|
On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me.
I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z).
Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance.
|
On August 12 2013 16:35 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 15:09 vthree wrote:On August 12 2013 14:43 Rabiator wrote:On August 12 2013 09:12 vthree wrote:On August 11 2013 20:38 Rabiator wrote:On August 11 2013 20:18 vthree wrote:On August 11 2013 19:17 Rabiator wrote:On August 11 2013 18:45 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 11 2013 18:43 Foxxan wrote:On August 11 2013 04:41 RaFox17 wrote:
[quote]
If you truly thinks so then go ahead and give us a detailed plan to fix the game. (please don´t make it simply about buffing terran) Why should he do that? To proof it toyou that he could do it? I could also design this game better than what they have done already It's because when you make empty claims like "I could also design this game better than what they have done already" without proof then you sound like an idiot. That's why we asked for substantial comments. Oh come on ... Blizzard made a really pisspoor job when they designed SC2 and they are unwilling to correct the big mistakes. Consequently they have to keep going down their path of absurdly stupid unit design and then force them into the game by making specialized changes. It isnt hard to design an RTS (which SC2 isnt really anymore due to the gigantic importance of economy and production over actual unit placement and control) that is better than SC2. All you have to do is start at BW and then improve on it ... and "improving" includes a kind of quality control where you actually check if anything new actually makes the game better. The classic example for improvements from BW to SC2 is "unlimited unit selection". This is usually thought of as an advancement due to better technology, but I seriously doubt that the technology in 98 was forcing those limitations. They just thought a dozen units was an acceptable number of units to represent with small pictures in the UI. What are the consequences of unlimited unit selection? (listed with + / - to assign them "better" and "worse" judgements) (+) Sure enough you can control your whole army easier, but is 1a really that much easier than 1a2a3a4a ? I dont believe it and thus it only gets a "minor improvement". - The total dps of your closely clumped army increases. This is BAD because it lowers the response time for the defender to "less than a second". This is really one of the reasons why lower level players with longer response time wont have as much fun playing the game: their army will be gone because they were looking elsewhere and took too long to switch back to the action. - Clumped up armies allow for critical numbers to exist. Critical numbers are really bad, because they increase the efficiency of a bunch of units to a pont where they become more efficient than just a few units of that type. Thus the unit has TWO LEVELS OF BALANCE and that is really bad to have in the game because you only balance units for one level. In BW there was critical numbers as well, but they were possible only for flying units (primarily Mutalisks) and they got balanced by the necessary micro and certain hard to use skills (Psi Storm, Irradiate, Plague) which could make it really risky to clump up your units this much. SC2 does not have those corrective measures, because it would counter the desired effect of mass battles; AoE has been nerfed a lot so it doesnt counter the tightly clumped armies which Dustin told us is what we wanted ... Honestly ... its not difficult to design a game that is better than SC2 1. Keep it FUN for players of all levels instead of balancing it around the "trained monkeys" who are playing it professionally. 2. Keep the importance of production and economy LOW to keep the focus of the game on UNITS. 3. Keep STRATEGY in the game and dont replace it by action. 4. Dont automate everthing to keep the players busy. Make them WORK TO WIN and not WIN BECAUSE THE DEFENDER WASNT LOOKING. Defense must be easier than offense! 5. Add in "nifty skills and tricks" to unhinge / circumvent defense but keep those things non-stackable. 6. Keep your EGO out of balance discussions and try to make every unit viable! It isnt you the stupid developer that should "shape the game" but the players instead. Leave the choice to them ... and give them lots of choices. Blizzard really failed in many ways, but the most glaring one is that they made bad choices years and years ago and they are unwilling to correct them even if it becomes clear how bad they are. They are also stuck in their cubicles and never look at the game "from the outside" or with an objective perspective. Lol, you talk about EGO? You who think it is easy to make game game with 3 balanced races with different units where all units are viable? I would really like to see you do that. Come on ... BW is a good place to start and all you have to do is improve A LITTLE and add a new unit or two. The way I would do it would be to have a "fixed number of unit slots" taken from BW (to keep the game nice and simple) and then add "sidegrade units" which you had to choose to replace a unit from the standard set. That way you keep the number of units low, so balancing isnt going to be too much of a hassle (imagine adding another spellcaster to SC2 and then having to nerf the new spells because they synergize too well with the spells from another caster). This system would allow them to add an "infinite" amount of new units, because every new one would be a sidegrade to an old one and would have to replace it if you wanted to use it. With this setting you could have tournaments set in "BW time" or ones set in "SC2 time" or "the future" or you leave the choice to the players and force them to make choices before the game begins and the opponent wouldnt know if you had Reapers to scout or Medics to heal before encountering them in game. The ability to add in new units regularly would keep the game fresh for a much longer time ... which is an advantage games like LoL have over SC2. Additionally you could even have mods where you branch out and play with units from a totally different universe like Warhammer 40k (Terrans get replaced by Orcs with funky ramshackle buildings, Protoss are Eldar and Zerg become chaos or tyranids in one form or another). Obviously lots of the stuff in Starcraft has been "strongly inspired" by the Warhammer 40k universe already ... It isnt rocket science and all you need is some imagination ... In case it wasnt clear from what I said: I wouldnt change the core game mechanics apart from making slight improvements to unit pathing (getting rid of buggy pathing, adding more directions than 8, automine), but everything else (the buildings, the 12 unit selection limit) would stay the same. Destructible terrain is a neat addition too, which mapmakers have put into BW maps for a long time already and giving it a correct outfit wouldnt hurt. The core point of my criticism is ... if you are unwilling to learn from the past (i.e. compare SC2 to BW and honestly look for screw-ups in development) you are inventing the wheel all over again. Just remember to invent it finally and dont get bogged down over the color. ------- Another point where Blizzard screwed up is the fact that they attempt to make the game "faster" by increasing production speed and economy. Well they should have realized that "faster" also means "more unstable balance" and that "slower" is actually easier to balance and easier to play for low skill players. It is only todays kids - you know the type with the attention span of a goldfish (which really is 3 seconds) - which screwms for more action, but Blizzard is big enough to train their own fans to be better ... propaganda really works after all. The problem is, how many people would have bought SC2 if it was BW with 'a couple new units'. Yes, the BW hard cores would, maybe even most of TL. But the general public? Don't think they would fork over $50 just for a couple units and graphics update. The business model of SC is just different from LoL. Also, if you think just fixing the unit pathing wouldn't mess with balance assuming no other changes, you are wrong. The maps in BW were made with unit path bug in mind. And you want to add units every couple of months? Look at what. The infestor patch did, it isn't like LoL or DoTa where you can at least ban out champions. Are you kidding me? A lot of people would have bought SC2 even if it was just "BW HD with a few new units". Just look at the absolutely stupid version of Diablo 3 ... people bought it even though they knew the "always online" requirement since the beta. People still bought it after the "error 37" and auction house desasters. The "oh people wouldnt have bought it" argument is really stupid, because people were desperately awaiting Starcraft 2 and the crapton of new people who never played a game of BW before would have had a totally new experience either way. So the only ones who would not have bought it because it was just "BW HD" could have been the old fans. Do you really believe anyone who was still a fan of BW after 12 years would NOT have bought a game with really improved graphics, user interface for streaming and so on? I dont think that argument of yours is valid at all! No I wouldnt want them to add new units "every couple of months" like LoL does it. My suggested system just allows for the opportunity to add in new stuff endlessly - even in 30 years - without having to completely rework the balance every frigging time a new expansion comes out. Starcraft isnt LoL and has to make due with expansions to cover the cost, but at the current rate they might even fill all the production slots (max 12?) in the buildings rather soonish. The unit design is already trying to create units which DONT replicate the mechanics or jobs of other units, but with even more units you wont really be able to do it. With a "unit replaces another unit" system you would have a much easier job. The Siege Tank for example could be replaced by an artillery with a super long range and the ability to attack the ground "into the fog of war" ... they changed the Thor during the initial beta to specifically NOT have such a duplication of the jobs, but with a replacement system you could have vastly different "styles" of units which all do the same job. Maps being designed with pathing bugs in mind? ALL OF THEM? (Must be all of the majority or your argument is moot.) Really? Arent you just taking one or even a few examples to justify your disapproval of my suggestion for how SC2 *should have been*? All the arguments sound pretty hollow IMO. Oh and the "funny movement" of Spider Mines and the Reaver shot - including the possibility of a dud - would have to be reproduced in a new version, because they are part of their unit efficiency. Regular unit movement would also have to include a "bump into another unit (or building / terrain feature) and take a step left or right" to keep the "weaving about" which units in BW sometimes do. That looks natural and is a basic requirement to get the "forced unit spreading" (or rather "forced anti-unit-clumping"). I am not sure how YOUR argument is valid. I assume that Blizzard is a large company that does their marketing search. If all they had to do with Starcraft2 was to update the graphics (which would have taken minimal effort) and they would have sold just as much, don't you think they would have done that? Casual gamers expect their games to be 'cutting' edge. Their thought process isn't 'Well, I didn't get to play this really cool game 12 years ago. Since they did a graphics revamp, I will go out and buy it right away'. Again, I am not talking about the TL crowd here. Like I said, most here would probably preferred a 'HD' BW. But we need to think outside of our own community and look at what the general public wants. You make the usual stupid mistake of people who assume that "any improvement is a good improvement". The unlimited unit selection limit and perfect unit movement is usually defended by the "advanced technology" argument ... which I assume you mean by "cutting edge". The "cutting edge" argument is hollow as I will explain: The unlimited unit selection and tight (a.k.a. "perfect") unit movement are at the core of new problems (the deathball and critical numbers screwing up balance) while totally ignoring the fact that artificial limitations - which arent required due to computer power or programming skill - are still part of the game. I am talking of the 200 supply limit, which is one of the reasons why the game works. For the 12 unit selection limit it is exactly the same ... it doesnt exist because of computer limitations, it exists because it is necessary. Total Annihilation didnt have a 12 unit selection limit (at least I dont think it had, because I used to speed up the production in one factory with 30+ flying builders rotating around it) and it came out in 1997 ... so the argument of "advanced technology" is totally invalid because the technology was there already and "design decision" is the correct phrase to describe the limitation. Even if Blizzard did some research on marketing how SC2 should be they wouldnt have found anyone who said that they were just expecting "BW HD". That isnt the same as "a totally new game with the majority of things being different". The game still has to make sense - which the 4-5 years in the story and the suddenly missing BW units doesnt - and it has to work properly. Blizzard could have added the same new units to the "improved BW mechanics" which I suggest and it would have been plenty of new stuff. And lastly ... a company with a fanatical fanbase as Blizzard AND a huge amount of money to market their products can sell basically anything half-decent ... and that's what SC2 is: half-decent. The main points I am always making is that they didnt try to improve the old and tried and tested game but rather they thought they could make a giant leap forward without actually learning from the old game. That is a HUGE mistake ... if you have a game that works and is balanced pretty well you make improvements to it in SMALL STEPS. They could have made a large number of small steps to get sufficiently far away from the original game, but at each step they would have to check with the usual "QA questions": - Did this step improve the game? - Did this step distort the balance or other mechanics? At several steps they should have found their new ideas to be lacking ... but since they didnt do it that way they are all to blame for the problems of SC2.
I think you are making usual stupid mistake of the hardcore gamer that think the casual gamers want the same thing as you do. Do you think the casual gamers care at all that the game is balanced when played by players at 300-350 APM? Or that once marines hit 3-3, it is very hard to trade efficiently with ling-bling-muta?
The majority of SC2 players don't even know there is a professional scene. They just want to play the single player campaign and maybe a few online matches with their friends. Do you think they even know there is a 12 unit selection limit?
What I mean by 'cutting edge' is things like All new units, All new physics, faster game play...
You don't advertise your game as "We are keeping the 12 unit selection limit because that is the most BALANCE way!!"
Again, I don't want to get into the argument on which would make the game 'BETTER' because everyone has different taste.
|
On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance.
This. Terran is just too mechanically demanding. We might be able to perform flawlessly sometimes and take out zergs and protosses during 200/200 lategames (man that gives maximum satisfaction!) but to consistently doing it is just too hard. I think unless we have a strict training regime like the korean teams, or else we just won't hit that level.
|
On August 12 2013 17:16 gengka wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance. This. Terran is just too mechanically demanding. We might be able to perform flawlessly sometimes and take out zergs and protosses during 200/200 lategames (man that gives maximum satisfaction!) but to consistently doing it is just too hard. I think unless we have a strict training regime like the korean teams, or else we just won't hit that level.
To be fair, Polt is kind of proving you can do it on your own. Sure, he had Korean training previously but he has been in US for quite a while and still keeping up.
|
On August 12 2013 17:16 gengka wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance. This. Terran is just too mechanically demanding. We might be able to perform flawlessly sometimes and take out zergs and protosses during 200/200 lategames (man that gives maximum satisfaction!) but to consistently doing it is just too hard. I think unless we have a strict training regime like the korean teams, or else we just won't hit that level.
Lol.
|
On August 12 2013 17:16 gengka wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance. This. Terran is just too mechanically demanding. We might be able to perform flawlessly sometimes and take out zergs and protosses during 200/200 lategames (man that gives maximum satisfaction!) but to consistently doing it is just too hard. I think unless we have a strict training regime like the korean teams, or else we just won't hit that level.
You make it sound like we can reach korean level and perform flawlessly as zerg or protoss without a training regime... C'mon. Sure terran is hard, but the other races aren't easy either.
|
On August 12 2013 17:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:16 gengka wrote:On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance. This. Terran is just too mechanically demanding. We might be able to perform flawlessly sometimes and take out zergs and protosses during 200/200 lategames (man that gives maximum satisfaction!) but to consistently doing it is just too hard. I think unless we have a strict training regime like the korean teams, or else we just won't hit that level. You make it sound like we can reach korean level and perform flawlessly as zerg or protoss without a training regime... C'mon. Sure terran is hard, but the other races aren't easy either.
Terran is the only race that is balanced around pick-&-drop micro of a tier 1 unit w/ berserk mechanic...
Even Prtotoss's immortal or colossi drop play in 2010 was not compulsory.
|
On August 12 2013 17:50 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:25 Nebuchad wrote:On August 12 2013 17:16 gengka wrote:On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance. This. Terran is just too mechanically demanding. We might be able to perform flawlessly sometimes and take out zergs and protosses during 200/200 lategames (man that gives maximum satisfaction!) but to consistently doing it is just too hard. I think unless we have a strict training regime like the korean teams, or else we just won't hit that level. You make it sound like we can reach korean level and perform flawlessly as zerg or protoss without a training regime... C'mon. Sure terran is hard, but the other races aren't easy either. Terran is the only race that is balanced around pick-&-drop micro of a tier 1 unit w/ berserk mechanic... Even Prtotoss's immortal or colossi drop play in 2010 was not compulsory.
Back then the warp prism was made of thin paper and it hurts quite a bit more to lose 1 WP + colossi than a full medivac?
|
zerg needs to be less punishable when/after the zerg player makes a mistake or misreads his opponent because there is no turning back from that, the zerg player (almost)always loses.
terrans have mules, medivacs and wall-offs; protoss have forcefields, very good harras options and very good aoe units; zergs have ... spore and spine crawlers?(turtling only delays the inevitable). i don't see zergs having offensive options that would help them comeback into a game.
starcraft2, as a game, needs to be less rock/paper/scissors. some players are waiting for the evolution of the game/strategies to fix that problem but i don't know, it looks un-fixable to me.
timings should be looked at, upgrade scaling should be looked at, some speeds should be looked at.
|
On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance.
in that case, shouldnt have terran been underrepresented in GM since WoL? but it wasnt. it's a more recent thing. and keep in mind korean GM league also has relatively few terrans. not enough terrans in pro teams?
|
1395 Posts
On August 12 2013 18:23 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance. in that case, shouldnt have terran been underrepresented in GM since WoL? but it wasnt. it's a more recent thing. and keep in mind korean GM league also has relatively few terrans. not enough terrans in pro teams?
Weren't they in WoL? I wouldn't know about GM specifically, but at least gold - masters terran has been underrepresented for the entire second half of WoL. In the beginning terran was overpowered, so then it was different.
|
Terran isn't really underrepresented at GM level, they only have a few players less than zerg on most servers. Someone has to be the least played race.
|
On August 12 2013 12:58 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 12:22 Sabu113 wrote:Poll: Entertained that we've returned to Marine OPVery entertained (36) 65% Not at all (12) 22% Meh (5) 9% Amused (2) 4% 55 total votes Your vote: Entertained that we've returned to Marine OP (Vote): Very entertained
(Vote): Amused
(Vote): Meh
(Vote): Not at all
It goes in circles. Next stop: warpgate and weak gateway units!
I am very entertained, almost as much as when someone claimed ultras were better against bio before their splash was increased.Also, waiting for "infestor op", that just never gets old.
|
On August 12 2013 17:16 gengka wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance. This. Terran is just too mechanically demanding. We might be able to perform flawlessly sometimes and take out zergs and protosses during 200/200 lategames (man that gives maximum satisfaction!) but to consistently doing it is just too hard. I think unless we have a strict training regime like the korean teams, or else we just won't hit that level.
Sjow beat life in DreamHack and sjow got like 150 apm if I recall correctly so saying that terran is so much harder to play with is utterly bullshit. Why there is less terran in gm you must look at when the game ends and then you have something to go on probably terran will most certainly have an 80% win rate after 20 minutes since bio + mine is so easy late game unless zerg got a lead from the mid game.
|
On August 12 2013 18:53 Big J wrote:
Terran isn't really underrepresented at GM level, they only have a few players less than zerg on most servers. Someone has to be the least played race.
global GMs in %:
33% Zerg, 40% Protoss, 28% Terran
same picture on every server. can we just shrug this off? i'm not sure.
|
On August 12 2013 19:42 Elldar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:16 gengka wrote:On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance. This. Terran is just too mechanically demanding. We might be able to perform flawlessly sometimes and take out zergs and protosses during 200/200 lategames (man that gives maximum satisfaction!) but to consistently doing it is just too hard. I think unless we have a strict training regime like the korean teams, or else we just won't hit that level. Sjow beat life in DreamHack and sjow got like 150 apm if I recall correctly so saying that terran is so much harder to play with is utterly bullshit. Why there is less terran in gm you must look at when the game ends and then you have something to go on probably terran will most certainly have an 80% win rate after 20 minutes since bio + mine is so easy late game unless zerg got a lead from the mid game.
The difficulty to play has nothing to do with apm, I don't see any relation between the GM Terran population and the average length of the games, and Hive armies are still far superior to bio (see aLive vs Scarlett, WCS AM for instance).
|
|
|
On August 12 2013 19:58 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 19:42 Elldar wrote:On August 12 2013 17:16 gengka wrote:On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance. This. Terran is just too mechanically demanding. We might be able to perform flawlessly sometimes and take out zergs and protosses during 200/200 lategames (man that gives maximum satisfaction!) but to consistently doing it is just too hard. I think unless we have a strict training regime like the korean teams, or else we just won't hit that level. Sjow beat life in DreamHack and sjow got like 150 apm if I recall correctly so saying that terran is so much harder to play with is utterly bullshit. Why there is less terran in gm you must look at when the game ends and then you have something to go on probably terran will most certainly have an 80% win rate after 20 minutes since bio + mine is so easy late game unless zerg got a lead from the mid game. The difficulty to play has nothing to do with apm, I don't see any relation between the GM Terran population and the average length of the games, and Hive armies are still far superior to bio (see aLive vs Scarlett, WCS AM for instance).
I disagree, at the top level of any competition - be it Nascar or Olympics - the differences at the top are razor thin. Being faster than the opponent by even a couple of truly effective APM (a number that we cannot yet calculate) could be like being a couple of seconds faster. That one more drop. Or that one more split. Or that one more target-fire that you can do over your opponent, the better you are as a player.
Perhaps there is a diminishing return - Example: Polt v. Taeja - Very even APM - Polt may even have been a tad bit slower. But both players at very high APM nearing upto 300 (and they're not Zerg!(make 50 lings, make 20 banelings, mad APM)). Polt still won as a result of decision-making and unit positioning.
Or rather that both mechanical and tactical skill requirements are responsible for difficulty to play.
/edit
On August 12 2013 19:42 Elldar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:16 gengka wrote:On August 12 2013 16:50 Entirety wrote:On August 12 2013 14:55 beg wrote:
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me. I would assume that is because Terran is really hard to play properly. Thus, average Terrans tend to struggle more while top-tier Korean Terrans make the race look utterly broken (see INnoVation vs. Z). Rabiator, I respect your opinion but talking about SC2's game design really derails this thread from its original purpose: the discussion of the game's current balance. This. Terran is just too mechanically demanding. We might be able to perform flawlessly sometimes and take out zergs and protosses during 200/200 lategames (man that gives maximum satisfaction!) but to consistently doing it is just too hard. I think unless we have a strict training regime like the korean teams, or else we just won't hit that level. Sjow beat life in DreamHack and sjow got like 150 apm if I recall correctly so saying that terran is so much harder to play with is utterly bullshit. Why there is less terran in gm you must look at when the game ends and then you have something to go on probably terran will most certainly have an 80% win rate after 20 minutes since bio + mine is so easy late game unless zerg got a lead from the mid game.
Sjow beating life is an outlier. Less Terrans in 'diamond' to 'GM' in ladder. Less Terran in foreign (non-Korean) Professional players. Strong representation in Korean Professional players.
Strong representation not an outlier, Maru in OSL, Polt in WCS AM, high placement for Taeja, Alive from WCS AM, even decent (relative to the foreigners) placement for Mvp and MMA.
This means that Terran skill-to-reward curve definitely is not similar to Protoss or Zerg races.
TLDR:
Sjow will not beat Scarlett; hell not even Jaedong.
|
How to you guys feel about removing the hive requirement for 3-3? It seems to me that every single TvZ I watch the zerg eventually dies because he/she is stuck on 2-2 when the terran gets 3-3. Terran only needs armory for 2-2 and from there you can get 3-3 instantly. The same goes for protoss and twilight council. I just feel zergs could use a little help in the 2-2 > 3-3 transition.
|
To be fair Sjow did the game of his life against Life, even though Life throws these games quite a lot.
I don't think terran is OP currently, when you look at the stats (aligulac), everything looks perfectly balanced for a couple of month, and if you look at a closer sample :
From July 11th to July 24th :
TvZ 260–286 (48%)
From July 25th to August 7th :
TvZ 157–178 (47%)
And the current list :
TvZ 15–19 (44%)
To me, it looks perfectly fine and doesn't show any imbalance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
