|
On September 17 2011 07:37 AudionovA wrote:
I think it was fine not being able to target Massive. Zerg shouldn't have a spell that instantly takes 500 recourses in army power away from you imo. But im sure this will help.
As a P player I think they should but only because of their unit design overall and the presence of the 200 food cap.
|
On September 16 2011 14:42 coL.CatZ wrote:
you argue that blizzard is balancing the game for lower skilled players, and then say that I can't talk about it cause im not as good as koreans mechanically, you're an incredibly funny person. I am known for strategy and I have more room to talk than most people who post on this thread when it comes to balance, especially when it comes to infestors, I've used infestors since the beta heavily and when they buffed Fungal Growth I told David Kim personally that it was a stupid change, that infestors were already good and people just don't use them because they're dumb.
If a Diamond player told you he was strategically a genius, would you listen to him? Clearly, the difference between Koreans and you is not equal to the difference between you and a Diamond player, but do you think I'm crazy for asking you to perform at the highest level before trusting your opinions on balance at the highest level?
Additionally, you can't separate mechanics and strategy very cleanly at all. I touched on this in my last post, but the better a player's mechanics are, the more doors are closed for his opponent. To use an exaggerated example, in a TVP, if a Terran player is sharply dropping mules, building units from his barracks, and pumping SCVs, a Protoss player will be unable to transition from a 3 gate expand into two Starport Carriers.
If you're not playing the game mechanically at the highest of levels, you might find that all strategy does not apply when the proper timings can be hit.
Fungal Growth buff was dumb, now infestors are getting increasingly popular because they're incredibly cost efficient units, just like sentrys, high templar, colossi, tanks, ghosts etc. there are plenty of ways to deal with heavy infestor play from both races, I say this because even though you may not consider me a top tier player, I play with a lot of people I consider to be top tier players on a regular basis and hold my own against anyone for the most part, and they all have good responses to any strategy.
I think you're a very good player.
You can't balance a game for the lowest tier of players and expect for the game to be actually balanced at the top. .
I agree. But you have to admit, you are not at the top. I'm not making fun of you. I'm not being rude. I'm not saying you are horrible, or bashing you in any way. When you discuss the neural parasite change, I don't think you're discussing balance as it applies to the highest level of play. I think you're discussing balance as it applies to your level of play, and more particularly your style.
Reality is basic mechanics for zerg are a lot more complicated than they are for protoss, things of this nature will hurt the game if they try to balance from the bottom up, because if you want to improve zerg's win ratio at lower levels it'll make it too strong at the top for example. .
Larva injects are incredibly important to a Zerg. Chrono boosts are not as essential to a Protoss. Thus, at a low levels, mechanics are more important for a Zerg player. However, at a high level, when Chrono boosts must be hit as well, this difference disappears. Thus, I would agree, for example, that buffing Roaches for that reason would be silly, because at a high level Zerg would be too strong.
But what does that have to do with discussion at hand? First, I was making the point that Blizzard may be balancing the game for the highest levels of play, and not for your high, but not the absolute highest, level.
Second, I think it's possible that Blizzard might be making a balance change for a lower level of play which has no serious affect on high level games. You'll notice that Korean Zergs have not used Neural Parasite as extensively as foreign ones. It's possible that once a certain level of control is achieved, the spell becomes too big of a risk. If 8 times out of 10, a Protoss with exceptional control will kill the siphoning Infestor, a Zerg will choose to take the sure damage fungal provides.
Reality here is you shouldn't be talking as if you knew anything or without any sort of argument other than 'koreans are better than you so shut up'... you are the reason most 'pro players' won't post on threads like this, not only is it not appreciated, there's always idiots like yourself trying to argue without any base, im done here, don't bother replying.
This is the first time something in your post is flat out wrong. I put a lot of thought into both my original post and this one. If posts like mine are the reason professional players don't post on Teamliquid.net, then professional players are being too sensitive. Again, I'm not calling you a terrible player, or writing a one-liner about how bad you are. In my opinion, those are the things that push players away. My response to you is much more polite than your response to me, and I have no problem with that. Because professional gamers can contribute something to the forums I can't, I'm fine with them being given liberties. But if I disagree with one, I'm not going to pretend I don't.
The only thing in my post that could even be considered an insult would be the fact that I said many Korean players are better than you. And if that objective analysis is something professional players cannot take, then the forum is better off without them.
|
On September 17 2011 12:57 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 14:42 coL.CatZ wrote:
you argue that blizzard is balancing the game for lower skilled players, and then say that I can't talk about it cause im not as good as koreans mechanically, you're an incredibly funny person. I am known for strategy and I have more room to talk than most people who post on this thread when it comes to balance, especially when it comes to infestors, I've used infestors since the beta heavily and when they buffed Fungal Growth I told David Kim personally that it was a stupid change, that infestors were already good and people just don't use them because they're dumb. If a Diamond player told you he was strategically a genius, would you listen to him? Clearly, the difference between Koreans and you is not equal to the difference between you and a Diamond player, but do you think I'm crazy for asking you to perform at the highest level before trusting your opinions on balance at the highest level? Additionally, you can't separate mechanics and strategy very cleanly at all. I touched on this in my last post, but the better a player's mechanics are, the more doors are closed for his opponent. To use an exaggerated example, in a TVP, if a Terran player is sharply dropping mules, building units from his barracks, and pumping SCVs, a Protoss player will be unable to transition from a 3 gate expand into two Starport Carriers. If you're not playing the game mechanically at the highest of levels, you might find that all strategy does not apply when the proper timings can be hit. Show nested quote + Fungal Growth buff was dumb, now infestors are getting increasingly popular because they're incredibly cost efficient units, just like sentrys, high templar, colossi, tanks, ghosts etc. there are plenty of ways to deal with heavy infestor play from both races, I say this because even though you may not consider me a top tier player, I play with a lot of people I consider to be top tier players on a regular basis and hold my own against anyone for the most part, and they all have good responses to any strategy. I think you're a very good player. Show nested quote + You can't balance a game for the lowest tier of players and expect for the game to be actually balanced at the top. . I agree. But you have to admit, you are not at the top. I'm not making fun of you. I'm not being rude. I'm not saying you are horrible, or bashing you in any way. When you discuss the neural parasite change, I don't think you're discussing balance as it applies to the highest level of play. I think you're discussing balance as it applies to your level of play, and more particularly your style. Show nested quote +Reality is basic mechanics for zerg are a lot more complicated than they are for protoss, things of this nature will hurt the game if they try to balance from the bottom up, because if you want to improve zerg's win ratio at lower levels it'll make it too strong at the top for example. . Larva injects are incredibly important to a Zerg. Chrono boosts are not as essential to a Protoss. Thus, at a low levels, mechanics are more important for a Zerg player. However, at a high level, when Chrono boosts must be hit as well, this difference disappears. Thus, I would agree, for example, that buffing Roaches for that reason would be silly, because at a high level Zerg would be too strong. But what does that have to do with discussion at hand? First, I was making the point that Blizzard may be balancing the game for the highest levels of play, and not for your high, but not the absolute highest, level. Second, I think it's possible that Blizzard might be making a balance change for a lower level of play which has no serious affect on high level games. You'll notice that Korean Zergs have not used Neural Parasite as extensively as foreign ones. It's possible that once a certain level of control is achieved, the spell becomes too big of a risk. If 8 times out of 10, a Protoss with exceptional control will kill the siphoning Infestor, a Zerg will choose to take the sure damage fungal provides. Show nested quote + Reality here is you shouldn't be talking as if you knew anything or without any sort of argument other than 'koreans are better than you so shut up'... you are the reason most 'pro players' won't post on threads like this, not only is it not appreciated, there's always idiots like yourself trying to argue without any base, im done here, don't bother replying. This is the first time something in your post is flat out wrong. I put a lot of thought into both my original post and this one. If posts like mine are the reason professional players don't post on Teamliquid.net, then professional players are being too sensitive. Again, I'm not calling you a terrible player, or writing a one-liner about how bad you are. In my opinion, those are the things that push players away. My response to you is much more polite than your response to me, and I have no problem with that. Because professional gamers can contribute something to the forums I can't, I'm fine with them being given liberties. But if I disagree with one, I'm not going to pretend I don't. The only thing in my post that could even be considered an insult would be the fact that I said many Korean players are better than you. And if that objective analysis is something professional players cannot take, then the forum is better off without them.
And who the f*** are you again? Your not Korean either, so take your own advice. Seriously where do you get off telling a pro his opinion doesn't matter. You also couldn't have put a lot of thought into your post or you would have just not ever put this turd on tl. Your post is cancer and its times like these i wish this forum had downrate buttons.
Catz your points were good and i wish you elaborate even more, others do welcome your opinion.
Edit: Go take your korean elitism to playxp.com
|
Would zerg prefer 9 yard neural and fungal not affecting massive units? They made massive break forcefield and fungal is a very similar mechanic.
|
But Blizzard, the point was than NP WAS BALANCED -_-
|
On September 16 2011 03:43 ZAiNs wrote:
IMO they should have reduced the range of all of the Infestor's spells.
Ghosts too then. Does a cloaked unit really need 2 10 range abilities?
|
On September 17 2011 13:17 johngalt90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 12:57 -_- wrote:On September 16 2011 14:42 coL.CatZ wrote:
you argue that blizzard is balancing the game for lower skilled players, and then say that I can't talk about it cause im not as good as koreans mechanically, you're an incredibly funny person. I am known for strategy and I have more room to talk than most people who post on this thread when it comes to balance, especially when it comes to infestors, I've used infestors since the beta heavily and when they buffed Fungal Growth I told David Kim personally that it was a stupid change, that infestors were already good and people just don't use them because they're dumb. If a Diamond player told you he was strategically a genius, would you listen to him? Clearly, the difference between Koreans and you is not equal to the difference between you and a Diamond player, but do you think I'm crazy for asking you to perform at the highest level before trusting your opinions on balance at the highest level? Additionally, you can't separate mechanics and strategy very cleanly at all. I touched on this in my last post, but the better a player's mechanics are, the more doors are closed for his opponent. To use an exaggerated example, in a TVP, if a Terran player is sharply dropping mules, building units from his barracks, and pumping SCVs, a Protoss player will be unable to transition from a 3 gate expand into two Starport Carriers. If you're not playing the game mechanically at the highest of levels, you might find that all strategy does not apply when the proper timings can be hit. Fungal Growth buff was dumb, now infestors are getting increasingly popular because they're incredibly cost efficient units, just like sentrys, high templar, colossi, tanks, ghosts etc. there are plenty of ways to deal with heavy infestor play from both races, I say this because even though you may not consider me a top tier player, I play with a lot of people I consider to be top tier players on a regular basis and hold my own against anyone for the most part, and they all have good responses to any strategy. I think you're a very good player. You can't balance a game for the lowest tier of players and expect for the game to be actually balanced at the top. . I agree. But you have to admit, you are not at the top. I'm not making fun of you. I'm not being rude. I'm not saying you are horrible, or bashing you in any way. When you discuss the neural parasite change, I don't think you're discussing balance as it applies to the highest level of play. I think you're discussing balance as it applies to your level of play, and more particularly your style. Reality is basic mechanics for zerg are a lot more complicated than they are for protoss, things of this nature will hurt the game if they try to balance from the bottom up, because if you want to improve zerg's win ratio at lower levels it'll make it too strong at the top for example. . Larva injects are incredibly important to a Zerg. Chrono boosts are not as essential to a Protoss. Thus, at a low levels, mechanics are more important for a Zerg player. However, at a high level, when Chrono boosts must be hit as well, this difference disappears. Thus, I would agree, for example, that buffing Roaches for that reason would be silly, because at a high level Zerg would be too strong. But what does that have to do with discussion at hand? First, I was making the point that Blizzard may be balancing the game for the highest levels of play, and not for your high, but not the absolute highest, level. Second, I think it's possible that Blizzard might be making a balance change for a lower level of play which has no serious affect on high level games. You'll notice that Korean Zergs have not used Neural Parasite as extensively as foreign ones. It's possible that once a certain level of control is achieved, the spell becomes too big of a risk. If 8 times out of 10, a Protoss with exceptional control will kill the siphoning Infestor, a Zerg will choose to take the sure damage fungal provides. Reality here is you shouldn't be talking as if you knew anything or without any sort of argument other than 'koreans are better than you so shut up'... you are the reason most 'pro players' won't post on threads like this, not only is it not appreciated, there's always idiots like yourself trying to argue without any base, im done here, don't bother replying. This is the first time something in your post is flat out wrong. I put a lot of thought into both my original post and this one. If posts like mine are the reason professional players don't post on Teamliquid.net, then professional players are being too sensitive. Again, I'm not calling you a terrible player, or writing a one-liner about how bad you are. In my opinion, those are the things that push players away. My response to you is much more polite than your response to me, and I have no problem with that. Because professional gamers can contribute something to the forums I can't, I'm fine with them being given liberties. But if I disagree with one, I'm not going to pretend I don't. The only thing in my post that could even be considered an insult would be the fact that I said many Korean players are better than you. And if that objective analysis is something professional players cannot take, then the forum is better off without them. And who the f*** are you again? Your not Korean either, so take your own advice. Seriously where do you get off telling a pro his opinion doesn't matter. You also couldn't have put a lot of thought into your post or you would have just not ever put this turd on tl. Your post is cancer and its times like these i wish this forum had downrate buttons. Catz your points were good and i wish you elaborate even more, others do welcome your opinion. Edit: Go take your korean elitism to playxp.com
dude calm down, you're being way overemotional in this convo. all he was trying to say was that there's a difference in the self perception and reality in most players, and it also ties into their background and culture.
|
On September 17 2011 12:57 -_- wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 16 2011 14:42 coL.CatZ wrote:
you argue that blizzard is balancing the game for lower skilled players, and then say that I can't talk about it cause im not as good as koreans mechanically, you're an incredibly funny person. I am known for strategy and I have more room to talk than most people who post on this thread when it comes to balance, especially when it comes to infestors, I've used infestors since the beta heavily and when they buffed Fungal Growth I told David Kim personally that it was a stupid change, that infestors were already good and people just don't use them because they're dumb. If a Diamond player told you he was strategically a genius, would you listen to him? Clearly, the difference between Koreans and you is not equal to the difference between you and a Diamond player, but do you think I'm crazy for asking you to perform at the highest level before trusting your opinions on balance at the highest level? Additionally, you can't separate mechanics and strategy very cleanly at all. I touched on this in my last post, but the better a player's mechanics are, the more doors are closed for his opponent. To use an exaggerated example, in a TVP, if a Terran player is sharply dropping mules, building units from his barracks, and pumping SCVs, a Protoss player will be unable to transition from a 3 gate expand into two Starport Carriers. If you're not playing the game mechanically at the highest of levels, you might find that all strategy does not apply when the proper timings can be hit. Fungal Growth buff was dumb, now infestors are getting increasingly popular because they're incredibly cost efficient units, just like sentrys, high templar, colossi, tanks, ghosts etc. there are plenty of ways to deal with heavy infestor play from both races, I say this because even though you may not consider me a top tier player, I play with a lot of people I consider to be top tier players on a regular basis and hold my own against anyone for the most part, and they all have good responses to any strategy. I think you're a very good player. You can't balance a game for the lowest tier of players and expect for the game to be actually balanced at the top. . I agree. But you have to admit, you are not at the top. I'm not making fun of you. I'm not being rude. I'm not saying you are horrible, or bashing you in any way. When you discuss the neural parasite change, I don't think you're discussing balance as it applies to the highest level of play. I think you're discussing balance as it applies to your level of play, and more particularly your style. Reality is basic mechanics for zerg are a lot more complicated than they are for protoss, things of this nature will hurt the game if they try to balance from the bottom up, because if you want to improve zerg's win ratio at lower levels it'll make it too strong at the top for example. . Larva injects are incredibly important to a Zerg. Chrono boosts are not as essential to a Protoss. Thus, at a low levels, mechanics are more important for a Zerg player. However, at a high level, when Chrono boosts must be hit as well, this difference disappears. Thus, I would agree, for example, that buffing Roaches for that reason would be silly, because at a high level Zerg would be too strong. But what does that have to do with discussion at hand? First, I was making the point that Blizzard may be balancing the game for the highest levels of play, and not for your high, but not the absolute highest, level. Second, I think it's possible that Blizzard might be making a balance change for a lower level of play which has no serious affect on high level games. You'll notice that Korean Zergs have not used Neural Parasite as extensively as foreign ones. It's possible that once a certain level of control is achieved, the spell becomes too big of a risk. If 8 times out of 10, a Protoss with exceptional control will kill the siphoning Infestor, a Zerg will choose to take the sure damage fungal provides. Reality here is you shouldn't be talking as if you knew anything or without any sort of argument other than 'koreans are better than you so shut up'... you are the reason most 'pro players' won't post on threads like this, not only is it not appreciated, there's always idiots like yourself trying to argue without any base, im done here, don't bother replying. This is the first time something in your post is flat out wrong. I put a lot of thought into both my original post and this one. If posts like mine are the reason professional players don't post on Teamliquid.net, then professional players are being too sensitive. Again, I'm not calling you a terrible player, or writing a one-liner about how bad you are. In my opinion, those are the things that push players away. My response to you is much more polite than your response to me, and I have no problem with that. Because professional gamers can contribute something to the forums I can't, I'm fine with them being given liberties. But if I disagree with one, I'm not going to pretend I don't. The only thing in my post that could even be considered an insult would be the fact that I said many Korean players are better than you. And if that objective analysis is something professional players cannot take, then the forum is better off without them.
I'd think what pushes pros away from posting is not your objective analysis itself, but the fact that you've put yourself on even (or higher) footing with them without any credibility whatsoever. You're completely failing to acknowledge that players such as Catz have more strategic experience and game knowledge than you do, and are referring to them as peers rather than superiors.
Even typing this out now, I know it sounds retarded. I don't think everyone should swoon when a great player voices his opinion, but I do think an extra measure of grace should be given to their opinions, as they're likely rooted in things most of us won't understand.
At least you've been quite eloquent in how you express yourself, but I can understand how CatZ took offense; The manner in which you voice yourself hasn't shown a fair amount of respect for the position of the person you're talking to. It isn't even so much what you're saying (Which has been that you respect CatZ and think he's a good player!) It's how you're saying it.
I'd like to hear Pro opinions more often than just on State of the Game. Unfortunately, the internetz will always be the internetz, and there's virtually no incentive for pros to post their opinions on these forums, much less defend them.
|
On September 17 2011 07:41 tehemperorer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 07:37 AudionovA wrote:
I think it was fine not being able to target Massive. Zerg shouldn't have a spell that instantly takes 500 recourses in army power away from you imo. But im sure this will help. As a P player I think they should but only because of their unit design overall and the presence of the 200 food cap.
I don't have a problem with the concept at all as well... But the problem I have is the amount of Infestors Zerg are making. If they only supplemented their army with a handful then I think Neural Parasite would be fine, but right now, it is viable for Zerg to make 13+ Infestors and be incredibly threatening, when there are that many, Neural Parasite seems to be a bit absurd.
I hope in HOTS they redesign the infestor to make it viable to only have a few in your army at any given time--kinda the way Templar are, if there were only 5-7 Infestors then Neural wouldn't be a huge issue because energy management would become important. The way it is now, when Zerg reaches 13+ Infestors they don't even care what they cast, watching Destiny's stream I see him NP a random viking flying across then drop 3 IT's to kill it even though he could land it >_>
|
On September 17 2011 13:17 johngalt90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 12:57 -_- wrote:On September 16 2011 14:42 coL.CatZ wrote:
you argue that blizzard is balancing the game for lower skilled players, and then say that I can't talk about it cause im not as good as koreans mechanically, you're an incredibly funny person. I am known for strategy and I have more room to talk than most people who post on this thread when it comes to balance, especially when it comes to infestors, I've used infestors since the beta heavily and when they buffed Fungal Growth I told David Kim personally that it was a stupid change, that infestors were already good and people just don't use them because they're dumb. If a Diamond player told you he was strategically a genius, would you listen to him? Clearly, the difference between Koreans and you is not equal to the difference between you and a Diamond player, but do you think I'm crazy for asking you to perform at the highest level before trusting your opinions on balance at the highest level? Additionally, you can't separate mechanics and strategy very cleanly at all. I touched on this in my last post, but the better a player's mechanics are, the more doors are closed for his opponent. To use an exaggerated example, in a TVP, if a Terran player is sharply dropping mules, building units from his barracks, and pumping SCVs, a Protoss player will be unable to transition from a 3 gate expand into two Starport Carriers. If you're not playing the game mechanically at the highest of levels, you might find that all strategy does not apply when the proper timings can be hit. Fungal Growth buff was dumb, now infestors are getting increasingly popular because they're incredibly cost efficient units, just like sentrys, high templar, colossi, tanks, ghosts etc. there are plenty of ways to deal with heavy infestor play from both races, I say this because even though you may not consider me a top tier player, I play with a lot of people I consider to be top tier players on a regular basis and hold my own against anyone for the most part, and they all have good responses to any strategy. I think you're a very good player. You can't balance a game for the lowest tier of players and expect for the game to be actually balanced at the top. . I agree. But you have to admit, you are not at the top. I'm not making fun of you. I'm not being rude. I'm not saying you are horrible, or bashing you in any way. When you discuss the neural parasite change, I don't think you're discussing balance as it applies to the highest level of play. I think you're discussing balance as it applies to your level of play, and more particularly your style. Reality is basic mechanics for zerg are a lot more complicated than they are for protoss, things of this nature will hurt the game if they try to balance from the bottom up, because if you want to improve zerg's win ratio at lower levels it'll make it too strong at the top for example. . Larva injects are incredibly important to a Zerg. Chrono boosts are not as essential to a Protoss. Thus, at a low levels, mechanics are more important for a Zerg player. However, at a high level, when Chrono boosts must be hit as well, this difference disappears. Thus, I would agree, for example, that buffing Roaches for that reason would be silly, because at a high level Zerg would be too strong. But what does that have to do with discussion at hand? First, I was making the point that Blizzard may be balancing the game for the highest levels of play, and not for your high, but not the absolute highest, level. Second, I think it's possible that Blizzard might be making a balance change for a lower level of play which has no serious affect on high level games. You'll notice that Korean Zergs have not used Neural Parasite as extensively as foreign ones. It's possible that once a certain level of control is achieved, the spell becomes too big of a risk. If 8 times out of 10, a Protoss with exceptional control will kill the siphoning Infestor, a Zerg will choose to take the sure damage fungal provides. Reality here is you shouldn't be talking as if you knew anything or without any sort of argument other than 'koreans are better than you so shut up'... you are the reason most 'pro players' won't post on threads like this, not only is it not appreciated, there's always idiots like yourself trying to argue without any base, im done here, don't bother replying. This is the first time something in your post is flat out wrong. I put a lot of thought into both my original post and this one. If posts like mine are the reason professional players don't post on Teamliquid.net, then professional players are being too sensitive. Again, I'm not calling you a terrible player, or writing a one-liner about how bad you are. In my opinion, those are the things that push players away. My response to you is much more polite than your response to me, and I have no problem with that. Because professional gamers can contribute something to the forums I can't, I'm fine with them being given liberties. But if I disagree with one, I'm not going to pretend I don't. The only thing in my post that could even be considered an insult would be the fact that I said many Korean players are better than you. And if that objective analysis is something professional players cannot take, then the forum is better off without them. And who the f*** are you again? Your not Korean either, so take your own advice. Seriously where do you get off telling a pro his opinion doesn't matter. You also couldn't have put a lot of thought into your post or you would have just not ever put this turd on tl. Your post is cancer and its times like these i wish this forum had downrate buttons. Catz your points were good and i wish you elaborate even more, others do welcome your opinion. Edit: Go take your korean elitism to playxp.com
-_-
Well-written post. I'm not sure why this guy is asking "who the f*** are you again?" I see no "Korean elitism" here. You elaborated your thinking quite clearly. Given that most of us, discussing strategy on TL, are not the best of the best, then this logic ("shut up if you're not the best because Blizz should only be balancing for the best") should apply to almost all of us.
tl'dr A lot of people in this thread are lamenting Blizzard's seeming tendency to cater to the lower leagues with their balancing decisions; yet these same people are frustrated with how it will affect THEIR OWN GAMEPLAY. -_- makes a great point in noting that, were Blizz solely balancing based on the best of the best, it wouldn't be that applicable to any of us anyway as most of us aren't Top 200 in the world. (How'd the tl;dr get longer than my original post!?) I'm left facing the fact that these decisions don't change the bottom line: I need to keep working hard to get better. And in this case, that involves continuing to refine my HT control vs Infestors.
|
here's my issue:
Protoss doesn't adapt. They might say whatever, but against festorling, wouldn't HT/zealot/VR stop that? VRs focus fire the festors and kill them, ht and zealots rape the lings with strategically and skillfully placed storms + zealot. then feedback any remaining festors. Oh, and DONT pack your units into a tiny clump that is completely dominated by fungal.
Honestly, the only change they needed to make was that Feedback stops channeling, even if theres no energy on the festor left. Festor doesn't take damage, but its "spell" is canceled.
Thats the issue with a AoE spell that hits ground and air. If you add more levels of units to hit, you're causing the multiplicative effect of DPS yourself.
All I know, from playing as zerg, is that positioning, spreading, and tactical maneuvers are all important against a race that has superior firepower in a small location (protoss, terran). Infestors do the same thing. well, make their choice in massing infestors wasted by going a unit comp thats suboptimally countered by infestor to begin with, and THEN using something more than A move.
I played a game where I just used 5 infestors the whole game, with fungal to great effect, and roaches. vs zealot/archon/stalker. I won like a breeze. why did the protoss lose? He clumped his units when I was threatening with AoE. He even saw me with his observer hanging over my army, and just charged straight in, not bothering to spread out units beforehand.
Think about it. Its something that takes ZERO minerals and ZERO gas, spreading your units out to reduce the spell.
Why aren't people complaining about tanks? tanks do more damage, and can fire infinity. Infestors can get 2 fungals off at most.
p.s. Catz is wrong. Most players are. you don't balance it from the top down, but from the bottom up. theres a technique that is being learned by students called kit forming, which is that you essentially break the entire whole down into the smallest and simplest of parts, build those fine tune, and then stick it together. From the bottom up.
When you build a house, do you make the roof first or the foundations?
There's a reason this kind of thinking leads to a toppled game.
If people balance a game based around the lowest level of play, the game will be balanced at the highest. if you balance it at the highest, it will not be balanced at the lowest. Its common sense, or logical. You see, baneling bombs were the only thing to deal with deathballs until infestor buff came along. Why is that? Is that balanced at the lowest level of play? was everyone struggling against P balls (read: dying) until someone built that esoteric formula for winning? it takes something not intuitively understood and hard to figure out, and that makes it waste a deathball all of the sudden? A major shift in the way to deal with an unstoppable force that makes it die like fire? Why is that? is that "good balance"? I don't think so. Its an unintended consequence, to be sure, and a person who is able to put those things together and create something that can handle a situation well is to be commended.
However, these still leave lower levels unbalanced, because the fact is that the game is still unbalanced. baneling bombs didnt suddenly create balance where there was none. it simply compensated for the lack of balance with an abuse of a unit and an ability to just dump them all right on top of an army. Now, we can argue its the Protoss fault for having a deathball all clumped up, and I won't argue that because it is correct.
But still, if the game was balanced to be as fair as possible at the lowest levels of play, don't you think itwould be balanced at the highest? because then its not about who can abuse the shit out of some 'strategy' which involves turtling on 2 bases until you autowin, for example, its about who can play more strategically and tactically with the "balanced" pieces compared to the enemy pieces.
lets say its balanced at the lowest level of play. That means anyone at a low level of play can win by having a basic understanding of the game and a basic level of ability to build proper counter units and deploy them properly, making sure to use them in the right manner to achieve good results vs the enemy while the enemy has the least chance to counter the counter units.
This here, should be the mission statement of any game that seeks to create balanced and fair play. And if that held true, you couldn't mass a deathball at gold level and roll everyone. At that level, each race would have a basic ability to defeat some other army comp At face value. And at face value means, not with some niche strategy that has to be honed, but some general easy to understand strategy that can be picked up by simply looking at the units and understanding how they work.
This is the point. Once a game is like that, the people who get better and stand out, figure out how to use these balanced units in even MORE decisive and powerful manner, while people who don't wont get rolled by "mass X, win game", or other nonsense.
If anything, it would bring the competitive level of the top tier of players up a lot more, because you set the baseline higher by disallowing Autowin scenarios at lower levels of play, meaning it takes a lot more competency to actually win decisively each time.
We'd see a lot less scrubs in Master thats for sure. I've /facepalmed quite a few streams.
Simply put, catz is incorrect in his assumption, and his assumption, he is not basing off of his own thoughts, he's merely parroting what others have said before him. he didn't even consider it except to come up with arguments supporting what is already established belief. And he's not the only one. And then we see the droves of living sockpuppets on forums, especially bnet forum, stating the same thing for no rational reason other than pros said it so it must be true.
Who's the elitists here, and who's the sycophants who want to be elitist cronies?
Someone name me one strategic game prior to the 1990's where there's some wild incongruity and hard to learn esoteric techniques that without which one side loses hard? You can't, don't even try,
There's a reason:
chess
backgammon
go
checkers
battleship
all use identical units on both sides. because it obviates the balance issue. And they have survived as games of balance. Cultures have taught their children chess because of not only strengthening attributes of thought, but also that innate superiority can be demonstrated easily with such a thing, because it involves purely logical equations to solve.
Lets say that playing chess is a travelling salesman problem of 9n steps. Playing SC2 is a travelling salesman problem of 40n steps.
I'd dare say not even some autistic savant can dissect the latter, however the former is well within the grasp of most average individuals.
you all might want a game thats too hard, to increase its epicness or for whatever other reason (I never settle for less than the hardest mode in games like diablo1 and darksiders, etc), but there's a limit of reasonability.
At the point a game becomes too difficult to reason out as an individual, it ceases to be a game of superiority in skill and ability, and becomes a game of stale playstyles that keep shifting once another has been discovered. it is not a living thing like the back and forth exchange of full knowledge in a balanced game.
In RTS cases, there's simply the added layer of micro or unit control, but that doesn't stop it from being stale.
Case in point: I've been dominating P and T recently with microed mass roaches, even when they counter build. Most of them don't counter build because they're stuck in the play style of producing X and not getting out marauders or void rays as supplementary forces. they are not flexible and adaptive, because they're trying to run to completion (victory screen), their preset scenario. And this is "more skilled" play is it?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 17 2011 19:24 Truedot wrote:
here's my issue:
Protoss doesn't adapt. They might say whatever, but against festorling, wouldn't HT/zealot/VR stop that? VRs focus fire the festors and kill them, ht and zealots rape the lings with strategically and skillfully placed storms + zealot. then feedback any remaining festors. Oh, and DONT pack your units into a tiny clump that is completely dominated by fungal.
Honestly, the only change they needed to make was that Feedback stops channeling, even if theres no energy on the festor left. Festor doesn't take damage, but its "spell" is canceled.
Thats the issue with a AoE spell that hits ground and air. If you add more levels of units to hit, you're causing the multiplicative effect of DPS yourself.
All I know, from playing as zerg, is that positioning, spreading, and tactical maneuvers are all important against a race that has superior firepower in a small location (protoss, terran). Infestors do the same thing. well, make their choice in massing infestors wasted by going a unit comp thats suboptimally countered by infestor to begin with, and THEN using something more than A move.
I played a game where I just used 5 infestors the whole game, with fungal to great effect, and roaches. vs zealot/archon/stalker. I won like a breeze. why did the protoss lose? He clumped his units when I was threatening with AoE. He even saw me with his observer hanging over my army, and just charged straight in, not bothering to spread out units beforehand.
Think about it. Its something that takes ZERO minerals and ZERO gas, spreading your units out to reduce the spell.
Why aren't people complaining about tanks? tanks do more damage, and can fire infinity. Infestors can get 2 fungals off at most.
p.s. Catz is wrong. Most players are. you don't balance it from the top down, but from the bottom up. theres a technique that is being learned by students called kit forming, which is that you essentially break the entire whole down into the smallest and simplest of parts, build those fine tune, and then stick it together. From the bottom up.
When you build a house, do you make the roof first or the foundations?
There's a reason this kind of thinking leads to a toppled game.
If people balance a game based around the lowest level of play, the game will be balanced at the highest. if you balance it at the highest, it will not be balanced at the lowest. Its common sense, or logical. You see, baneling bombs were the only thing to deal with deathballs until infestor buff came along. Why is that? Is that balanced at the lowest level of play? was everyone struggling against P balls (read: dying) until someone built that esoteric formula for winning? it takes something not intuitively understood and hard to figure out, and that makes it waste a deathball all of the sudden? A major shift in the way to deal with an unstoppable force that makes it die like fire? Why is that? is that "good balance"? I don't think so. Its an unintended consequence, to be sure, and a person who is able to put those things together and create something that can handle a situation well is to be commended.
However, these still leave lower levels unbalanced, because the fact is that the game is still unbalanced. baneling bombs didnt suddenly create balance where there was none. it simply compensated for the lack of balance with an abuse of a unit and an ability to just dump them all right on top of an army. Now, we can argue its the Protoss fault for having a deathball all clumped up, and I won't argue that because it is correct.
But still, if the game was balanced to be as fair as possible at the lowest levels of play, don't you think itwould be balanced at the highest? because then its not about who can abuse the shit out of some 'strategy' which involves turtling on 2 bases until you autowin, for example, its about who can play more strategically and tactically with the "balanced" pieces compared to the enemy pieces.
lets say its balanced at the lowest level of play. That means anyone at a low level of play can win by having a basic understanding of the game and a basic level of ability to build proper counter units and deploy them properly, making sure to use them in the right manner to achieve good results vs the enemy while the enemy has the least chance to counter the counter units.
This here, should be the mission statement of any game that seeks to create balanced and fair play. And if that held true, you couldn't mass a deathball at gold level and roll everyone. At that level, each race would have a basic ability to defeat some other army comp At face value. And at face value means, not with some niche strategy that has to be honed, but some general easy to understand strategy that can be picked up by simply looking at the units and understanding how they work.
This is the point. Once a game is like that, the people who get better and stand out, figure out how to use these balanced units in even MORE decisive and powerful manner, while people who don't wont get rolled by "mass X, win game", or other nonsense.
If anything, it would bring the competitive level of the top tier of players up a lot more, because you set the baseline higher by disallowing Autowin scenarios at lower levels of play, meaning it takes a lot more competency to actually win decisively each time.
We'd see a lot less scrubs in Master thats for sure. I've /facepalmed quite a few streams.
Simply put, catz is incorrect in his assumption, and his assumption, he is not basing off of his own thoughts, he's merely parroting what others have said before him. he didn't even consider it except to come up with arguments supporting what is already established belief. And he's not the only one. And then we see the droves of living sockpuppets on forums, especially bnet forum, stating the same thing for no rational reason other than pros said it so it must be true.
Who's the elitists here, and who's the sycophants who want to be elitist cronies?
Someone name me one strategic game prior to the 1990's where there's some wild incongruity and hard to learn esoteric techniques that without which one side loses hard? You can't, don't even try,
There's a reason:
chess
backgammon
go
checkers
battleship
all use identical units on both sides. because it obviates the balance issue. And they have survived as games of balance. Cultures have taught their children chess because of not only strengthening attributes of thought, but also that innate superiority can be demonstrated easily with such a thing, because it involves purely logical equations to solve.
Lets say that playing chess is a travelling salesman problem of 9n steps. Playing SC2 is a travelling salesman problem of 40n steps.
I'd dare say not even some autistic savant can dissect the latter, however the former is well within the grasp of most average individuals.
you all might want a game thats too hard, to increase its epicness or for whatever other reason (I never settle for less than the hardest mode in games like diablo1 and darksiders, etc), but there's a limit of reasonability.
At the point a game becomes too difficult to reason out as an individual, it ceases to be a game of superiority in skill and ability, and becomes a game of stale playstyles that keep shifting once another has been discovered. it is not a living thing like the back and forth exchange of full knowledge in a balanced game.
In RTS cases, there's simply the added layer of micro or unit control, but that doesn't stop it from being stale.
Case in point: I've been dominating P and T recently with microed mass roaches, even when they counter build. Most of them don't counter build because they're stuck in the play style of producing X and not getting out marauders or void rays as supplementary forces. they are not flexible and adaptive, because they're trying to run to completion (victory screen), their preset scenario. And this is "more skilled" play is it?
I sorta agree with your bit about toss not adapting. I also found it funny that while I was reading your first paragraph I could imagine many a toss saying (a while back) the exact same thing to a zerg regarding colossus or ht use. "Oh, and DONT pack your units into a tiny clump that is completely dominated by <aoe spell/attack goes here>" I guess it's a little amusing that a zerg is telling toss how to handle aoe (THE SHOE'S ON THE OTHER FOOT!) haha.
But in all seriousness, I do pretty much what you do whenever I use infestors. I've read a couple of previous posts....and yeah. I never make more than 3-5 simply because I usually don't have the gas income to make 10+...plus it's a little overkill to make 10 isn't it (I mean, first of all, how frickin far ahead of the toss would you need to be to create that many??)? The only practical situation I could see in which one would make such an absurd number of infestors is kinda as a failsafe in case your first couple of infestors get sniped while you try to np a couple colossi from a 200/200 toss army, in which case the toss was a tad too passive and should have lost ANYWAYS a long long time ago.
|
I think we've hit the mutually assured destruction level of the "you're not good enough to comment" escalation strategy. I'd agree that your average diamond probably doesn't have much of consequence to say about game balance, and there are a lot of masters players who probably don't either. But when you've moved the bar so high as to exclude catz, you've moved into straight up stupid territory.
|
The real question is, why on earth is Terran NOT getting a major nerf when it was already the strongest race? Why is blizzard beating around the bush when terrans are holding the highest ranks in all regions, leagues, and tournaments with extremely good w/l ratios?
Nerf emp range!
|
On September 17 2011 13:17 johngalt90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 12:57 -_- wrote:On September 16 2011 14:42 coL.CatZ wrote:
you argue that blizzard is balancing the game for lower skilled players, and then say that I can't talk about it cause im not as good as koreans mechanically, you're an incredibly funny person. I am known for strategy and I have more room to talk than most people who post on this thread when it comes to balance, especially when it comes to infestors, I've used infestors since the beta heavily and when they buffed Fungal Growth I told David Kim personally that it was a stupid change, that infestors were already good and people just don't use them because they're dumb. If a Diamond player told you he was strategically a genius, would you listen to him? Clearly, the difference between Koreans and you is not equal to the difference between you and a Diamond player, but do you think I'm crazy for asking you to perform at the highest level before trusting your opinions on balance at the highest level? Additionally, you can't separate mechanics and strategy very cleanly at all. I touched on this in my last post, but the better a player's mechanics are, the more doors are closed for his opponent. To use an exaggerated example, in a TVP, if a Terran player is sharply dropping mules, building units from his barracks, and pumping SCVs, a Protoss player will be unable to transition from a 3 gate expand into two Starport Carriers. If you're not playing the game mechanically at the highest of levels, you might find that all strategy does not apply when the proper timings can be hit. Fungal Growth buff was dumb, now infestors are getting increasingly popular because they're incredibly cost efficient units, just like sentrys, high templar, colossi, tanks, ghosts etc. there are plenty of ways to deal with heavy infestor play from both races, I say this because even though you may not consider me a top tier player, I play with a lot of people I consider to be top tier players on a regular basis and hold my own against anyone for the most part, and they all have good responses to any strategy. I think you're a very good player. You can't balance a game for the lowest tier of players and expect for the game to be actually balanced at the top. . I agree. But you have to admit, you are not at the top. I'm not making fun of you. I'm not being rude. I'm not saying you are horrible, or bashing you in any way. When you discuss the neural parasite change, I don't think you're discussing balance as it applies to the highest level of play. I think you're discussing balance as it applies to your level of play, and more particularly your style. Reality is basic mechanics for zerg are a lot more complicated than they are for protoss, things of this nature will hurt the game if they try to balance from the bottom up, because if you want to improve zerg's win ratio at lower levels it'll make it too strong at the top for example. . Larva injects are incredibly important to a Zerg. Chrono boosts are not as essential to a Protoss. Thus, at a low levels, mechanics are more important for a Zerg player. However, at a high level, when Chrono boosts must be hit as well, this difference disappears. Thus, I would agree, for example, that buffing Roaches for that reason would be silly, because at a high level Zerg would be too strong. But what does that have to do with discussion at hand? First, I was making the point that Blizzard may be balancing the game for the highest levels of play, and not for your high, but not the absolute highest, level. Second, I think it's possible that Blizzard might be making a balance change for a lower level of play which has no serious affect on high level games. You'll notice that Korean Zergs have not used Neural Parasite as extensively as foreign ones. It's possible that once a certain level of control is achieved, the spell becomes too big of a risk. If 8 times out of 10, a Protoss with exceptional control will kill the siphoning Infestor, a Zerg will choose to take the sure damage fungal provides. Reality here is you shouldn't be talking as if you knew anything or without any sort of argument other than 'koreans are better than you so shut up'... you are the reason most 'pro players' won't post on threads like this, not only is it not appreciated, there's always idiots like yourself trying to argue without any base, im done here, don't bother replying. This is the first time something in your post is flat out wrong. I put a lot of thought into both my original post and this one. If posts like mine are the reason professional players don't post on Teamliquid.net, then professional players are being too sensitive. Again, I'm not calling you a terrible player, or writing a one-liner about how bad you are. In my opinion, those are the things that push players away. My response to you is much more polite than your response to me, and I have no problem with that. Because professional gamers can contribute something to the forums I can't, I'm fine with them being given liberties. But if I disagree with one, I'm not going to pretend I don't. The only thing in my post that could even be considered an insult would be the fact that I said many Korean players are better than you. And if that objective analysis is something professional players cannot take, then the forum is better off without them. And who the f*** are you again? Your not Korean either, so take your own advice. Seriously where do you get off telling a pro his opinion doesn't matter. You also couldn't have put a lot of thought into your post or you would have just not ever put this turd on tl. Your post is cancer and its times like these i wish this forum had downrate buttons. Catz your points were good and i wish you elaborate even more, others do welcome your opinion. Edit: Go take your korean elitism to playxp.com
He's someone who actually wrote a pretty impressive response with continuous attempts to make sure that the other party is not offended while simultaneously disagreeing respectfully.
|
On September 18 2011 06:43 wklbishop wrote:
He's someone who actually wrote a pretty impressive response with continuous attempts to make sure that the other party is not offended while simultaneously disagreeing respectfully.
I don't mean to be rude, but your mother is a whore. Please don't take offense, but it's true.
That's an extreme example, but you get my point.
----
Personally I don't understand why the focus is always on one unit at a time. This isn't monobattles, people, you have to look at the overall strength of the race as a whole. Zerg have no other units that can stand up to Protoss or crack the deathball.
I don't really care if you turn the infestor into a freaking land-corrupter, but lets see some compensation in other areas to make the Zerg more well-rounded. And if Blizzard isn't prepared to do that before the expansion, then they shouldn't make drastic changes to key units like this until HotS.
|
On September 17 2011 19:24 Truedot wrote:
here's my issue:
Protoss doesn't adapt. They might say whatever, but against festorling, wouldn't HT/zealot/VR
The rest of your post is a long ramble about balancing the game for bronze league, but I just want to say that all three infestor abilities are really good versus void rays.
|
This is even worse than the massive change. Now they are less effective against immortals and other small units while the range is to low for them to be useful against massive anyways. And then push this through without more testing on PTR? Well I guess the PTR is just a joke and so is this patch.
|
On September 17 2011 19:24 Truedot wrote:
here's my issue:
Protoss doesn't adapt. They might say whatever, but against festorling, wouldn't HT/zealot/VR stop that? VRs focus fire the festors and kill them, ht and zealots rape the lings with strategically and skillfully placed storms + zealot. then feedback any remaining festors. Oh, and DONT pack your units into a tiny clump that is completely dominated by fungal.
Honestly, the only change they needed to make was that Feedback stops channeling, even if theres no energy on the festor left. Festor doesn't take damage, but its "spell" is canceled.
Thats the issue with a AoE spell that hits ground and air. If you add more levels of units to hit, you're causing the multiplicative effect of DPS yourself.
All I know, from playing as zerg, is that positioning, spreading, and tactical maneuvers are all important against a race that has superior firepower in a small location (protoss, terran). Infestors do the same thing. well, make their choice in massing infestors wasted by going a unit comp thats suboptimally countered by infestor to begin with, and THEN using something more than A move.
I played a game where I just used 5 infestors the whole game, with fungal to great effect, and roaches. vs zealot/archon/stalker. I won like a breeze. why did the protoss lose? He clumped his units when I was threatening with AoE. He even saw me with his observer hanging over my army, and just charged straight in, not bothering to spread out units beforehand.
Think about it. Its something that takes ZERO minerals and ZERO gas, spreading your units out to reduce the spell.
Why aren't people complaining about tanks? tanks do more damage, and can fire infinity. Infestors can get 2 fungals off at most.
p.s. Catz is wrong. Most players are. you don't balance it from the top down, but from the bottom up. theres a technique that is being learned by students called kit forming, which is that you essentially break the entire whole down into the smallest and simplest of parts, build those fine tune, and then stick it together. From the bottom up.
When you build a house, do you make the roof first or the foundations?
There's a reason this kind of thinking leads to a toppled game.
If people balance a game based around the lowest level of play, the game will be balanced at the highest. if you balance it at the highest, it will not be balanced at the lowest. Its common sense, or logical. You see, baneling bombs were the only thing to deal with deathballs until infestor buff came along. Why is that? Is that balanced at the lowest level of play? was everyone struggling against P balls (read: dying) until someone built that esoteric formula for winning? it takes something not intuitively understood and hard to figure out, and that makes it waste a deathball all of the sudden? A major shift in the way to deal with an unstoppable force that makes it die like fire? Why is that? is that "good balance"? I don't think so. Its an unintended consequence, to be sure, and a person who is able to put those things together and create something that can handle a situation well is to be commended.
However, these still leave lower levels unbalanced, because the fact is that the game is still unbalanced. baneling bombs didnt suddenly create balance where there was none. it simply compensated for the lack of balance with an abuse of a unit and an ability to just dump them all right on top of an army. Now, we can argue its the Protoss fault for having a deathball all clumped up, and I won't argue that because it is correct.
But still, if the game was balanced to be as fair as possible at the lowest levels of play, don't you think itwould be balanced at the highest? because then its not about who can abuse the shit out of some 'strategy' which involves turtling on 2 bases until you autowin, for example, its about who can play more strategically and tactically with the "balanced" pieces compared to the enemy pieces.
lets say its balanced at the lowest level of play. That means anyone at a low level of play can win by having a basic understanding of the game and a basic level of ability to build proper counter units and deploy them properly, making sure to use them in the right manner to achieve good results vs the enemy while the enemy has the least chance to counter the counter units.
This here, should be the mission statement of any game that seeks to create balanced and fair play. And if that held true, you couldn't mass a deathball at gold level and roll everyone. At that level, each race would have a basic ability to defeat some other army comp At face value. And at face value means, not with some niche strategy that has to be honed, but some general easy to understand strategy that can be picked up by simply looking at the units and understanding how they work.
This is the point. Once a game is like that, the people who get better and stand out, figure out how to use these balanced units in even MORE decisive and powerful manner, while people who don't wont get rolled by "mass X, win game", or other nonsense.
If anything, it would bring the competitive level of the top tier of players up a lot more, because you set the baseline higher by disallowing Autowin scenarios at lower levels of play, meaning it takes a lot more competency to actually win decisively each time.
We'd see a lot less scrubs in Master thats for sure. I've /facepalmed quite a few streams.
Simply put, catz is incorrect in his assumption, and his assumption, he is not basing off of his own thoughts, he's merely parroting what others have said before him. he didn't even consider it except to come up with arguments supporting what is already established belief. And he's not the only one. And then we see the droves of living sockpuppets on forums, especially bnet forum, stating the same thing for no rational reason other than pros said it so it must be true.
Who's the elitists here, and who's the sycophants who want to be elitist cronies?
Someone name me one strategic game prior to the 1990's where there's some wild incongruity and hard to learn esoteric techniques that without which one side loses hard? You can't, don't even try,
There's a reason:
chess
backgammon
go
checkers
battleship
all use identical units on both sides. because it obviates the balance issue. And they have survived as games of balance. Cultures have taught their children chess because of not only strengthening attributes of thought, but also that innate superiority can be demonstrated easily with such a thing, because it involves purely logical equations to solve.
Lets say that playing chess is a travelling salesman problem of 9n steps. Playing SC2 is a travelling salesman problem of 40n steps.
I'd dare say not even some autistic savant can dissect the latter, however the former is well within the grasp of most average individuals.
you all might want a game thats too hard, to increase its epicness or for whatever other reason (I never settle for less than the hardest mode in games like diablo1 and darksiders, etc), but there's a limit of reasonability.
At the point a game becomes too difficult to reason out as an individual, it ceases to be a game of superiority in skill and ability, and becomes a game of stale playstyles that keep shifting once another has been discovered. it is not a living thing like the back and forth exchange of full knowledge in a balanced game.
In RTS cases, there's simply the added layer of micro or unit control, but that doesn't stop it from being stale.
Case in point: I've been dominating P and T recently with microed mass roaches, even when they counter build. Most of them don't counter build because they're stuck in the play style of producing X and not getting out marauders or void rays as supplementary forces. they are not flexible and adaptive, because they're trying to run to completion (victory screen), their preset scenario. And this is "more skilled" play is it?
While you may be right that the game balanced at lower levels is balanced at all levels, this is a TERRIBLE way to balance a game. I'm not going to spend an hour typing up a response, but basically if we did it your way everything would have to be slowed down and be boring as fuck. Balancing for bronze kiddies would remove untold options for pros simply because if one starts microing, its "unbalanced".
The ONLY way to balance a game of this type, (especially one trying to be an esport) is to balance it for the highest tier of play, otherwise it becomes stale. No "imbalance" at a lower league can't be fixed by practice. It's not the game's fault you suck. So no, shutup and listen to someone who does this for a living.
|
The last change was just absolutely ridiculous. This change... Wont change much, people are still going to use infestors vs collossus, they will just get gibbed alot easier and faster. Imo tosses just needed to learn to adapt to infestor play, and instead of letting hem learn and let the metagame shift, they just raped the infestor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
