|
On September 29 2011 05:57 gfever wrote:
if balance only occured in the highest level then there's a problem what if you started in bronze and went to high master in a couple weeks. All of a sudden you have to relearn the game cuz the units act differently. Dumb idea is dumb.
Reading comprehension failure is reading comprehension failure.
This thread is talking about balancing the units based around how the interact in the highest level of play, rather than how the interact down in Bronze league.
The concept isn't to balance units for pros, but have bronze league units act differently for easier players.
|
On September 29 2011 05:48 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Stop comparing your games to pro level balance, that's the whole point of this thread.
And my point was, that if there are vastly different success rates in the different matchups, that is a sign of imbalance on any level.
Because I'm not suddenly a worse player when I'm playing against another race. The macro and mechanics, which are supposedly the predominant factors of player skill, are the same. If my skill is more than enough for ZvZ and ZvT, but not nearly enough for ZvP in my league, then I consider that an imbalance. Either I'm stupid and use builds that are just flat out bad, which could be the case, but they are not that different from pro builds that I see on streams, and at the lower levels it is just mechanics that matters anyway. Or we indeed have an imbalance at that level. How else would you call it?
|
On September 29 2011 04:42 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +Zerg strugghled with the protoss death ball since the game came out. It took a whole year for enough zerg players to learn infestor micro and NP usage well enough to be able to deal with it. And 2-3 weeks after it became clear that this is actually a viable way to deal with colossus death balls it was taken out of the game and protoss got some buffs on top of it.
Now at the top level in korea protoss struggle with zerg, mainly because they can't keep up with the economy. Well, get better at harassing then. Zerg can't keep up with your army. That isn't any better or worse of a problem, it is just a different problem. Actually, fungal growth got buffed to be good vs armoured units. That's what happened.
Yeah, it started dealing 11 more damage. Huge buff, isn't it?
Zerg just figured out the fact that they can drop banelings on fungal'd clump of units.
|
On September 29 2011 06:14 imbecile wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 05:48 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Stop comparing your games to pro level balance, that's the whole point of this thread. And my point was, that if there are vastly different success rates in the different matchups, that is a sign of imbalance on any level. Because I'm not suddenly a worse player when I'm playing against another race. The macro and mechanics, which are supposedly the predominant factors of player skill, are the same. If my skill is more than enough for ZvZ and ZvT, but not nearly enough for ZvP in my league, then I consider that an imbalance. Either I'm stupid and use builds that are just flat out bad, which could be the case, but they are not that different from pro builds that I see on streams, and at the lower levels it is just mechanics that matters anyway. Or we indeed have an imbalance at that level. How else would you call it?
This thread is not here to discuss whether the game is currently balanced or not, take your complaints elsewhere.
|
they should balance around the highest level, because thats what everyone is striving for, but they can't have things that just ruin the experience for their huge casual fan base, ie Reapers.
|
there's only one reality. Blizzard doesn't want ESPORTS like we do.
Because a game should last 2/3 years so we can buy the next game after that.
If a game goes on indefinitely they don't make money from it.
that's why they want to kill BW and that's why they will kill SC2 when it will be time for SC3 and so on.
They don't want something perfect because if it's already perfect why buying the next chapter ?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37014 Posts
On September 29 2011 06:34 dragonsuper wrote:
there's only one reality. Blizzard doesn't want ESPORTS like we do.
Because a game should last 2/3 years so we can buy the next game after that.
If a game goes on indefinitely they don't make money from it.
that's why they want to kill BW and that's why they will kill SC2 when it will be time for SC3 and so on.
They don't want something perfect because if it's already perfect why buying the next chapter ?
If this is true, that Blizzard is fucking evil/selfish as fuck.....
Wow....
|
The only balance we should care about is the upper levels [masters to gm] as literally by virtue of what it is, all other balances are as a result of incompetence not the reality of unit design, quality, etc. Nor is it really like "at silver, terran cant do x". Not at all. At the lower leagues people play random styles and arbitrary builds. Skill sets are erratic. We just cant account for incompetence.
|
I'm sure in 10 years we're going to see threads saying that 'everyone knew that PvT was imbalanced in gold league'.
The Catch-22 of all this is that in order for you to have the perspective to make a judgment on this, you also have to lack the knowledge to make the judgment. For all the OP knows, the 'balance' of TvP might be exactly the same in SC2 as in BW, but he sucked back then and doesn't now so it appears balanced to him.
|
On September 29 2011 06:34 dragonsuper wrote:
there's only one reality. Blizzard doesn't want ESPORTS like we do.
Because a game should last 2/3 years so we can buy the next game after that.
If a game goes on indefinitely they don't make money from it.
that's why they want to kill BW and that's why they will kill SC2 when it will be time for SC3 and so on.
They don't want something perfect because if it's already perfect why buying the next chapter ?
That's why we should rally around Valve. Cuz they have such a great record in Esports.
|
On September 29 2011 06:34 dragonsuper wrote:
there's only one reality. Blizzard doesn't want ESPORTS like we do.
Because a game should last 2/3 years so we can buy the next game after that.
If a game goes on indefinitely they don't make money from it.
that's why they want to kill BW and that's why they will kill SC2 when it will be time for SC3 and so on.
They don't want something perfect because if it's already perfect why buying the next chapter ?
Your tinfoil hat is malfunctioning again man.
Blizzard is well known for releasing new games for their franchises every single year, am I right ?
|
For example look at 1/1/1 vs Toss before. I mean all you need is a build order and follow it on time. No way you could lose it even you're diamond or gold league. Just need to hit it on time. I think lower league need balance too.
|
On September 29 2011 06:26 VirgilSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 06:14 imbecile wrote:On September 29 2011 05:48 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Stop comparing your games to pro level balance, that's the whole point of this thread. And my point was, that if there are vastly different success rates in the different matchups, that is a sign of imbalance on any level. Because I'm not suddenly a worse player when I'm playing against another race. The macro and mechanics, which are supposedly the predominant factors of player skill, are the same. If my skill is more than enough for ZvZ and ZvT, but not nearly enough for ZvP in my league, then I consider that an imbalance. Either I'm stupid and use builds that are just flat out bad, which could be the case, but they are not that different from pro builds that I see on streams, and at the lower levels it is just mechanics that matters anyway. Or we indeed have an imbalance at that level. How else would you call it? This thread is not here to discuss whether the game is currently balanced or not, take your complaints elsewhere.
Discussing balance without examples seem kinda pointless to me. Could have used any other combination of matchups to show you that balance is a valid concept on all levels. I just find it more honest to use personal experiences as examples.
|
Game should be balanced in high levels to be competetive. I don't care about low level and i hope blizz doesn't care also.
|
The game has to be balanced at the highest level of play, and that's the end of it. They can't take anything from the lower levels due to not playing a perfect game.
I'm not saying at the moment that pro sc2 players play the perfect game, we know they don't...they are nothing like BW pros yet. BUT they play at the best level, where you can see true strengths and timings. This is where balance must come from.
It's when people see something strong and take it to the lower levels and smash everyone with it, people then cry about it. It's not over powered its only because the people they play dont scout or have good macro etc.
If they balanced an RTS for all levels, it would NEVER make it as a competitive game cause it would be broken.
EDIT* Also team games in the same way, just cause and strat is INCREDIBLY strong in a team game..they can't do anything really or it *could* completely fuck 1v1 which is where its at.
|
On September 29 2011 06:47 imbecile wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 06:26 VirgilSC2 wrote:On September 29 2011 06:14 imbecile wrote:On September 29 2011 05:48 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Stop comparing your games to pro level balance, that's the whole point of this thread. And my point was, that if there are vastly different success rates in the different matchups, that is a sign of imbalance on any level. Because I'm not suddenly a worse player when I'm playing against another race. The macro and mechanics, which are supposedly the predominant factors of player skill, are the same. If my skill is more than enough for ZvZ and ZvT, but not nearly enough for ZvP in my league, then I consider that an imbalance. Either I'm stupid and use builds that are just flat out bad, which could be the case, but they are not that different from pro builds that I see on streams, and at the lower levels it is just mechanics that matters anyway. Or we indeed have an imbalance at that level. How else would you call it? This thread is not here to discuss whether the game is currently balanced or not, take your complaints elsewhere. Discussing balance without examples seem kinda pointless to me. Could have used any other combination of matchups to show you that balance is a valid concept on all levels. I just find it more honest to use personal experiences as examples.
This thread is not to discuss whether the game is currently balanced or not, take your complaints elsewhere.
|
On September 22 2011 06:21 Roxy wrote:
I think balance affects all levels of play
I would like to state that balancing the game should purely only consider 1v1 at the pro level; however, there are many imbalances that excist throughout different leagues.
Thats is what is ruining this game you want the balance all league where it should only matter in the highest lvls. Taking in part someone who doesn't know how to play the game and making it better for them instead of forcing them to learn how to play is a stupid idea. You don't play chess like checkers because people are morons......... if people want to play an easy game then they should go play something else and let people who are willing to learn and play right continue to play sc2.
|
this thread should have died after
"If players can be beaten by a Nydus worker rush balancing the game based on what they think is fucking retarded. End of."
odd example, but the point stands. people at lower levels could EASILY solve their problems by sucking less.
|
On September 29 2011 06:37 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 06:34 dragonsuper wrote:
there's only one reality. Blizzard doesn't want ESPORTS like we do.
Because a game should last 2/3 years so we can buy the next game after that.
If a game goes on indefinitely they don't make money from it.
that's why they want to kill BW and that's why they will kill SC2 when it will be time for SC3 and so on.
They don't want something perfect because if it's already perfect why buying the next chapter ? If this is true, that Blizzard is fucking evil/selfish as fuck..... Wow....
You do understand this is basically Activisions business model?
|
On September 29 2011 06:34 dragonsuper wrote:
there's only one reality. Blizzard doesn't want ESPORTS like we do.
Because a game should last 2/3 years so we can buy the next game after that.
If a game goes on indefinitely they don't make money from it.
that's why they want to kill BW and that's why they will kill SC2 when it will be time for SC3 and so on.
They don't want something perfect because if it's already perfect why buying the next chapter ?
Nope. The fact is, Blizzard is heavily invested in esports, and realizes they can make more profit from it than from selling games. It is the reason why they fought so hard with Icefrog for DotA as well as with kespa, iccup, and the like.
Blizzard helped start up the star2 esports scene by funding the GSL Opens, and it's own invitational tourney, but but now are asking for a percentage of profits from all star2 tourneys. it's a genius move that can bring them as much profit as WoW, for an equal period of time, if not longer.
Blizzard has already sold the game to the low league players. Players of higher caliber are the loyal sheep that is the esports mob, and that's where the continued profit resides, not in the one time exchange that the casual gamer provides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
