| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
larse
1611 Posts
The dark age is coming. The dark ago for humanity only, not for Protoss and the all mighty Oracle. I am calling it that this problem will persist for a very very long time, just like the queen buff, until they finally admit and realize the problem. The more wrong is the patch, the longer is for Blizzard and David Kim to admit their mistake. There is something psychological going on there. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 20 2013 06:14 Courthead wrote: 99.9999% of people play StarCraft on ladder, and yet your argument is that winrates on ladder is not "a metric for balance"? What? What, then, should we use for balance? Should 100% of the balance equation be based on small, statistically insignificant tournaments comprised of 16-32 players? Btw I'm not the first to point out winrates and racial makeup of ladder as a evidence of game imbalance. David Kim and Blizzard do it all the time. The inescapable fact is that the NA league is 29% Terran and 30% Protoss, but the Grandmaster league is 41% Protoss and 20% Terran. In other words, it's much easier for Protoss players to get high win rates, which is the very definition of imbalance. Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: ![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/910412GML.jpg) Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 20 2013 07:09 Bagi wrote: I don't even want to think how much of an outcry there was if terran had 47% of a GM ladder. Marine removed from the game in the following week. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 20 2013 03:56 ffadicted wrote: Don't be salty Brood Lords, Tanks, Tempests and Swarm Hosts are the only good used siege units in the game. Storm is great space control, but it lacks true siege ability due to the fact it can't attack buildings. You guys are making up your own RTS definition of siege instead of the classic warfare definition of siege. If you want to do that, that's fine, just make sure before you post you state that you're making up your own definition tbh so ppl don't get confused. How you guys think that colossi are actually good large space control units in the game make me laugh. You acknowledge colossi encourage A-moving deathball, yet claim colossi are siege units. The level of self-contradiction in this page is too damn high. The classic siege weapon is a tent and patience. Long range units in real life are suppression units. In real life, a siege is setting a tent near the enemy town and waiting till they surrender. Artillery =\= siege Bombers =\= siege Cannons =\= siege All those things are used in every fighting scenario the commander can afford to have them in, including sieges. But if you to go by classic "real life warfare" definition of siege, it is called a tent and rations. | ||
|
EleanorRIgby
Canada3923 Posts
| ||
|
ganil
253 Posts
| ||
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
On November 20 2013 06:43 TheDwf wrote: Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? At the end of the day, skill will always be the primary factor in determining how far one can advance. But shouldn't we, as players, be holding Blizzard to a higher balance standard than this? Making a perfectly balanced game is tough, but in the face of statistics like this, it's a bit infuriating to here them spew nonsense like, "We think things are balanced." The ladder deserves to be just as balanced as the pros are. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On November 20 2013 07:30 ganil wrote: To be honest this is the same distribution as before. Terran has always been underrepresented since... can't even remember. Something like early 2011 and I'm not even sure. It wasn't 2T-1T last season, much more like 25/40 but well, it's getting worse. | ||
|
ganil
253 Posts
Then terrans have been nerfed till they occupied 20~25% of the gm league and it never changed since then with protoss and zerg increasing/decreasing depending of the meta/patches. Sometimes it's a little less, sometimes it's a little more, but I think you get y point. I'm not saying that pvt doesn't outright sucks for terrans because protoss has a billion all in, unbeatable lategame and stupidly good defences, but... it has always been like that xD. It's more like a game design problem and it's not going to be fixed easily. | ||
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
| ||
|
ganil
253 Posts
On November 20 2013 07:40 Courthead wrote:They aren't even acknowledging it. Exactly ^^'. They don't give a shit about that so there is no point arguing I think. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Last time that happened, matchups winrates were at like 50-50 across the board too, and that's apparently Blizzard's cue to make it more like 37-63 :D | ||
|
vRadiatioNv
United States139 Posts
On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote: So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. | ||
|
Crackpot
58 Posts
If you have mass Zealots and one Stalker, fighting against Marines behind Supply-depots, then the Stalker is your sieging unit because he outranges his enemy and takes down the enemy fortification. It's about what you use units for. And Colossi are designed to outrange nearly everything. Back to topic. Slowing down Colossi would change some things right? Reavers in SCBW were damn slow too and still pretty effective. I think I should just try out decreasing Colossi speed in Mapeditor. peace | ||
|
Empirimancer
Canada1024 Posts
On November 20 2013 07:40 Courthead wrote: My point is: why does it matter that the ladder has been imbalanced for a long time? Why are they continuing to nerf Terran and buff Protoss despite this imbalance? They aren't even acknowledging it. Because they change stuff for the pro level, not for amateurs, even GMs. Because the percentage of players playing a race isn't very strong evidence of how strong it is. And because some changes are made to encourage certain types of gameplay, not for balance. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 20 2013 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote: Sorry, you're wrong, not really sure how else to say it lol. As mentioned, I used Thors in every TvZ, I definitely knew the prioritization. Even if the lings came in first, the Thor would auto switch from targeting ground to air as soon as the mutas flew in. Ok sounds weird, but maybe you are right. I'm not that familiar with the editor, though I haven't seen a value that orders units to prioritize others, though I think I've seen a number that says how a unit has to be prioritized by all others (the one they tweaked on the widow mine in the HotS beta). So it sounds kind of weird to me that the Thor would have its own behavior that differs from how other units prioritize stuff. Though then again that could be hidden somewhere in the weapon section or something... fuck the editor... that's really the biggest issue this game ever had. Had it been intuitive right from the start, we'd have tons of popular custom maps and casual players... On November 20 2013 03:56 ffadicted wrote: Don't be salty Brood Lords, Tanks, Tempests and Swarm Hosts are the only good used siege units in the game. Storm is great space control, but it lacks true siege ability due to the fact it can't attack buildings. You guys are making up your own RTS definition of siege instead of the classic warfare definition of siege. If you want to do that, that's fine, just make sure before you post you state that you're making up your own definition tbh so ppl don't get confused. How you guys think that colossi are actually good large space control units in the game make me laugh. You acknowledge colossi encourage A-moving deathball, yet claim colossi are siege units. The level of self-contradiction in this page is too damn high. From Wikipedia: A siege engine is a device that is designed to break or circumvent city walls and other fortifications in siege warfare. Some have been operated close to the fortifications, while others have been used to attack from a distance. So since nearly everything can kill walls/buildings/fortifications in SC2 (unlike in real life where a sword or a bow couldn't tear down a wall), I guess everything has to be considered a siege weapon "by classic warfare definition of siege". Noone said Colossi are "space control" units. They were said to be "siege units" by common usage of meaning "they outrange most common stuff, in particular static defenses". If you have a better definition, I would love to hear it. But since you (imo rightfully) call the Broodlord a good siege unit, I can't really think you will be able to come up with a reasonable definition that will include the Broodlord but exclude the Colossus, since they have similar range and its pretty unclear which one has a better damage output* for a similar cost. *since a broodlord whose broodlings don't get killed will get quite a big damage output after some time with 8dps+(6.2dps per living broodling; maximum amount of ~5), while the Colossus has 18.2dps per target it hits. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote: Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. | ||
|
vRadiatioNv
United States139 Posts
On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote: That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. | ||
|
H0i
Netherlands484 Posts
Sure I'd rather see a more balanced ladder, but there are many factors at play. Protoss are stronger in Bo1 formats and when the opponent doesn't know who they are. This is true, for example because of the many all ins they have. Ladder is Bo1 and because of barcodes you won't know who your opponent is most of the time. Tournaments are almost never Bo1 and you always know who you're playing. If blizz balanced the game to create equal race distribution in GM, then what would happen is terrans would do disproportionately well in tournaments, and the KR ladder top GM would be mostly dominated by terran. Ladder and tournaments are different. Balancing for both isn't bad, but tournament balance should never be sacrificed to create more ladder balance. The ladder problem is a design issue, not so much a balance issue. Terrans are far more predictable than protoss in a ladder game. Patches would help, different terran playstyles would help. But terran isn't dying just because they're underrepresented on the ladder. Tournaments are more important. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Clem vs SHIN
herO vs SHIN
Serral vs Solar
Clem vs SHIN
Reynor vs TBD
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
BSL Open Qualifier
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
