|
On January 25 2012 05:14 Mr Showtime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:04 Bergys wrote:On January 25 2012 04:55 Asol wrote:On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote:
I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything. This, a million times over this. Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss. There's really no harm in them posting their ideas if they're open to criticism and don't defend their blatantly stupid ideas. A lower level player can see wholes in balance. Anyone looking at their own play to decide if something is balanced or not is biased since they don't admit their mistakes (well, everyone is but to a much greater extent). And if you're looking at pro players playing lower level players with strategic mindsets can understand aswell. No. Lower level player cannot weigh in on balance. The large skill deficiencies make that impossible. They don't play the game right (or rather efficiently), so they cannot tell what is balanced or not. Secondly, why the hell is this thread still open and being bumped. Mutas are not OP. Period. ZvP: storms, archon, pheonix, and stalkers (until mass muta arises, in which case storm shreds them). ZvT: marines, thor, HSM ravens (not always as practical). More than enough options for each race. P has a few more choices, but T gets to use the stupid cheap T1 unit to counter.
You're looking at this the wrong way. If they're taking their looking at their own gameplay and deciding what's balanced and what's not balanced, then yes they should stfu since they are not mechanically able to execute stratetegies. They can however tell if a strategy is balanced on a high level or not as much as you can (well, if they have are good at it) because watching a game takes 0 mechanical skill. Seeing if someone is macroing/playing/engaging well takes no mechanics whatsoever.
|
On January 25 2012 05:24 Phobbers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 04:24 willoc wrote:On January 25 2012 03:50 Bergys wrote:On January 25 2012 02:54 willoc wrote:On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote:
In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW). I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac. The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements. When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me? Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these? "It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW)." A thor implies ONE, and then you state "effectively stops" - reading over that pretty much gives off the idea that one thor = herp derp I'm safe. Also, you never stated anything about having marine support either. Choose your words wisely next time, people tend to pick a part posts here.
Come on man, that's not necessary, post politely so that he can post respectfully in return and we can have a reasonable and rational discussion
|
Has this thread turned into an epistemological discussion about who has the right to talk about the game again? Because if it has, I've got a few whoppers of posts to add. However, I don't think that's appropriate.
In my humble opinion, if there's a thread that has been opened and deemed worthy of staying open, your discussing why it shouldn't be open is basically derailing. Why don't you leave it to the mods to decide who has the right to say what where.
On topic, doesn't it seem like the only way to defeat mutas is to bait them into making mistakes? When do you really see mutas dying except in the following circumstances: 1) Miscontrol that leads to big hits (thor hits and blink ups. 2) Force the mutas to engage, i.e. attack their base 3) Mutas mistakenly think they can attack a force e.g. idrA thinks he can kill those marines.
The second option seems pretty crummy to me, but that's how a lot of PvZs with mutas end up, with the Protoss deciding the only way to win is to attack before there are too many mutas. The first option is ok for terran, but not as good for Protoss. You can blink 20 stalkers (that's a lot) at 10 mutas and, if you're lucky as hell, you'll kill two.
|
On January 25 2012 05:27 Bergys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:14 Mr Showtime wrote:On January 25 2012 05:04 Bergys wrote:On January 25 2012 04:55 Asol wrote:On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote:
I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything. This, a million times over this. Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss. There's really no harm in them posting their ideas if they're open to criticism and don't defend their blatantly stupid ideas. A lower level player can see wholes in balance. Anyone looking at their own play to decide if something is balanced or not is biased since they don't admit their mistakes (well, everyone is but to a much greater extent). And if you're looking at pro players playing lower level players with strategic mindsets can understand aswell. No. Lower level player cannot weigh in on balance. The large skill deficiencies make that impossible. They don't play the game right (or rather efficiently), so they cannot tell what is balanced or not. Secondly, why the hell is this thread still open and being bumped. Mutas are not OP. Period. ZvP: storms, archon, pheonix, and stalkers (until mass muta arises, in which case storm shreds them). ZvT: marines, thor, HSM ravens (not always as practical). More than enough options for each race. P has a few more choices, but T gets to use the stupid cheap T1 unit to counter. You're looking at this the wrong way. If they're taking their looking at their own gameplay and deciding what's balanced and what's not balanced, then yes they should stfu since they are not mechanically able to execute stratetegies. They can however tell if a strategy is balanced on a high level or not as much as you can (well, if they have are good at it) because watching a game takes 0 mechanical skill. Seeing if someone is macroing/playing/engaging well takes no mechanics whatsoever.
But it still takes understanding to watch a game and understand it. Lower league players lack the understanding, and really should probably refrain from commenting. But it's not my place to tell them not to talk about balance, as it's clear TL is willing to let anyone talk about any sort of balance they want no matter how illogical and unrealistic their balance discussions are (as long as they aren't in a LR thread.) All I said is that I refrain from posting about balance because at mid master I don't know shit about the game, and that I'm amazed much lower level players feel they have a solid understanding and have no problem blabbing away about imbalanced this imbalanced that.
|
On January 25 2012 05:24 Phobbers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 04:24 willoc wrote:On January 25 2012 03:50 Bergys wrote:On January 25 2012 02:54 willoc wrote:On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote:
In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW). I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac. The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements. When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me? Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these? "It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW)." A thor implies ONE, and then you state "effectively stops" - reading over that pretty much gives off the idea that one thor = herp derp I'm safe. Also, you never stated anything about having marine support either. Choose your words wisely next time, people tend to pick a part posts here.
Why would I need to? You ask a BW pro about science vessels (with irradiate) effectively stopping muta harass and their answer would be "yes". They would also KNOW that it meant "in addition to your terran tech". I would think marines would be implied in my above post but if people don't understand this then they are simply inexperienced. Do I have to mention that I should be building supply depots as well because people will tell me I can't get a Thor out without them?
I'm not the best SC2 player but I do know I have strong micro. When I get my hands on a flock of mutas, Terrans can't stop my harass unless they get Thors out, overbuild turrets, or they make a push on my base forcing my mutas to group with the rest of my army. If they don't, I will slowly keep poking their buildings, economy and marines to death.
Anyway, Terrans have no problems with mutalisks being overpowered in my opinion. The situation of Terrans vs. Mutas is very reminiscent of SC:BW in my view where irradiate/science vessel tech is replaced by thor tech.
|
On January 25 2012 05:04 Bergys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 04:55 Asol wrote:On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote:
I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything. This, a million times over this. Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss. There's really no harm in them posting their ideas if they're open to criticism and don't defend their blatantly stupid ideas. A lower level player can see wholes in balance. Anyone looking at their own play to decide if something is balanced or not is biased since they don't admit their mistakes (well, everyone is but to a much greater extent). And if you're looking at pro players playing lower level players with strategic mindsets can understand aswell.
While I do agree that the non-pro will usually have a skewed view on balance you have to understand these things:
1) Pros cannot always explain imbalances thoroughly as they are players first and analyzers/designers second.
2) The developers of Starcraft are not pros. The closest thing they have to that is David Kim.
|
On January 25 2012 06:17 willoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:24 Phobbers wrote:On January 25 2012 04:24 willoc wrote:On January 25 2012 03:50 Bergys wrote:On January 25 2012 02:54 willoc wrote:On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote:
In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW). I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac. The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements. When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me? Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these? "It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW)." A thor implies ONE, and then you state "effectively stops" - reading over that pretty much gives off the idea that one thor = herp derp I'm safe. Also, you never stated anything about having marine support either. Choose your words wisely next time, people tend to pick a part posts here. Why would I need to? You ask a BW pro about science vessels (with irradiate) effectively stopping muta harass and their answer would be "yes". They would also KNOW that it meant "in addition to your terran tech". I would think marines would be implied in my above post but if people don't understand this then they are simply inexperienced. Do I have to mention that I should be building supply depots as well because people will tell me I can't get a Thor out without them? I'm not the best SC2 player but I do know I have strong micro. When I get my hands on a flock of mutas, Terrans can't stop my harass unless they get Thors out, overbuild turrets, or they make a push on my base forcing my mutas to group with the rest of my army. If they don't, I will slowly keep poking their buildings, economy and marines to death. Anyway, Terrans have no problems with mutalisks being overpowered in my opinion. The situation of Terrans vs. Mutas is very reminiscent of SC:BW in my view where irradiate/science vessel tech is replaced by thor tech.
Hey man I thought we agreed to have rational discussions. In answers to brood war reference, Thors are effective but are severly limited by their rate of fire and their movement speed. As well as they just make you commit so much supply.
Now when you push the supplies tied into your defense become useless in your push. As they are defending the muta cloud that may or may not come.
It's like the story of Rome vs Germania and the tale of Arminius. the way that barbarians took apart a Well fitted Roman Legion.
Now because of their mobility chances are the mutas are there to fight your now less efficient push because some of your units are back home defending.
|
On January 25 2012 05:18 BoBiNoU wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 04:55 Asol wrote:On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote:
I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything. This, a million times over this. Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss. Because this a game for a large audience so everyone should be allowed a word about issues that might affect their playtime ? If you want a game balanced for pro only, you make a game for competition and that's it.
Well you see the funny thing is:
The game is balanced/tweaked based on input from pro players. Wanna know why? Because people in lower leagues/who play the game for fun cry about the stupidest things. Zergs crying about how marine's so OP when they try to counter it with something stupid like... I dunno mutas. Don't get me wrong, of course people can play this game for fun, but unless they try to really understand the core mechanics, being serious about getting better at the game, they have absolutely no place to whine about balance issues.
And in the case of mutas in ZvT, go pressure the zerg (small drops at multiple locations!!) and leave some defense on patrol at home! Again a beautiful example in this thread earlier is how someone cried "well patrolling thors are so slow they can get behind and get picked off individually so that's no option." Did you ever think about setting the few marines you also leave behind to follow the thor instead of letting them patrol individually? That way they never leave the Thor's side (awww cute) and if any muta ball dares to come harass they melt when they dont immediately fly away. It's people like mentioned above that make these discussions REALLY annoying.
|
I really enjoy watching my friends who play Terran or Protoss try to go mutas when they offrace as Zerg. The fundamental flaw that they have with the muta-ling style is generally around the time they start their mutas and get hit with a timing specifically designed to hit right before mutas are at any kind of critical mass.
So much of a Zerg stomping your face in with mutas comes down to either a lack of anticipation on your part or the fact that you're insurmountably behind, at least from what I've observed in pro games where mutas were a problem for a player. It's sad that Blizzard wants mutalisks to be completely shit in HotS. They're not actually that strong right now, as it stands. Of course there are games where mutas are suddenly a huge advantage. The same goes for colossus at times, or cloaked banshees. If you're not prepared to crush these types of units they can crush you.
|
well nvm
Didnt mean to bash annyone and that comment was indeed not called for so excuses for that.
I got annoyed by some of the comments here with wich i strongly disagree to put it mildly.
Have fun discussing this with the pros, you will miss alot of valuable insights imo but i wont force it upon you.
|
On January 25 2012 06:27 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:17 willoc wrote:On January 25 2012 05:24 Phobbers wrote:On January 25 2012 04:24 willoc wrote:On January 25 2012 03:50 Bergys wrote:On January 25 2012 02:54 willoc wrote:On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote:
In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW). I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac. The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements. When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me? Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these? "It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW)." A thor implies ONE, and then you state "effectively stops" - reading over that pretty much gives off the idea that one thor = herp derp I'm safe. Also, you never stated anything about having marine support either. Choose your words wisely next time, people tend to pick a part posts here. Why would I need to? You ask a BW pro about science vessels (with irradiate) effectively stopping muta harass and their answer would be "yes". They would also KNOW that it meant "in addition to your terran tech". I would think marines would be implied in my above post but if people don't understand this then they are simply inexperienced. Do I have to mention that I should be building supply depots as well because people will tell me I can't get a Thor out without them? I'm not the best SC2 player but I do know I have strong micro. When I get my hands on a flock of mutas, Terrans can't stop my harass unless they get Thors out, overbuild turrets, or they make a push on my base forcing my mutas to group with the rest of my army. If they don't, I will slowly keep poking their buildings, economy and marines to death. Anyway, Terrans have no problems with mutalisks being overpowered in my opinion. The situation of Terrans vs. Mutas is very reminiscent of SC:BW in my view where irradiate/science vessel tech is replaced by thor tech. Hey man I thought we agreed to have rational discussions. In answers to brood war reference, Thors are effective but are severly limited by their rate of fire and their movement speed. As well as they just make you commit so much supply. Now when you push the supplies tied into your defense become useless in your push. As they are defending the muta cloud that may or may not come. It's like the story of Rome vs Germania and the tale of Arminius. the way that barbarians took apart a Well fitted Roman Legion. Now because of their mobility chances are the mutas are there to fight your now less efficient push because some of your units are back home defending.
True and I thought I was keeping it rational. In my opinion, it is fine to sac that amount of supply for defence when dealing with mutas because the supply they are using on mutas won't be as efficient if they bring them back into their main army. It seems to me that mutas, in a large army clash are only good at sniping off key targets, cleaning up ground-only units and killing off much smaller groups of anti-air units. About 2-3 Thors in your main army should negate any muta presence in an intense battle as magic boxing isn't really viable when you are trying to micro other units as well. Anyway, that's my two cents.
|
On January 25 2012 06:57 Rassy wrote:On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote: I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This, a million times over this. Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss. Last edit: 2012-01-25 04:55:34 well you would definatly not qualify then lol People so annoying with their completely misplaced elitairism >.< I shall explain this only once... The skill cap in starcraft, that what makes one player better then the other is 99% mechanical and has nothing to do with understanding the game. This game is pretty simple to understand from a strategic point of vieuw You make stalker, i make marauder You make void ray,i make marine You turtle, i take map You fast expo i put pressure or fast expo myself And so on, all these concepts are pretty easy and there is realy nothing difficult about them if you a bit intelligent You dont need to be in masters to understand that lol, Besides that, i see masters and grandmasters on stream make tons of strategic errors, just like lower players. (yes its easy to decide what a player should do when watching a stream  ) Starcraft is not like chess, where thinking the move is the problem,not so much moving your hand to the board and making the move physically Sc is different, to think wich move to make is verry easy, its actually performing the mechanical actions in a short time that is the problem for most players. so much for my last attempt to ban some of the completely misplaced elitairism on this forum. Mods feel free to remove the post if it comes aross as a rant ><
I'm sorry but you are incorrect. The mechanical skill ceiling in SC2 is not all that high in comparison to something like BW, and the mechanical skill required to get into masters or even GM is not very high at all. The game really IS about knowledge and understanding. Game knowledge goes much, much, almost infinitely deeper than what you just tried to say. And no, it's not easy to think of the move but hard to make the move, thinking of the right move in SC2 is just as hard as making it, the fact that you think it's easy to think of the move means your understanding is still very shallow. Also why bash the other person you quoted with "well you would definitely not qualify then lol" I don't think he ever said he would qualify, or that he would even want to chime in on balance discussions, you just bashed him for no reason.
edit: to clarify these are just my opinions based on my personal expirience. I'm just a lowly noob mid masters zerg, and if anyone higher than me disagrees feel free to say so and I will listen.
|
If you think this game is easy to understand from a strategic point of view, then you simply don't play at a high enough level.
The fact is that the precise details are what matter, not the general strokes. Anyone can say that marauders counter stalkers, or that you should expo vs turtlers. That's not strategy, nor is it understanding. It's just such basic ABC that it's worthless to bring up in a discussion.
Chess book with detailed moves and precise timings: strategy
Day9 daily on getting more ahead: hueristics for new players
|
On January 25 2012 05:16 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:14 Mr Showtime wrote:
No. Lower level player cannot weigh in on balance. The large skill deficiencies make that impossible. They don't play the game right (or rather efficiently), so they cannot tell what is balanced or not.
Secondly, why the hell is this thread still open and being bumped. Mutas are not OP. Period.
ZvP: storms, archon, pheonix, and stalkers (until mass muta arises, in which case storm shreds them).
ZvT: marines, thor, HSM ravens (not always as practical).
More than enough options for each race. P has a few more choices, but T gets to use the stupid cheap T1 unit to counter.
When you post like that it makes you seem very unreasonable and angry. Let's be open to discussions there's no harm in having one.
There is absolutely no harm in discussing strategy regarding mutas in each match-up. This thread isn't about that. It's about balance. All I am saying is that each race has more than enough options to deal with mutas, so "mutas imba" should be out of the question. How players should go about dealing with mutas is an entirely different story and SHOULD be discussed. Also forgot to mention that T and P have turrets and cannons respectively, so there's another line of defense.
Not sure if you were at all referring to my first point, but I stand by that. Until you have Grandmaster level MMR, you have no right making balance assessments because you still can get better at the game.
Sorry if I came across as angry. I'm not. Hopefully this post clears up what appeared to be unreasonable. If not..... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
On January 23 2012 06:47 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 06:39 Lore-Fighting wrote:
This thread is really disappointing, don't you guys know that there is no such thing as a counter? The Tempet is designed to help noobs not lose to a-move mass muta balls. If you flank them, I don't think they perform that well, also, they are fairly low dps.
Each unit is based on situational performance, the argument over the muta should be that it causes too many situations to go a certian way.
That is all. If you flank they can just fly away. It's not like Vikings/marines/thors can ever catch mutalisks.
I meant you can flank the tempests...
|
On January 25 2012 13:13 Mr Showtime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:16 Blasterion wrote:On January 25 2012 05:14 Mr Showtime wrote:
No. Lower level player cannot weigh in on balance. The large skill deficiencies make that impossible. They don't play the game right (or rather efficiently), so they cannot tell what is balanced or not.
Secondly, why the hell is this thread still open and being bumped. Mutas are not OP. Period.
ZvP: storms, archon, pheonix, and stalkers (until mass muta arises, in which case storm shreds them).
ZvT: marines, thor, HSM ravens (not always as practical).
More than enough options for each race. P has a few more choices, but T gets to use the stupid cheap T1 unit to counter.
When you post like that it makes you seem very unreasonable and angry. Let's be open to discussions there's no harm in having one. There is absolutely no harm in discussing strategy regarding mutas in each match-up. This thread isn't about that. It's about balance. All I am saying is that each race has more than enough options to deal with mutas, so "mutas imba" should be out of the question. How players should go about dealing with mutas is an entirely different story and SHOULD be discussed. Also forgot to mention that T and P have turrets and cannons respectively, so there's another line of defense. Not sure if you were at all referring to my first point, but I stand by that. Until you have Grandmaster level MMR, you have no right making balance assessments because you still can get better at the game. Sorry if I came across as angry. I'm not. Hopefully this post clears up what appeared to be unreasonable. If not..... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, good since that's the exact thing I have been advocating in this thread. In all my recent posts I have been discussing methods of fighting mutas in TvZ.
|
On January 25 2012 06:21 willoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:04 Bergys wrote:On January 25 2012 04:55 Asol wrote:On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote:
I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything. This, a million times over this. Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss. There's really no harm in them posting their ideas if they're open to criticism and don't defend their blatantly stupid ideas. A lower level player can see wholes in balance. Anyone looking at their own play to decide if something is balanced or not is biased since they don't admit their mistakes (well, everyone is but to a much greater extent). And if you're looking at pro players playing lower level players with strategic mindsets can understand aswell. While I do agree that the non-pro will usually have a skewed view on balance you have to understand these things: 1) Pros cannot always explain imbalances thoroughly as they are players first and analyzers/designers second. 2) The developers of Starcraft are not pros. The closest thing they have to that is David Kim.
Exactly. Part of my reasoning of why lower level players can be good in deciding balance is that they must always look at someone elses play, since their own is too full of flaws. While looking at your own gameplay it's always hard to admit mistakes instead of calling something imba etcetc. Just because someone is a good balancer doesn't mean they're a good player. The otherway around is also not true, which is why I find it silly to claim that only "top level players" should post since in my experiences many of them don't analyze their gameplay the way a balancer would do.
|
On January 25 2012 18:18 Bergys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:21 willoc wrote:On January 25 2012 05:04 Bergys wrote:On January 25 2012 04:55 Asol wrote:On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote:
I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything. This, a million times over this. Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss. There's really no harm in them posting their ideas if they're open to criticism and don't defend their blatantly stupid ideas. A lower level player can see wholes in balance. Anyone looking at their own play to decide if something is balanced or not is biased since they don't admit their mistakes (well, everyone is but to a much greater extent). And if you're looking at pro players playing lower level players with strategic mindsets can understand aswell. While I do agree that the non-pro will usually have a skewed view on balance you have to understand these things: 1) Pros cannot always explain imbalances thoroughly as they are players first and analyzers/designers second. 2) The developers of Starcraft are not pros. The closest thing they have to that is David Kim. Exactly. Part of my reasoning of why lower level players can be good in deciding balance is that they must always look at someone elses play, since their own is too full of flaws. While looking at your own gameplay it's always hard to admit mistakes instead of calling something imba etcetc. Just because someone is a good balancer doesn't mean they're a good player. The otherway around is also not true, which is why I find it silly to claim that only "top level players" should post since in my experiences many of them don't analyze their gameplay the way a balancer would do.
You'll be surprised at the players in lower levels who complain about balance and they are going from "experience" lol. I don't know though I don't feel you can really understand high level play if you are lower level because there's a lot of reasons for why players do certain things that you might not think about because you have never been in the situation or understand why they do X.
|
On January 25 2012 18:45 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 18:18 Bergys wrote:On January 25 2012 06:21 willoc wrote:On January 25 2012 05:04 Bergys wrote:On January 25 2012 04:55 Asol wrote:On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote:
I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything. This, a million times over this. Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss. There's really no harm in them posting their ideas if they're open to criticism and don't defend their blatantly stupid ideas. A lower level player can see wholes in balance. Anyone looking at their own play to decide if something is balanced or not is biased since they don't admit their mistakes (well, everyone is but to a much greater extent). And if you're looking at pro players playing lower level players with strategic mindsets can understand aswell. While I do agree that the non-pro will usually have a skewed view on balance you have to understand these things: 1) Pros cannot always explain imbalances thoroughly as they are players first and analyzers/designers second. 2) The developers of Starcraft are not pros. The closest thing they have to that is David Kim. Exactly. Part of my reasoning of why lower level players can be good in deciding balance is that they must always look at someone elses play, since their own is too full of flaws. While looking at your own gameplay it's always hard to admit mistakes instead of calling something imba etcetc. Just because someone is a good balancer doesn't mean they're a good player. The otherway around is also not true, which is why I find it silly to claim that only "top level players" should post since in my experiences many of them don't analyze their gameplay the way a balancer would do. You'll be surprised at the players in lower levels who complain about balance and they are going from "experience" lol. I don't know though I don't feel you can really understand high level play if you are lower level because there's a lot of reasons for why players do certain things that you might not think about because you have never been in the situation or understand why they do X.
I very much agree with this. A guy that posted above is a good example. He's obviously in a lower league, but outright said he knows as much as anyone else about the game and that there isn't any in depth knowledge in SC2 to be had. His example was "marauders counter stalkers, marines counter void rays" etc... That's the type of knowledge a lot of lower league players have that they think is in depth. When they watch pros play they look for things more like that, and less like "well he saw x amount of workers so he knows his opponent is not fast expanding" or "he saw 2 gas but only 3 sentries so he knows his opponent is teching." The type of knowledge they have is nowhere near enough to know if what they are seeing is balanced or not, since they can't even tell if one of the players got tricked or not, or if one players build counters the others, unless they see like mass stalker vs mass marauder or mass marine vs a few VRs.
|
On January 25 2012 06:21 willoc wrote:1) Pros cannot always explain imbalances thoroughly as they are players first and analyzers/designers second.
That's contradictory. A professional player knows the ins and outs of the game better than anyone else. A true professional player is someone who analyzes games so well that they adapt builds and/or tactics to win the game for them. The very essence of winning at a high level is understanding why games play out the way they do. Understanding why that build worked and why that unit is strong and how to beat a certain tactic. Professional players are the best analyzers you could possibly have.
Design is something else though. Still, that doesn't mean that some people don't have better design ideas than the developers of this game (some spotlighted thread not too long ago proves that).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
