie innovation and Soulkey, Every pro (ie sponsored by a team) should be considered as top level, there is still a big gap between pros and any other grandmaster players, the game needs to be balanced among all pros and not the top 3. I agree with what you say but please, do not open again that discussion. Some smart guy could say that the game should be balanced around the casual player.
It bristles me to think that smart people would remain silent in fear of fools.
|
On August 04 2013 11:51 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 11:07 fdsdfg wrote: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.
Wait, how do overseers function in this way? Not agreeing with the guy, but overseers are not great tools for scouting ahead like creep/observers/scans...
On August 04 2013 17:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 17:13 F.O.A.D. wrote: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.
... how in hell did you get this from what he said? You gotta be trolling, right?
|
Austria24417 Posts
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.
A gold player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a pro player. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around casuals is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place. I've got a shitty PvT winrate at low masters level right now but balance has nothing to do with it. I just need to get better at the game, that's all. As long as the very top is balanced I can't blame anybody but myself for losing. The solution is to get better.
|
On August 04 2013 22:02 TheRabidDeer wrote:
... how in hell did you get this from what he said? You gotta be trolling, right?
On August 04 2013 17:13 F.O.A.D. wrote:
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.
WMs are not so much a "pillar", moreso a crutch for incompetent T-players
WMs are a crutch for incompetent T-players.
WMs are for incompetent Terran players.
Better?
|
On August 04 2013 22:40 DarkLordOlli 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. A gold player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a pro player. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around casuals is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place. I've got a shitty PvT winrate at low masters level right now but balance has nothing to do with it. I just need to get better at the game, that's all. As long as the very top is balanced I can't blame anybody but myself for losing. The solution is to get better.
but certainly he can complain about the difference in level of skill requires to win a game?
You said it yourself, you are low masters. One should expect you to have put in quite a lot of time and effort, getting macro/micro/mechanics all ok to get to that stage. You need to remember master league are top 2% of the players.
But what about lower leagues who have yet to put in all the times and effort? Most of them would quit the game before they get there.
My friends who is a gold Terran complains about Protoss all the time because getting the vikings number right is almost impossible for his league. Or he can't control the snipe and viking well enough because you need x amount of control groups.
You can call it casual or whatnot, but casual is what makes up the majority of the population. Most people who are in twitch chat aren't gonna be all diamond masters.
Right now it is too "either you put in x amount of months to improve yourself or you will keep losing to these units" is basically turning casual away from the game.
And I think this right now is the biggest flaw for RTS game. while MOBA can still have other roles and heroes and teammates to bypass these "imbalanceness", RTS only have so many tools available
|
On August 04 2013 23:46 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 22:40 DarkLordOlli wrote: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. A gold player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a pro player. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around casuals is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place. I've got a shitty PvT winrate at low masters level right now but balance has nothing to do with it. I just need to get better at the game, that's all. As long as the very top is balanced I can't blame anybody but myself for losing. The solution is to get better. but certainly he can complain about the difference in level of skill requires to win a game? You said it yourself, you are low masters. One should expect you to have put in quite a lot of time and effort, getting macro/micro/mechanics all ok to get to that stage. You need to remember master league are top 2% of the players. But what about lower leagues who have yet to put in all the times and effort? Most of them would quit the game before they get there. My friends who is a gold Terran complains about Protoss all the time because getting the vikings number right is almost impossible for his league. Or he can't control the snipe and viking well enough because you need x amount of control groups. You can call it casual or whatnot, but casual is what makes up the majority of the population. Most people who are in twitch chat aren't gonna be all diamond masters. Right now it is too "either you put in x amount of months to improve yourself or you will keep losing to these units" is basically turning casual away from the game.And I think this right now is the biggest flaw for RTS game. while MOBA can still have other roles and heroes and teammates to bypass these "imbalanceness", RTS only have so many tools available
The bolded part I completely disagree with. Such units exist for both sides. It's just about building them and avoiding the others.
However, if you stick to pro-compositions like ling/bling against mines, or MMM against Colossi/storms, you are going to get mowed over. On the flip side, roach/hydra is really easy to play against Terran and hellbat+thor against Protoss too.
Sorry, but if you are not good enough to play something and still try to make it work, then it's not the games fault. People watch this game and then go all berserk about "having to play as good as Pro XY", while they are at silver. No you don't. You can play whatever you want, and tanks aren't so bad against protoss that you can't go mech in a league in which your opponent doesn't have solid mechanics/macro/micro either.
(I'm also not playing superduper standard at masters, as it becomes frustrating to play certain styles when every opponent is just blindcountering it; might as well do it myself)
|
On August 05 2013 00:05 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 23:46 ETisME wrote:On August 04 2013 22:40 DarkLordOlli wrote: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. A gold player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a pro player. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around casuals is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place. I've got a shitty PvT winrate at low masters level right now but balance has nothing to do with it. I just need to get better at the game, that's all. As long as the very top is balanced I can't blame anybody but myself for losing. The solution is to get better. but certainly he can complain about the difference in level of skill requires to win a game? You said it yourself, you are low masters. One should expect you to have put in quite a lot of time and effort, getting macro/micro/mechanics all ok to get to that stage. You need to remember master league are top 2% of the players. But what about lower leagues who have yet to put in all the times and effort? Most of them would quit the game before they get there. My friends who is a gold Terran complains about Protoss all the time because getting the vikings number right is almost impossible for his league. Or he can't control the snipe and viking well enough because you need x amount of control groups. You can call it casual or whatnot, but casual is what makes up the majority of the population. Most people who are in twitch chat aren't gonna be all diamond masters. Right now it is too "either you put in x amount of months to improve yourself or you will keep losing to these units" is basically turning casual away from the game.And I think this right now is the biggest flaw for RTS game. while MOBA can still have other roles and heroes and teammates to bypass these "imbalanceness", RTS only have so many tools available The bolded part I completely disagree with. Such units exist for both sides. It's just about building them and avoiding the others. However, if you stick to pro-compositions like ling/bling against mines, or MMM against Colossi/storms, you are going to get mowed over. On the flip side, roach/hydra is really easy to play against Terran and hellbat+thor against Protoss too. Sorry, but if you are not good enough to play something and still try to make it work, then it's not the games fault. People watch this game and then go all berserk about "having to play as good as Pro XY", while they are at silver. No you don't. You can play whatever you want, and tanks aren't so bad against protoss that you can't go mech in a league in which your opponent doesn't have solid mechanics/macro/micro either. (I'm also not playing superduper standard at masters, as it becomes frustrating to play certain styles when every opponent is just blindcountering it; might as well do it myself)
It doesn't matter that Hellbats/Thors is an easy composition vs Protoss because it's still awful, so no, you can't always avoid difficulty, and if you think people who don't have the micro to compete with bio can "just mech vs Protoss," you're wrong.
|
On August 05 2013 00:10 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 00:05 Big J wrote:On August 04 2013 23:46 ETisME wrote:On August 04 2013 22:40 DarkLordOlli wrote: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. A gold player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a pro player. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around casuals is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place. I've got a shitty PvT winrate at low masters level right now but balance has nothing to do with it. I just need to get better at the game, that's all. As long as the very top is balanced I can't blame anybody but myself for losing. The solution is to get better. but certainly he can complain about the difference in level of skill requires to win a game? You said it yourself, you are low masters. One should expect you to have put in quite a lot of time and effort, getting macro/micro/mechanics all ok to get to that stage. You need to remember master league are top 2% of the players. But what about lower leagues who have yet to put in all the times and effort? Most of them would quit the game before they get there. My friends who is a gold Terran complains about Protoss all the time because getting the vikings number right is almost impossible for his league. Or he can't control the snipe and viking well enough because you need x amount of control groups. You can call it casual or whatnot, but casual is what makes up the majority of the population. Most people who are in twitch chat aren't gonna be all diamond masters. Right now it is too "either you put in x amount of months to improve yourself or you will keep losing to these units" is basically turning casual away from the game.And I think this right now is the biggest flaw for RTS game. while MOBA can still have other roles and heroes and teammates to bypass these "imbalanceness", RTS only have so many tools available The bolded part I completely disagree with. Such units exist for both sides. It's just about building them and avoiding the others. However, if you stick to pro-compositions like ling/bling against mines, or MMM against Colossi/storms, you are going to get mowed over. On the flip side, roach/hydra is really easy to play against Terran and hellbat+thor against Protoss too. Sorry, but if you are not good enough to play something and still try to make it work, then it's not the games fault. People watch this game and then go all berserk about "having to play as good as Pro XY", while they are at silver. No you don't. You can play whatever you want, and tanks aren't so bad against protoss that you can't go mech in a league in which your opponent doesn't have solid mechanics/macro/micro either. (I'm also not playing superduper standard at masters, as it becomes frustrating to play certain styles when every opponent is just blindcountering it; might as well do it myself) It doesn't matter that Hellbats/Thors is an easy composition vs Protoss because it's still awful, so no, you can't always avoid difficulty, and if you think people who don't have the micro to compete with bio can "just mech vs Protoss," you're wrong.
Under diamond you can't mech vs Protoss? Really? I'd say that there are master players around which are comfortable meching against Protoss...
|
On August 05 2013 00:12 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 00:10 TheDwf wrote:On August 05 2013 00:05 Big J wrote:On August 04 2013 23:46 ETisME wrote:On August 04 2013 22:40 DarkLordOlli wrote: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. A gold player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a pro player. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around casuals is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place. I've got a shitty PvT winrate at low masters level right now but balance has nothing to do with it. I just need to get better at the game, that's all. As long as the very top is balanced I can't blame anybody but myself for losing. The solution is to get better. but certainly he can complain about the difference in level of skill requires to win a game? You said it yourself, you are low masters. One should expect you to have put in quite a lot of time and effort, getting macro/micro/mechanics all ok to get to that stage. You need to remember master league are top 2% of the players. But what about lower leagues who have yet to put in all the times and effort? Most of them would quit the game before they get there. My friends who is a gold Terran complains about Protoss all the time because getting the vikings number right is almost impossible for his league. Or he can't control the snipe and viking well enough because you need x amount of control groups. You can call it casual or whatnot, but casual is what makes up the majority of the population. Most people who are in twitch chat aren't gonna be all diamond masters. Right now it is too "either you put in x amount of months to improve yourself or you will keep losing to these units" is basically turning casual away from the game.And I think this right now is the biggest flaw for RTS game. while MOBA can still have other roles and heroes and teammates to bypass these "imbalanceness", RTS only have so many tools available The bolded part I completely disagree with. Such units exist for both sides. It's just about building them and avoiding the others. However, if you stick to pro-compositions like ling/bling against mines, or MMM against Colossi/storms, you are going to get mowed over. On the flip side, roach/hydra is really easy to play against Terran and hellbat+thor against Protoss too. Sorry, but if you are not good enough to play something and still try to make it work, then it's not the games fault. People watch this game and then go all berserk about "having to play as good as Pro XY", while they are at silver. No you don't. You can play whatever you want, and tanks aren't so bad against protoss that you can't go mech in a league in which your opponent doesn't have solid mechanics/macro/micro either. (I'm also not playing superduper standard at masters, as it becomes frustrating to play certain styles when every opponent is just blindcountering it; might as well do it myself) It doesn't matter that Hellbats/Thors is an easy composition vs Protoss because it's still awful, so no, you can't always avoid difficulty, and if you think people who don't have the micro to compete with bio can "just mech vs Protoss," you're wrong. Under diamond you can't mech vs Protoss? Really? I'd say that there are master players around which are comfortable meching against Protoss...
The fact that there are Goody jrs. around is laudable and all, but that doesn't mean that a mech army will do particularly good against P. You actually need more intricate BOs and strategies to make it work (which then tax the P to an extent a lower-league player cannot match). Just going mech generally gets you run over by a P playing pretty much standard because units like tanks are ridiculously weak against nearly all P units (except for non-blink stalkers).
When I played hellbat thor in lower leagues (as low as silver, apparently MMR depreciates if you don't play a while), I found that
a) You get run over by P all-ins with mech openers as nothing mechy I tried defends against the variety of blink, oracle, voidray, etc allins. Loads of marines and bunkers does the job much better.
b) A P that establishes a 2-base economy can a-move chargelot colossus archon through pretty much any mech composition I could think of (loads of tanks, or loads of thors, or loads of hellbats).
c) If the P knows to build immortal/tempest, you're just dead.
Note, this is not top-level play. But mech felt infinitely harder to play than just doing a safe strategy like Demuslim's bio into an SCV allin before storm is out.
|
On August 05 2013 00:12 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 00:10 TheDwf wrote:On August 05 2013 00:05 Big J wrote:On August 04 2013 23:46 ETisME wrote:On August 04 2013 22:40 DarkLordOlli wrote: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. A gold player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a pro player. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around casuals is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place. I've got a shitty PvT winrate at low masters level right now but balance has nothing to do with it. I just need to get better at the game, that's all. As long as the very top is balanced I can't blame anybody but myself for losing. The solution is to get better. but certainly he can complain about the difference in level of skill requires to win a game? You said it yourself, you are low masters. One should expect you to have put in quite a lot of time and effort, getting macro/micro/mechanics all ok to get to that stage. You need to remember master league are top 2% of the players. But what about lower leagues who have yet to put in all the times and effort? Most of them would quit the game before they get there. My friends who is a gold Terran complains about Protoss all the time because getting the vikings number right is almost impossible for his league. Or he can't control the snipe and viking well enough because you need x amount of control groups. You can call it casual or whatnot, but casual is what makes up the majority of the population. Most people who are in twitch chat aren't gonna be all diamond masters. Right now it is too "either you put in x amount of months to improve yourself or you will keep losing to these units" is basically turning casual away from the game.And I think this right now is the biggest flaw for RTS game. while MOBA can still have other roles and heroes and teammates to bypass these "imbalanceness", RTS only have so many tools available The bolded part I completely disagree with. Such units exist for both sides. It's just about building them and avoiding the others. However, if you stick to pro-compositions like ling/bling against mines, or MMM against Colossi/storms, you are going to get mowed over. On the flip side, roach/hydra is really easy to play against Terran and hellbat+thor against Protoss too. Sorry, but if you are not good enough to play something and still try to make it work, then it's not the games fault. People watch this game and then go all berserk about "having to play as good as Pro XY", while they are at silver. No you don't. You can play whatever you want, and tanks aren't so bad against protoss that you can't go mech in a league in which your opponent doesn't have solid mechanics/macro/micro either. (I'm also not playing superduper standard at masters, as it becomes frustrating to play certain styles when every opponent is just blindcountering it; might as well do it myself) It doesn't matter that Hellbats/Thors is an easy composition vs Protoss because it's still awful, so no, you can't always avoid difficulty, and if you think people who don't have the micro to compete with bio can "just mech vs Protoss," you're wrong. Under diamond you can't mech vs Protoss? Really? I'd say that there are master players around which are comfortable meching against Protoss...
Below Code A level you can mech all your games vs Protoss if you fancy, it changes nothing to the fact it's actually even harder than bio, despite Hellbats/Thors or Tank-centric armies being easier to control, because the composition itself is inferior. Same as TvZ; if someone finds 4M too demanding, the other options—Marines/Tanks or mech—are actually even harder in their own ways, again because they're inferior.
|
On August 04 2013 22:40 DarkLordOlli 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. A gold player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a pro player. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around casuals is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place. I've got a shitty PvT winrate at low masters level right now but balance has nothing to do with it. I just need to get better at the game, that's all. As long as the very top is balanced I can't blame anybody but myself for losing. The solution is to get better.
So basically you are saying that Blizzard can screw over the majority of their customers, sell them an "imbalanced game for their level of play" and they have no right to complain because they arent good enough? What a nice and cheerful attitude to have towards their customers.
You hopefully realize that it is going to be really stupid to crawl through the "levels of skill" from wood league to WCS, and that you need to go through several levels of "unit X or Y is IMBA" skill ...
|
On August 05 2013 00:25 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 00:12 Big J wrote:On August 05 2013 00:10 TheDwf wrote:On August 05 2013 00:05 Big J wrote:On August 04 2013 23:46 ETisME wrote:On August 04 2013 22:40 DarkLordOlli wrote: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. A gold player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a pro player. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around casuals is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place. I've got a shitty PvT winrate at low masters level right now but balance has nothing to do with it. I just need to get better at the game, that's all. As long as the very top is balanced I can't blame anybody but myself for losing. The solution is to get better. but certainly he can complain about the difference in level of skill requires to win a game? You said it yourself, you are low masters. One should expect you to have put in quite a lot of time and effort, getting macro/micro/mechanics all ok to get to that stage. You need to remember master league are top 2% of the players. But what about lower leagues who have yet to put in all the times and effort? Most of them would quit the game before they get there. My friends who is a gold Terran complains about Protoss all the time because getting the vikings number right is almost impossible for his league. Or he can't control the snipe and viking well enough because you need x amount of control groups. You can call it casual or whatnot, but casual is what makes up the majority of the population. Most people who are in twitch chat aren't gonna be all diamond masters. Right now it is too "either you put in x amount of months to improve yourself or you will keep losing to these units" is basically turning casual away from the game.And I think this right now is the biggest flaw for RTS game. while MOBA can still have other roles and heroes and teammates to bypass these "imbalanceness", RTS only have so many tools available The bolded part I completely disagree with. Such units exist for both sides. It's just about building them and avoiding the others. However, if you stick to pro-compositions like ling/bling against mines, or MMM against Colossi/storms, you are going to get mowed over. On the flip side, roach/hydra is really easy to play against Terran and hellbat+thor against Protoss too. Sorry, but if you are not good enough to play something and still try to make it work, then it's not the games fault. People watch this game and then go all berserk about "having to play as good as Pro XY", while they are at silver. No you don't. You can play whatever you want, and tanks aren't so bad against protoss that you can't go mech in a league in which your opponent doesn't have solid mechanics/macro/micro either. (I'm also not playing superduper standard at masters, as it becomes frustrating to play certain styles when every opponent is just blindcountering it; might as well do it myself) It doesn't matter that Hellbats/Thors is an easy composition vs Protoss because it's still awful, so no, you can't always avoid difficulty, and if you think people who don't have the micro to compete with bio can "just mech vs Protoss," you're wrong. Under diamond you can't mech vs Protoss? Really? I'd say that there are master players around which are comfortable meching against Protoss... The fact that there are Goody jrs. around is laudable and all, but that doesn't mean that a mech army will do particularly good against P. You actually need more intricate BOs and strategies to make it work (which then tax the P to an extent a lower-league player cannot match). Just going mech generally gets you run over by a P playing pretty much standard because units like tanks are ridiculously weak against nearly all P units (except for non-blink stalkers). When I played hellbat thor in lower leagues (as low as silver, apparently MMR depreciates if you don't play a while), I found that a) You get run over by P all-ins with mech openers as nothing mechy I tried defends against the variety of blink, oracle, voidray, etc allins. Loads of marines and bunkers does the job much better. b) A P that establishes a 2-base economy can a-move chargelot colossus archon through pretty much any mech composition I could think of (loads of tanks, or loads of thors, or loads of hellbats). c) If the P knows to build immortal/tempest, you're just dead. Note, this is not top-level play. But mech felt infinitely harder to play than just doing a safe strategy like Demuslim's bio into an SCV allin before storm is out.
I wouldnt have associated "Terran mech" with "intricate build order" at all and certainly not with "which then tax the P". Mech (at least the mech which most are complaining about and which is based around Siege Tanks) is SLOW and thus BLUNT and rather BRUTE FORCE ... which doesnt make you a very active player. You can only "tax a P" if that Protoss allows it to be done to him due to the mobility advantage of the Protoss.
Mech sadly has no good AA unit, because the Thor is far too slow, far too expensive, (still) far too big and only deals roughly the same damage as a Goliath with its single target AA shot. That is the much more important thing they would need to change to make mech more viable, because it also stops the more mobile Hellbat-Thor from being viable. Buffing the Siege Tank comes as a close second to that ...
Tempest and Broodlords are a problem for mech and I would really like a total redesign of the Thor AA attack(s). They should be changed to give the Thor 4-6 missile attacks which deal no bonus damage at all and they each hit a single target. If there are several targets the attacks each hit a separate one (unless focused on one), but if there are only two targets available they would each be hit by several missiles. The damage on each missile doesnt need to be too big and the effect would be "dont approach a Thor alone". This change would give the Thor a kinda non-abuseable AA against swarm attacks and a good single target AA without the need to switch modes (which is silly, because carrying guns you cant fire because you are in a wrong mode doesnt make sense from a design standpoint).
|
On August 05 2013 00:35 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 22:40 DarkLordOlli wrote: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. A gold player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a pro player. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around casuals is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place. I've got a shitty PvT winrate at low masters level right now but balance has nothing to do with it. I just need to get better at the game, that's all. As long as the very top is balanced I can't blame anybody but myself for losing. The solution is to get better. So basically you are saying that Blizzard can screw over the majority of their customers, sell them an "imbalanced game for their level of play" and they have no right to complain because they arent good enough? What a nice and cheerful attitude to have towards their customers. You hopefully realize that it is going to be really stupid to crawl through the "levels of skill" from wood league to WCS, and that you need to go through several levels of "unit X or Y is IMBA" skill ...
Nooo? That's not what he saying, at all?
What he's saying is that the way to patch the problems of the gold leaguers is to get better and turn platinum. It takes effort on their part, not on blizzard's part.
I remember some old Day9 vids where he was talking about doing strategies and watching replays. If you watch a replay where you crush your opponent, and discover that he was floating 2.5k minerals all the time, it doesn't mean your strat is good. Maybe someone with better mechanics would have stood a chance.
What works for strategy crafting also works for theory crafting, and for balance.
|
On August 04 2013 22:40 DarkLordOlli 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. A gold player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a pro player. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around casuals is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place. I've got a shitty PvT winrate at low masters level right now but balance has nothing to do with it. I just need to get better at the game, that's all. As long as the very top is balanced I can't blame anybody but myself for losing. The solution is to get better.
A pro player also has no right to complain about balance at all because he's not as good as a perfect playing AI. That's the point I'm making here. Balancing the game around pros is stupid because balance doesn't affect them in the first place (yeah not really seeing where this suddenly came from).
See, I can do the same. Why do worry about pro balance and not about casual balance, when both arent utilizing the race to the full theoretical performance? Even assuming that current pros are playing as good as humanly possible. Look at something as simple as 100m sprint: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_record_progression_100m_men.png. People got faster and faster with it. So it is weird to think the current pros in SC2 are playing the best that is humanly possible.
Does that mean I don't want the game balanced for pros? Hell no, I want it balanced. But I want it as balanced as possible for everyone. And not ignoring casual players with the horrible reasoning they should just get better, while you can tell the pro players exactly the same.
What he's saying is that the way to patch the problems of the gold leaguers is to get better and turn platinum. It takes effort on their part, not on blizzard's part.
Why then not tell the pro players to get better?
|
On August 05 2013 00:58 Sissors wrote:
Why then not tell the pro players to get better?
We do, regularly.
Get better at countering speed medivacs.
Get better at splitting.
Innovation is just better than you are, it's not about balance, get better.
You lost a series? OMG I KNEW YOU WERE OVERRATED, YOU'RE DONE.
You have a very surprising view of pro treatment.
|
Okay you have a point there  .
But what I meant, as you surely know, is that if you say casual balance is irrelevant since they can become better, you can also say balance for pros is irrelevant since you can also tell them to just get better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
