|
I would argue that all three races are fundamentally difficult to balance due to the design choices Blizzard has made in SC2 when compared to SC1.
Even with all the progress that has been made in the meta-game and with balance patches, I would estimate that the majority of all matches come down to one big battle, and the victor of this battle will almost always go on to win the match.
For Protoss, units like Colossus, blink stalkers and HT's mean that it's common for the game to swing heavily in their favor if the opponent does not respond correctly to these massive damage units. For Blizzard to balance these force multiplier units, they give means for other races to counter those units. The problem is that either the opponent will counter correctly and often destroy the protoss, or the opponent will not and be subsequently destroyed. There is very little middle ground where massing 'average' (or non force multiplying) units by both sides, and the multiple battles between them, determine the victor.
For Zerg I consider the larva mechanic to be the economic & production equivalent of the Colossus. We've seen time and time again where Zerg's will either run over their opponent by being able to severely out-produce their opponents, or they'll get totally destroyed because they built a round of drones too many. Again there's a lack of middle ground where a back and forth can occur.
|
On December 01 2011 11:01 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 11:00 Ace.Xile wrote:On December 01 2011 10:53 kofman wrote:On December 01 2011 10:48 Ace.Xile wrote:On December 01 2011 10:44 kofman wrote:On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote:Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out. Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful. Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential. Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL). All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time. Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +. My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon. And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm. Theres your explanation about why Terran micro is harder than zerg or protoss micro. No need to restate everything that has been said already. That doesn't explain at all why terran micro is harder than other races. Period. It provides an argument as to why it should be, but gives no real examples as to why it is. Logically terran should be much micro harder than say zerg, but that's due to the fact that zerg macro by and large is considered harder. Everything you're quoting is just pro terrans saying their race is the hardest, go ask 99% of pros what they think is the hardest, and they will say their race. I'm asking for in game situations as to where the micro of terran units vastly outweighs the micro of other races units. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but since your in denial, I guess I have to... Terran has to: -split marines -target fire banelings -emp all of the toss army -kite zealots Zerg has to: -a move Protoss has to: -spam forcefields -amove which one sounds the hardest to you? Terran has to: -split marines -target fire banelings Terran does have to do that, all while macroing, and on the other hand like i said earlier Zerg has to: - a- move with lings, micro group of banelings to attack the marines you are splitting because if you don't they will detonate on the tanks, while microing mutas to attack the tanks and not the marines. All while having to keep up with the macro that is arguably much harder of zerg, to not auto take an economic hit. As for protoss: While you're arguing about how hard stutter step micro is (which every race has to do at one point) Protoss do have to forcefields, although somehow you act as if forcefielding is easier than emps for some reason, furthermore to use HTs at all, you either have to use a warp prism or have them all split and be able to move them individually so they don't get clumped and destroyed by one emp, on top of taking out the shields all around them, and in the case of colossus yes bio balls have to stutter step but often times protoss has to micro colossus away from vikings all while focus firing them down with stalkers all while in the middle of the engagement and not dying to your bio ball. You try to create examples and in the end it just seems as if you've never played any of the other races. Its obvious you've never played Terran if you think that in TvZ zerg has to do anything close to what Terran has to do microwise.
So please enlighten me as to why your micro is so much harder, you're controlling tanks which often times will just hit banelings automatically due to how they clump with lings, and you have to split which is hard yes, it still doesn't change the time that to effectively micro as a zerg you still have to "split" banelings to a degree, shift que mutas (just how you would kill with tanks on banelings), and they have to a move zerglings (which is almost negligible), while the terran can go up and que up some units in their production facilities while on the other hand zerg is required to larva inject during this fight or automatically take an economic hit due to missed injects. EVEN IF the terran micro is harder, it's hard to argue that it is so much vastly harder, yes you can theoretically perfectly micro splits so that banelings don't hit anything, but it won't happen ever. Zerg can theoretically kill 100 tanks with something like 200 lings, and that will never happen either. At the end of the day if Terran micro is harder, it's only slightly so, and in return zerg has to deal with macro which is much more difficult mid engagement than terran.
|
On December 01 2011 10:55 Chamenas wrote:
There doesn't need to be 100% proof, just something concrete. I'd love to discuss, if there was something to discuss, but there isn't. The original poster asserted an opinion as fact, people have called him out on it, other posters are continuing to assert opinion as fact.
Believe it or not, a hypothesis still needs support. Pulling a hypothesis out of thin air is not true theory, it's speculation, and speculation is generally bad if you're trying to make a real argument about concrete things.
There is concrete information out there, statistics about how races match up against each other at various skill levels, all of which would be relevant here, and all of which are being ignored.
Furthermore, a hypothesis is a statement, not a graph. A graph present the illusion of a conclusion. "I have found x data, and have summarized it in a neat little graph for you". When people see a graph, they often, ignorantly, assume you have created the graph based on actual findings. As such, it's misleading to post a graph when the work hasn't been done to support it. At the very least, the graph should have come with a bolded disclaimer stating "this graph is based upon my own anecdotal speculation".
Actually I didn't post the graph, as you'll note, someone else did. And as he stated it was very exagerated and simply trying to get the point of the argument across. And concrete data that foreign pros *seem* to be failing in top tournaments was provided, as you'll note if you read the initial post. Which is more than enough to atleast make a comment about, and discuss a possible explanation that is backed by theory.
|
On December 01 2011 10:53 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 10:48 Ace.Xile wrote:On December 01 2011 10:44 kofman wrote:On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote:Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out. Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful. Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential. Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL). All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time. Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" + Show Spoiler +. My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon. And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm. Theres your explanation about why Terran micro is harder than zerg or protoss micro. No need to restate everything that has been said already. That doesn't explain at all why terran micro is harder than other races. Period. It provides an argument as to why it should be, but gives no real examples as to why it is. Logically terran should be much micro harder than say zerg, but that's due to the fact that zerg macro by and large is considered harder. Everything you're quoting is just pro terrans saying their race is the hardest, go ask 99% of pros what they think is the hardest, and they will say their race. I'm asking for in game situations as to where the micro of terran units vastly outweighs the micro of other races units. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but since your in denial, I guess I have to... Terran has to: -split marines -target fire banelings -emp all of the toss army -kite zealots Zerg has to: -a move Protoss has to: -spam forcefields -amove which one sounds the hardest to you? Heres a direct quote from the AMA with TLO: Chahlz : Why are you so awesome at Zerg? I love what you do against Protoss. TLO : Zerg is EZ.
Hey I'm going to do the whole "dramatically oversimplify what you have to do but make what I have to do appear harder in a list" thing too.
Terran has to:
- Stim
- A move
Zerg has to:
- Connect banes
- Hit fungals
- A move
Protoss has to:
- Blink micro a shit ton
- land perfect force fields
- Throw up guardian shields
- Land perfect storms
- Feedback all medis, ghosts, infestors, etc.
- Spread against EMP
What sounds hardest to you? If you say Terran you are simply in denial.
For the record, I don't actually agree with the bullshit I just said. The fact is, it is impossible to determine an "easiest" race. In doing so, you are assuming that there are no variations in playstyles, that all builds and compositions within each race are equally difficult to manage, and every single player has the exact same skill set. None of those things are remotely true.
Please close this thread lol, I'm getting sick of the incredibly stupid things being posted here.
|
On December 01 2011 11:00 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 10:58 Chamenas wrote:On December 01 2011 10:53 kofman wrote:
I shouldn't even have to explain this, but since your in denial, I guess I have to...
Terran has to:
-split marines
-target fire banelings
-emp all of the toss army
-kite zealots
Zerg has to:
-a move
Protoss has to:
-spam forcefields
-amove
which one sounds the hardest to you? Oh, right. Protoss doesn't have to keep Zealots at the front of their ball. They don't have to split High Templar (or even other units in their army against EMP). They don't have to blink their Stalkers (a rather subpar unit in the mid to late game without the upgrade). There are many many things that both Zerg and Protoss have to do for Micro, just because you don't understand them or know what they are doesn't mean they don't exist and it's disingenuous of you to post as if you do understand. It confuses players who are ignorant to the truth and take in only what others post. I can't believe you are even disputing the fact that Terran is the most micro intensive race. Its common knowledge.
Lots of things that are "common knowledge" are, in fact, not true. And they change too, fancy that. In a few months, a new race will be the "hardest" race. I'm sorry, I cannot argue with someone who cannot actually deal in terms of logic and facts and who refuses to look beyond their own perspective.
|
On December 01 2011 11:00 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 10:58 Chamenas wrote:On December 01 2011 10:53 kofman wrote:
I shouldn't even have to explain this, but since your in denial, I guess I have to...
Terran has to:
-split marines
-target fire banelings
-emp all of the toss army
-kite zealots
Zerg has to:
-a move
Protoss has to:
-spam forcefields
-amove
which one sounds the hardest to you? Oh, right. Protoss doesn't have to keep Zealots at the front of their ball. They don't have to split High Templar (or even other units in their army against EMP). They don't have to blink their Stalkers (a rather subpar unit in the mid to late game without the upgrade). There are many many things that both Zerg and Protoss have to do for Micro, just because you don't understand them or know what they are doesn't mean they don't exist and it's disingenuous of you to post as if you do understand. It confuses players who are ignorant to the truth and take in only what others post. I can't believe you are even disputing the fact that Terran is the most micro intensive race. Its common knowledge.
Yep. In fact, at least 30% of people agree with that fact.
Source: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all
|
On December 01 2011 11:01 BuddhaMonk wrote:
I would argue that all three races are fundamentally difficult to balance due to the design choices Blizzard has made in SC2 when compared to SC1.
Even with all the progress that has been made in the meta-game and with balance patches, I would estimate that the majority of all matches come down to one big battle, and the victor of this battle will almost always go on to win the match.
For Protoss, units like Colossus, blink stalkers and HT's mean that it's common for the game to swing heavily in their favor if the opponent does not respond correctly to these massive damage units. For Blizzard to balance these force multiplier units, they give means for other races to counter those units. The problem is that either the opponent will counter correctly and often destroy the protoss, or the opponent will not and be subsequently destroyed. There is very little middle ground where massing 'average' (or non force multiplying) units by both sides, and the multiple battles between them, determine the victor.
For Zerg I consider the larva mechanic to be the economic & production equivalent of the Colossus. We've seen time and time again where Zerg's will either run over their opponent by being able to severely out-produce their opponents, or they'll get totally destroyed because they built a round of drones too many. Again there's a lack of middle ground where a back and forth can occur.
I agree with your statement sir. Also with the design of SC2. It's heading even worse with HotS, look at what they're adding...Replicant (copy the other races unit -__-), Viper ("get over here" ability). These are not adding micro, it's just spells, we already have enough spells in Fungal, Storm, Emp, etc. We need more Micro, and fixes to design imbalances, not purely gimmick spells that they pulled from WoW.
|
On December 01 2011 11:04 SpunXtain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 10:55 Chamenas wrote:
There doesn't need to be 100% proof, just something concrete. I'd love to discuss, if there was something to discuss, but there isn't. The original poster asserted an opinion as fact, people have called him out on it, other posters are continuing to assert opinion as fact.
Believe it or not, a hypothesis still needs support. Pulling a hypothesis out of thin air is not true theory, it's speculation, and speculation is generally bad if you're trying to make a real argument about concrete things.
There is concrete information out there, statistics about how races match up against each other at various skill levels, all of which would be relevant here, and all of which are being ignored.
Furthermore, a hypothesis is a statement, not a graph. A graph present the illusion of a conclusion. "I have found x data, and have summarized it in a neat little graph for you". When people see a graph, they often, ignorantly, assume you have created the graph based on actual findings. As such, it's misleading to post a graph when the work hasn't been done to support it. At the very least, the graph should have come with a bolded disclaimer stating "this graph is based upon my own anecdotal speculation". Actually I didn't post the graph, as you'll note, someone else did. And as he stated it was very exagerated and simply trying to get the point of the argument across. And concrete data that foreign pros *seem* to be failing in top tournaments was provided, as you'll note if you read the initial post. Which is more than enough to atleast make a comment about, and discuss a possible explanation that is backed by theory.
It's a general "you". I lost track of who posted the graph and was simply replying to anyone who was defending the graph as a legitimate means of communicating the point without being misleading.
Pros failing in top tournaments is hardly concrete data, especially over so short a period of time, the sample size is just far too small and limited. You really have to get much larger numbers to see the whole story, which is why Blizzard, thank God, looks at everything, and not just pros in tournaments.
|
On December 01 2011 11:08 Chamenas wrote:
It's a general "you". I lost track of who posted the graph and was simply replying to anyone who was defending the graph as a legitimate means of communicating the point without being misleading.
Pros failing in top tournaments is hardly concrete data, especially over so short a period of time, the sample size is just far too small and limited. You really have to get much larger numbers to see the whole story, which is why Blizzard, thank God, looks at everything, and not just pros in tournaments.
Okay well I guess there's no point discussing the game in any way shape or form because we don't have sufficient data. MVP isn't one of the best players in the world, he hasn't even won the GSL 50 times yet, so we really have very minimal evidence that hes any good.
Maybe we should talk about something completely unrelated to SC2 on these forums, the games only been around for 16 months which is hardly enough time to start discussing it yet.
|
this post is very very strange, and i think this basically sums it up.
my race is the most difficult to play, but once you get good at it you get really good and win lots of games!
i agree that terran is the most micro intensive race. but i disagree that it is more challenging, nor that it requires more multitasking than others. yes protoss wants to keep one ball of units, yes zerg has big engagements with all of its units. but both protoss and zerg have to harass as well as terran and have to deal with the harass from the opposing races.
example: if terran drops in 4 places and pushes at the front. the opposing race has to deal with all the 4 drops (like the terran) and deal with the front in an effective manner. the amount of work you put in, is the amount of work you get out!!!!
|
I disagree with the original post whole-heartily. The game is not meant to be balanced anywhere besides pro 1v1. Money comes from pros and pro tournaments, if something is swaying the pros games one way or another, that's when/where it will be balanced. I have not seen one buff or nerf that wasn't a direct buff or nerf because of how it affected pro's. Whatever makes the game balanced for the pros is how the game is going to be balanced. If you would like to accept that or not it's up to you.
|
On December 01 2011 10:55 Chamenas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 10:46 Kwanny wrote:On December 01 2011 10:30 Chamenas wrote:
But the graph is meaningless. It's not actually supported by data. It's just drawn and creates a false representation based upon suppositions that aren't actually in any way based in fact. That's just wrong, and misleading. The true numbers show a very different tale. Unless there isn't 100% proof, it's called a hypothesis. We're here, because the OP wanted to post a hypothesis that is more or less represented by this graph and have a discussion about it. If you are just dismissing the graph, you're probably also not planning on discussing. There doesn't need to be 100% proof, just something concrete. I'd love to discuss, if there was something to discuss, but there isn't. The original poster asserted an opinion as fact, people have called him out on it, other posters are continuing to assert opinion as fact. Believe it or not, a hypothesis still needs support. Pulling a hypothesis out of thin air is not true theory, it's speculation, and speculation is generally bad if you're trying to make a real argument about concrete things. There is concrete information out there, statistics about how races match up against each other at various skill levels, all of which would be relevant here, and all of which are being ignored. Furthermore, a hypothesis is a statement, not a graph. A graph present the illusion of a conclusion. "I have found x data, and have summarized it in a neat little graph for you". When people see a graph, they often, ignorantly, assume you have created the graph based on actual findings. As such, it's misleading to post a graph when the work hasn't been done to support it. At the very least, the graph should have come with a bolded disclaimer stating "this graph is based upon my own anecdotal speculation".
We have an observation, that foreign terrans aren't performing as well as korean terrans do, and foreign terran's are definitely far from dominating, whereas koreans are. Koreans in general practise harder, and thus are more likely to be better. Problem: Why is there a discrepancy between those groups of terran players? Hypothesis-> Because there seems to be a different skill ceiling within the races. The graph here, so to speak, shouldn't be called a graph, and rather be understood as a model. And the model serves to help understand the skillceiling difference in races graphically.
And a theory is something different from a hypothesis. You put those equal. We use the term hypothesis, when we try to explain something, based on some observations that can't or haven't been explained well enough. A hypothesis can be dismissed, and new ones formed, in order to have an incentive to go after the truth. But we first need to explore the hypothesis. A theory works that way that it is an explanation of something based on a good amount of facts. If the hypothesis has developed enough, it might eventually end up as a theory, so long as every new evidence supports it. If not, the theory is dismissed, aswell. You need a lot of testing before you can call anything a theory.
Examples of hypotheses: Moon is made out of cheese. Trees can melt. Terran has the highest skill ceiling.
More or less theorylike: A marine is only cost efficient if it has done damage equal to 50 minerals (+upgrade cost/unit;averaged over all built marines).
|
Would've never thought Zerg is the most played Race,
OT - The fact that there are so few terrans at these plat/dia only prove that Terran is infact harder at lower levels
|
On December 01 2011 11:14 SpunXtain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 11:08 Chamenas wrote:
It's a general "you". I lost track of who posted the graph and was simply replying to anyone who was defending the graph as a legitimate means of communicating the point without being misleading.
Pros failing in top tournaments is hardly concrete data, especially over so short a period of time, the sample size is just far too small and limited. You really have to get much larger numbers to see the whole story, which is why Blizzard, thank God, looks at everything, and not just pros in tournaments. Okay well I guess there's no point discussing the game in any way shape or form because we don't have sufficient data. MVP isn't one of the best players in the world, he hasn't even won the GSL 50 times yet, so we really have very minimal evidence that hes any good. Maybe we should talk about something completely unrelated to SC2 on these forums, the games only been around for 16 months which is hardly enough time to start discussing it yet.
There's more than sufficient data in the short life of SC2. Data is not necessarily relative in its requirements, and, usually, it's absolute. When it is relative, it's relative to the overall population of data out there. So, for instance, a few dozen players over the past month or two is a really small amount of data in comparison to the millions of games played over half a year, which provides far stronger statistical significance in proportion to the true population than the former. And, as a result, you're more likely to find "the truth" in the latter.
There's plenty to discuss in this game, and there's even plenty to discuss in regards to whether or not one feels their race is balanced. It can be fun and entertaining. But that fun and entertainment gets shoveled to the side when people begin to use conjecture as fact and anecdote as data. "Because I've experienced it and a lot of people I know or have talked to agree with me" is not actually sufficient to support the claim that "Terran is the most micro intensive race". "I think Terran is the most micro intensive race" is fine, and a point that is open for discussion, it encourages other opinions. Dropping the "I think" simply because of your own experiences and anecdotes closes off the conversation and challenges others before they've even tried to enter it, there's an implied "I'm going to tell you you're wrong if you disagree". Not particularly discussion friendly.
That's my problem with what I've seen in this thread. From the outset it has taken the stance that its opinions are actually based in fact, when they're not. So, instead of actually opening up to discussion it's essentially stating "here's the problem as I see it, if you disagree, you're wrong". People who agree are giving the post props and defending it to the death. People who disagree are getting attacked and called ignorant and no one wins, because no one is necessarily right or wrong, and it's most definitely not a discussion.
|
On December 01 2011 11:22 blacklist_member wrote:Would've never thought Zerg is the most played Race, OT - The fact that there are so few terrans at these plat/dia only prove that Terran is infact harder at lower levels
Once again, this is proof of nothing. A races popularity has no necessary reflection on the skill required to play it, there's no data to support that, it's all conjecture.
On December 01 2011 11:19 Kwanny wrote:
We have an observation, that foreign terrans aren't performing as well as korean terrans do, and foreign terran's are definitely far from dominating, whereas koreans are. Koreans in general practise harder, and thus are more likely to be better. Problem: Why is there a discrepancy between those groups of terran players? Hypothesis-> Because there seems to be a different skill ceiling within the races. The graph here, so to speak, shouldn't be called a graph, and rather be understood as a model. And the model serves to help understand the skillceiling difference in races graphically.
And a theory is something different from a hypothesis. You put those equal. We use the term hypothesis, when we try to explain something, based on some observations that can't or haven't been explained well enough. A hypothesis can be dismissed, and new ones formed, in order to have an incentive to go after the truth. But we first need to explore the hypothesis. A theory works that way that it is an explanation of something based on a good amount of facts. If the hypothesis has developed enough, it might eventually end up as a theory, so long as every new evidence supports it. If not, the theory is dismissed, aswell. You need a lot of testing before you can call anything a theory.
Examples of hypotheses: Moon is made out of cheese. Trees can melt. Terran has the highest skill ceiling.
More or less theorylike: A marine is only cost efficient if it has done damage equal to 50 minerals (+upgrade cost/unit).
You make some decent points here, and it's one of the more intelligent posts I've seen in this thread.
Here's my issue:
Hypotheses are meant with the intention that they will eventually become theories when supported. But there are not attempts by any of these posters to legitimately support their hypotheses and make them theories. When asked to bring up data, they bring up information which is irrelevant to what they're trying to suggest (which is to say that it's invalid) such as mentioning a race's popularity as a means by which we can determine the level of skill it takes to play the race.
Furthermore, the hypothesis generated by your statements has issues simply because it is actually only one of many possible explanations to the "problem" you've presented (problem is in quotes because the problem itself isn't necessarily supported by the evidence, especially since the evidence is a very small data sample). How do you choose on hypothesis over the other? When does one abandon the hypothesis for another if they won't use or research data pertaining to it?
If it's truly a hypothesis, then why do the posters get defensive when it goes under scrutiny, as all good hypotheses should, and begin to lash out against the skeptics, telling them they should refer to what is "already known" as "common sense"?
|
I would more or less agree with the OP, except I think it might be to specific. I think there is no problem with one race having more "micro" potential then another. At the same time I feel that balancing a game around multiple skill levels(bronze to pro) is all but impossible if a game allows for micro. Let's take an arbitrary look at this concept(which to me seems to be the whole point of the OP).
We have unit Pirate and unit Ninja. If i just take a blob of Pirates and throw them at an equivalent blob of Ninjas, the Ninjas barely win every single time. Its just straight math. We could say then that at the lowest skill level(D-) no micro is done, just blob on blob, Ninjas win.
Now we move up a few skill levels(C+). Ninjas happen to have an ability(lets say throwing shurikens) that with a tiny bit of micro(just click S and it auto throws to the nearest enemy in range) gives them a slight edge over Pirates. People now have the skill to take advantage of this in a big fight and Ninjas easily win now if you just click S.
Now we move up a few more skill levels(A). It just so happens that Pirates are ironically faster then Ninjas, have range on their pistols vs the Ninjas sword, and fire their matchlock pistols just like a marines C-14, thus can stutter step. Due to the higher skill level players can have their Pirates stutter step after each shot and with their range being a bit higher now beat Ninjas rather easily.
So clearly if I try and balance the game around ALL players, there will be a skill level where one unit is better then the other, just look at the people who are C+, Ninja's rape this skill level, but if you nerf Ninjas to fix this, well they are getting demolished at the A level, so they would only get more demolished, they are also just barely winning at the D- level, so then Pirates might win at this level now. There is like no way to win....unless we remove all the micro and make it a pure numbers game so that the skill cap is now purely on who has the bigger blob. To me this is really what the OP is saying and its fairly obvious(this is only a 2 unit example....imagine including Pirate Birds and other such units) that trying to balance a game at all skill levels isn't just impossible, aka a poor design choice.
|
Well, the original post is saying it's specific to Terran, whereas you're saying it's a problem across the board, SIlver777, which I would agree with. Though I don't necessarily see it as a problem. It makes balance difficult, but it also makes the game more dynamic and exciting. Somewhere in there Blizzard can find a sweet spot, and, when they do, we're going to be truly rewarded both as players and spectators. I can't wait.
|
I agree with you!
If I were to try and summarize your argument for the idiots who think you're whining about balance, I would say the following.
Terran has the highest skill ceiling. An ideal way to balance the game would be to raise every other races skill ceiling. A bad way of balancing is to just give Terran units an overall nerf, thus lowering the skill ceiling to the same level as the other races, but also lowering the skill floor as a result, which makes it harder for low-level players. This is the problem Blizzard faces. Do they understand it and will they deal with it properly?
|
On December 01 2011 11:41 Divergence wrote:
I agree with you!
If I were to try and summarize your argument for the idiots who think you're whining about balance, I would say the following.
Terran has the highest skill ceiling. An ideal way to balance the game would be to raise every other races skill ceiling. A bad way of balancing is to just give Terran units an overall nerf, thus lowering the skill ceiling to the same level as the other races, but also lowering the skill floor as a result, which makes it harder for low-level players. This is the problem Blizzard faces. Do they understand it and will they deal with it properly?
You make a presumption that Terran has the highest skill ceiling. Where's your evidence? Where's the data to support such a claim?
You have the audacity to call people idiots for "not understanding" the argument, when it's clear that you don't even understand what some people who disagree with the post are actually arguing, and yet you show the same exact flaws as the original post and many others in this thread, using conjecture in order to make statements which sound like they're grounded in fact. It's misleading and does not lend itself to good discussion.
|
On December 01 2011 11:41 Divergence wrote:
I agree with you!
If I were to try and summarize your argument for the idiots who think you're whining about balance, I would say the following.
Terran has the highest skill ceiling. An ideal way to balance the game would be to raise every other races skill ceiling. A bad way of balancing is to just give Terran units an overall nerf, thus lowering the skill ceiling to the same level as the other races, but also lowering the skill floor as a result, which makes it harder for low-level players. This is the problem Blizzard faces. Do they understand it and will they deal with it properly?
Terran theoretically has the highest skill ceiling due to the incredible power of marines when microd properly, this however is not a problem because that skill ceiling or even reaching close to it isn't even reachable by people like flash, who is pretty much jesus on wheels. The APM that would be required is likely not even humanly possible. So yes the skill ceiling is, but it's not really because people will only get so far until it won't get any higher. It's arguable if it's even theoretically possible, but it's not by any means practical for any top pro in the RTS games in general. Expecting players to macro perfectly while microing 600 + (significant) APM isn't realistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
