|
I actually don't know if this spell will ever be worth getting now in any matchup, maybe still zvt but it is nearly impossible to neural Colussus even now ( for me) so that removes that tool from my toolbox.
|
On September 18 2011 07:46 AceDauntless wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I've been on a roll lately, thank you, simple abusing the shit out of roaches and what they can do when properly microed and with a proper base building and saturating technique.
So you say that once someone starts microing that game would be unbalanced? Like blink stalkers, perhaps? Blink stalkers counter roach hard right? the relationship changes? Get roach speed and +1 and start microing 10 roaches to a stalker in your fights, how can they blink back if they're dead? makes blink far less useful. again, the speed causes the relationship to change, and your micro cancels his. Amazing! its almost as if the game makers thought of this!
my point is your points are flawedd/moot/incorrect, and can be readily debunked by a single example out of thousands.
|
Emp vs Infestors is even stronger now?
great job blizzard.
Terran is the most played and best race atm.
Blizzards thoughts: hmmmmm better nerf zerg again
User was banned for this post.
|
On September 18 2011 09:13 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 07:46 AceDauntless wrote: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. I've been on a roll lately, thank you, simple abusing the shit out of roaches and what they can do when properly microed and with a proper base building and saturating technique. So you say that once someone starts microing that game would be unbalanced? Like blink stalkers, perhaps? Blink stalkers counter roach hard right? the relationship changes? Get roach speed and +1 and start microing 10 roaches to a stalker in your fights, how can they blink back if they're dead? makes blink far less useful. again, the speed causes the relationship to change, and your micro cancels his. Amazing! its almost as if the game makers thought of this! my point is your points are flawedd/moot/incorrect, and can be readily debunked by a single example out of thousands.
No, what I said is at the lower levels the reason people lose is because they suck, not because of imbalance, so balancing towards them is dumb. If you balance towards someone who refuses to micro, I.e. bronze, you'd basically have to remove or else if someone micro'd in bronze it'd be OP. You have to balance for people who practice.
And do you actually think mass speed roach beats mass blink stalker? If the stalkers are controlled as equally well as the roaches the roach player is fucking boned. I don't even know why I'm talking, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
|
On September 18 2011 09:28 AceDauntless wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 09:13 Truedot wrote:On September 18 2011 07:46 AceDauntless wrote: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. I've been on a roll lately, thank you, simple abusing the shit out of roaches and what they can do when properly microed and with a proper base building and saturating technique. So you say that once someone starts microing that game would be unbalanced? Like blink stalkers, perhaps? Blink stalkers counter roach hard right? the relationship changes? Get roach speed and +1 and start microing 10 roaches to a stalker in your fights, how can they blink back if they're dead? makes blink far less useful. again, the speed causes the relationship to change, and your micro cancels his. Amazing! its almost as if the game makers thought of this! my point is your points are flawedd/moot/incorrect, and can be readily debunked by a single example out of thousands. No, what I said is at the lower levels the reason people lose is because they suck, not because of imbalance, so balancing towards them is dumb. If you balance towards someone who refuses to micro, I.e. bronze, you'd basically have to remove or else if someone micro'd in bronze it'd be OP. You have to balance for people who practice. And do you actually think mass speed roach beats mass blink stalker? If the stalkers are controlled as equally well as the roaches the roach player is fucking boned. I don't even know why I'm talking, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Completely agree. At the end of the day we are trying to make this a sport, and we want a really high skill ceiling that takes hard work, dedication and lots of hours of practice to get good at. The game is already noob friendly enough, even too much in my opinion. That is the main difference between this and brood war. In BW, you had to put in hours of dedication but in SC2 you could practice for less and still be relatively even with a much higher skilled player. All in all, we need to balance this for the higher tiers of play if we want it to actually be a sport.
|
Don't know if this has already been said, but it seems semi-likely to me that they never intended to stop NP affecting massive units, but rather they used it to attract all the negative attention. Now everyone feels relieved about the range change rather than all the anger they already used before.
|
On September 18 2011 09:32 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 09:28 AceDauntless wrote:On September 18 2011 09:13 Truedot wrote:On September 18 2011 07:46 AceDauntless wrote: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. I've been on a roll lately, thank you, simple abusing the shit out of roaches and what they can do when properly microed and with a proper base building and saturating technique. So you say that once someone starts microing that game would be unbalanced? Like blink stalkers, perhaps? Blink stalkers counter roach hard right? the relationship changes? Get roach speed and +1 and start microing 10 roaches to a stalker in your fights, how can they blink back if they're dead? makes blink far less useful. again, the speed causes the relationship to change, and your micro cancels his. Amazing! its almost as if the game makers thought of this! my point is your points are flawedd/moot/incorrect, and can be readily debunked by a single example out of thousands. No, what I said is at the lower levels the reason people lose is because they suck, not because of imbalance, so balancing towards them is dumb. If you balance towards someone who refuses to micro, I.e. bronze, you'd basically have to remove or else if someone micro'd in bronze it'd be OP. You have to balance for people who practice. And do you actually think mass speed roach beats mass blink stalker? If the stalkers are controlled as equally well as the roaches the roach player is fucking boned. I don't even know why I'm talking, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Completely agree. At the end of the day we are trying to make this a sport, and we want a really high skill ceiling that takes hard work, dedication and lots of hours of practice to get good at. The game is already noob friendly enough, even too much in my opinion. That is the main difference between this and brood war. In BW, you had to put in hours of dedication but in SC2 you could practice for less and still be relatively even with a much higher skilled player. All in all, we need to balance this for the higher tiers of play if we want it to actually be a sport.
To expand on this, even if you don't care about pro gaming I think balance based on the best players in the world is still the best option. To me the definition of imbalanced is when you are unable to compete with a build/comp, there is no solution. For the sake of argument lets say that Infestors are balanced in pro play, but in your diamond ladder games you get rolled by any zerg doing the Destiny build. Well the fact of the matter is, if it's balanced at the pro level, you always have the option, of getting better.
On the flip side lets say that Banelings are unbalanced in silver league (your so called foundation) every time I a-move my marines into your natural you kill like 30 of them with 4 banelings. Now I could just improve... or Blizzard can balance the game around me and a-moving marines will now cause auto studder step and spread. Could you imagine multi pronged drops by SlayerS MMA with each set of marines studder stepping and spreading, it would be stupid.
tl;dr improvement is always an option for mid tier ladder players.
|
The funniest part about this is the zergs that still feel that there isnt something fundamentally wrong with the infestor when you can build one unit to counter nearly everything in the game.
This being said, i feel there is something wrong with the colossus also.
|
On September 18 2011 09:32 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 09:28 AceDauntless wrote:On September 18 2011 09:13 Truedot wrote:On September 18 2011 07:46 AceDauntless wrote: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. I've been on a roll lately, thank you, simple abusing the shit out of roaches and what they can do when properly microed and with a proper base building and saturating technique. So you say that once someone starts microing that game would be unbalanced? Like blink stalkers, perhaps? Blink stalkers counter roach hard right? the relationship changes? Get roach speed and +1 and start microing 10 roaches to a stalker in your fights, how can they blink back if they're dead? makes blink far less useful. again, the speed causes the relationship to change, and your micro cancels his. Amazing! its almost as if the game makers thought of this! my point is your points are flawedd/moot/incorrect, and can be readily debunked by a single example out of thousands. No, what I said is at the lower levels the reason people lose is because they suck, not because of imbalance, so balancing towards them is dumb. If you balance towards someone who refuses to micro, I.e. bronze, you'd basically have to remove or else if someone micro'd in bronze it'd be OP. You have to balance for people who practice. And do you actually think mass speed roach beats mass blink stalker? If the stalkers are controlled as equally well as the roaches the roach player is fucking boned. I don't even know why I'm talking, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Completely agree. At the end of the day we are trying to make this a sport, and we want a really high skill ceiling that takes hard work, dedication and lots of hours of practice to get good at. The game is already noob friendly enough, even too much in my opinion. That is the main difference between this and brood war. In BW, you had to put in hours of dedication but in SC2 you could practice for less and still be relatively even with a much higher skilled player. All in all, we need to balance this for the higher tiers of play if we want it to actually be a sport.
if the skill floor is raised, the skill ceiling goes up exponentially..
|
On September 18 2011 09:50 MAXaMillion wrote:
The funniest part about this is the zergs that still feel that there isnt something fundamentally wrong with the infestor when you can build one unit to counter nearly everything in the game.
This being said, i feel there is something wrong with the colossus also.
Like the stalker, or the marine? Or ghost?
|
On September 18 2011 10:08 Olsson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 09:50 MAXaMillion wrote:
The funniest part about this is the zergs that still feel that there isnt something fundamentally wrong with the infestor when you can build one unit to counter nearly everything in the game.
This being said, i feel there is something wrong with the colossus also. Like the stalker, or the marine? Or ghost?
Lol, the fact that we are even comparing stalkers to marines just shows how hard toss is getting owned.
|
On September 18 2011 14:01 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 10:08 Olsson wrote:On September 18 2011 09:50 MAXaMillion wrote:
The funniest part about this is the zergs that still feel that there isnt something fundamentally wrong with the infestor when you can build one unit to counter nearly everything in the game.
This being said, i feel there is something wrong with the colossus also. Like the stalker, or the marine? Or ghost? Lol, the fact that we are even comparing stalkers to marines just shows how hard toss is getting owned.
Why? I fail to understand. Protoss is the cost innefficient but the most supply efficient race and vice versa for zerg. If terran builds marines for the supply equal to a stalker the stalker will win. But if terran builds marines equalivant to the resources for a stalker the marines will win.
|
This might make NP essentially useless, except for catching straggler units around the map.
However, you cannot rely on this at the highest level, so in my opinion this is killing it. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No.
|
On September 18 2011 09:21 Callomano wrote:
Emp vs Infestors is even stronger now?
great job blizzard.
Terran is the most played and best race atm.
Blizzards thoughts: hmmmmm better nerf zerg again
Cause I'm sure you're NP'ing those ghosts and EMPing them like a madman all the time
|
On September 18 2011 09:21 Callomano wrote:
Emp vs Infestors is even stronger now?
great job blizzard.
Terran is the most played and best race atm.
Blizzards thoughts: hmmmmm better nerf zerg again
terran is actually not the most played race.
and best race, only at the top 50 players in the world level.
|
United States5162 Posts
On September 18 2011 10:08 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 09:32 firehand101 wrote:On September 18 2011 09:28 AceDauntless wrote:On September 18 2011 09:13 Truedot wrote:On September 18 2011 07:46 AceDauntless wrote: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. I've been on a roll lately, thank you, simple abusing the shit out of roaches and what they can do when properly microed and with a proper base building and saturating technique. So you say that once someone starts microing that game would be unbalanced? Like blink stalkers, perhaps? Blink stalkers counter roach hard right? the relationship changes? Get roach speed and +1 and start microing 10 roaches to a stalker in your fights, how can they blink back if they're dead? makes blink far less useful. again, the speed causes the relationship to change, and your micro cancels his. Amazing! its almost as if the game makers thought of this! my point is your points are flawedd/moot/incorrect, and can be readily debunked by a single example out of thousands. No, what I said is at the lower levels the reason people lose is because they suck, not because of imbalance, so balancing towards them is dumb. If you balance towards someone who refuses to micro, I.e. bronze, you'd basically have to remove or else if someone micro'd in bronze it'd be OP. You have to balance for people who practice. And do you actually think mass speed roach beats mass blink stalker? If the stalkers are controlled as equally well as the roaches the roach player is fucking boned. I don't even know why I'm talking, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Completely agree. At the end of the day we are trying to make this a sport, and we want a really high skill ceiling that takes hard work, dedication and lots of hours of practice to get good at. The game is already noob friendly enough, even too much in my opinion. That is the main difference between this and brood war. In BW, you had to put in hours of dedication but in SC2 you could practice for less and still be relatively even with a much higher skilled player. All in all, we need to balance this for the higher tiers of play if we want it to actually be a sport. if the skill floor is raised, the skill ceiling goes up exponentially..
The skill floor and skill ceiling are inverse of each other. If you raise one, you lower the other. Look at Brood War, the skill floor is far lower then SC2. Just auto-mine and limited unit selection make it so your average player can suck far worse at BW then SC2. The skill ceiling is also much higher due to the inherent difficulties.
Implementing auto-marine splits, as said by another poster, raises the skill floor for some bronze newb who can now play way better then before. But it lowers the skill ceiling, as you've removed one element that required skill before that is now done automatically.
|
On September 18 2011 23:27 dukem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 09:21 Callomano wrote:
Emp vs Infestors is even stronger now?
great job blizzard.
Terran is the most played and best race atm.
Blizzards thoughts: hmmmmm better nerf zerg again Cause I'm sure you're NP'ing those ghosts and EMPing them like a madman all the time
If infestors need to be closer to NP tanks/thors then its easier for ghosts to EMP them.
Got nothing to do with NPing ghosts....
|
On September 18 2011 23:31 akalarry wrote:
terran is actually not the most played race.
and best race, only at the top 50 players in the world level.
Terran IS the most played race, at very least on the pro scene, I'm pretty sure I've seen stats saying it was most played on ladder as well.
Also, this argument that balance only matters at the highest levels is a fallacy of the highest order.
Just because you saw a master martial artist beat 5 guys with guns in a fight using only a spoon, doesn't mean spoons are balanced against guns.
|
Terran is the most played race in all levels/leagues. Has nothing to do with balance (regarding terran; there is none LoL.)
|
On September 18 2011 23:08 Olsson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 14:01 RavenLoud wrote:On September 18 2011 10:08 Olsson wrote:On September 18 2011 09:50 MAXaMillion wrote:
The funniest part about this is the zergs that still feel that there isnt something fundamentally wrong with the infestor when you can build one unit to counter nearly everything in the game.
This being said, i feel there is something wrong with the colossus also. Like the stalker, or the marine? Or ghost? Lol, the fact that we are even comparing stalkers to marines just shows how hard toss is getting owned. Why? I fail to understand. Protoss is the cost innefficient but the most supply efficient race and vice versa for zerg. If terran builds marines for the supply equal to a stalker the stalker will win. But if terran builds marines equalivant to the resources for a stalker the marines will win.
lol. You, my friend, have no understanding of the sad state of PvT right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
