|
On November 30 2011 14:43 thesauceishot wrote:
The thing that's cool about Terran units is that they're strong without micro, but have even stronger capabilities when micro'd. You mention banshees, well they actually have sick DPS, they fly, and they can cloak. They're strong without micro but like you said they be micro'd to kite marines. And marines, well they have insane DPS and when they're in a ball they are extremely cost effective even when 1a'ing, and with stim. And when combined with medivacs it makes stimming extremely forgiveable, so they move super fast too.But they and marauders can be stutter stepped to be even more cost effective. Tanks take no micro except positioning, but can be awesome when target firing a clump of banes. Vikings have very long range, but they can also kite.
So I disagree with the OP, Terran units don't have to be micro'd to be cost-effective. I'm biased, but I would say that Protoss units need to be micro'd the most in order to be cost effective. Stalkers have terrible dps, but they're mobile and they have a blink ability - all which make it a micro unit. Zeals don't take much micro but they do need to be positioned in front of the army at all times. Sentries have barely any DPS, and FF's are so crucial that if you miss one on your ramp you can lose a game.
Yeah let's just a-move our really strong terran marines and marauders into a giant deathball with 3-5 colossus, they're so strong even without micro!!
|
On November 30 2011 14:52 AxionSteel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 14:48 Durp wrote:
The foreign community has better Protoss and Zerg compared to their Terrans.
This can be seen by only Thorzain and Jinro putting up any kind of substantial, tangible results. (for this conversation, let's say without a korean contingent of players, the tournament doesn't matter much). Conversely, Naniwa, HuK, IdrA, Dimaga, Ret, and Stephano have all had pretty substantial victories.
The stable of foreign players that play zerg and protoss is at a higher skill level than their foreign terran counterparts, and as such, foreign zergs and protoss will do better. This seems to have nothing to do with design. Guess that means the Korean terrans are just way, way more talented than the Korean zergs and protosses then.
They kindof are. MVP was actually A-Class before he switched. MMA has the emperor training him and Nada is freaking beast.
|
i would say the problem is more that
a) they can deny scouting easily
b) they have 12 combat units to zerg's 9 and protoss's 10
|
It's hard to look at purely tournament results without looking at the games themselves. For one, we have no idea what kind of strategies were utilized and we have no idea what kind of mental/physical state the players were in. Second, we don't have any background on the racial balance at the start of the tournament. If you provided us with the racial stats, from beginning to end then that paints a clearer picture. If this is a thread about balancing terran, then you need to SERIOUSLY do some research and give us undeniable stats. And third, Tournaments are random quite frankly, just so happens that you can run into an amazing player or a very easy player. Look at stephano's run in IPL, tell me he didn't have at least a little luck in his bracket? Then look at Leenock in MLG, you can't tell me he had an easy time at all.
It's hard to look at this topic and take it seriously because you have to consider SO many factors. The skill of the players, the tactics and strategies used... Just listen to david kim talk about he balances the game and you'll understand it's not so damn simple. Where Terran has extreme flexibility and every unit is good, Zerg has larva injects for mass droning and tech switching and protoss has warp-ins, mass upgrades and sick as hell timing attacks.
WoL feels pretty balanced, GSL is finally evening out the races. If next GSL is dominated by zerg and protoss with very few terrans, then maybe we can come back and discuss this topic, but until then let's not fuel the fire.
|
Balancing across multiple levels lolololol that is so wrong.
I don't know how Blizzard handles balance issue but I sure do hope they don't do it according to "skill levels".
There is no skill levels. There is playing the game right and playing it wrong.
If you're not at the top of Masters league or beyond, you're playing it wrong and your game experience should be ignored and disregarded because you don't know wtf you're doing. That's how it should be balanced imo. lol multiple skill levels that makes me laugh and facepalm so munch.
|
Another point:
Here's this thread in a nutshell:
OP: Point
Supporters: Agree!
Detractors: You're Wrong!
Supporters: How can you disagree, you're stupid!
Detractors: Your points and counter points are wrong.
Supporters: Your points and counter points are wrong.
We can run around in circles all day, because all anyone is throwing up is opinion. Unfortunately, one side is asserting these opinions as something akin to fact, they're making claims like "most micro intensive race" or "race with the highest skill ceiling", claims which require evidence, of which very little to none is being offered (and when it is being offered, it's usually unrelated).
Neither side is right, nor is either side wrong. But, here's the kicker: the burden of proof isn't on the detractors. We're not the ones making a claim which needs to be supported. I'm not saying that Terran isn't the most "Micro Intensive" "Skill Required" "Highest Ceiling" race because I'm not qualified to make that judgment, nor do I have the data to support it. All I'm asking for is the data to support the equally ridiculous claim that the Terran race is all of those things.
It's true that the original argument was much broader than that one claim, but, the fact of the matter is that the rest of the argument hinges on the assumption being true. If that assumption is not true then we can interject with [your favorite race here] instead. Maybe it's not Terrans that have the problem being balanced because they require so much micro and skill, maybe it's Zerg? Who knows? Suddenly the entire thing shifts simply because the basis of the argument was founded on an unsupported presumption.
Does that make sense? Maybe? I should probably listen to the number one rule of the internet and realize that no matter what I post I'm never going to change your mind. If you're going to stubbornly exist that what you believe is true and that the evidence you've presented is sufficient, I suppose nothing will change your mind, and, as a result, we'll just continue in pointless circles indefinitely.
|
I really dont agree with the idea that terran benefit more from micro than other races. I just don't see this to be the case. Certainly there are units on both sides which dont benefit from micro but i dont see that terran suffer less from this. Also consider how players are always getting better. It would be silly to argue that the skills of foreigners now are not past those of koreans 6 months ago, nevertheless, terran domination has been intact throughout.
|
On November 30 2011 15:36 freetgy wrote:
Each race needs more micro capabilities, not less.
User was temp banned for this post.
If he hadn't ruined his post beforehand with a bunch of garbage, this would have been another contribution I could agree with.
|
On December 01 2011 12:02 Chamenas wrote:
Another point:
Here's this thread in a nutshell:
OP: Point
Supporters: Agree!
Detractors: You're Wrong!
Supporters: How can you disagree, you're stupid!
Detractors: Your points and counter points are wrong.
Supporters: Your points and counter points are wrong.
We can run around in circles all day, because all anyone is throwing up is opinion. Unfortunately, one side is asserting these opinions as something akin to fact, they're making claims like "most micro intensive race" or "race with the highest skill ceiling", claims which require evidence, of which very little to none is being offered (and when it is being offered, it's usually unrelated).
Neither side is right, nor is either side wrong. But, here's the kicker: the burden of proof isn't on the detractors. We're not the ones making a claim which needs to be supported. I'm not saying that Terran isn't the most "Micro Intensive" "Skill Required" "Highest Ceiling" race because I'm not qualified to make that judgment, nor do I have the data to support it. All I'm asking for is the data to support the equally ridiculous claim that the Terran race is all of those things.
It's true that the original argument was much broader than that one claim, but, the fact of the matter is that the rest of the argument hinges on the assumption being true. If that assumption is not true then we can interject with [your favorite race here] instead. Maybe it's not Terrans that have the problem being balanced because they require so much micro and skill, maybe it's Zerg? Who knows? Suddenly the entire thing shifts simply because the basis of the argument was founded on an unsupported presumption.
Does that make sense? Maybe? I should probably listen to the number one rule of the internet and realize that no matter what I post I'm never going to change your mind. If you're going to stubbornly exist that what you believe is true and that the evidence you've presented is sufficient, I suppose nothing will change your mind, and, as a result, we'll just continue in pointless circles indefinitely.
There is no simple way to actually PROVE that Terran has the highest skill ceiling compared to Protoss and Zerg. Proving is something indeed really strong. What the OP (and supporters) are actually doing is stating that Terran has the highest skill ceiling based on intuition (what some people call common sense). This statement is supported by the fact that T foreigners lose to foreigner P/Z while Korean T wins against Korean P/Z (in general sense). You obviously will say that this fact doesnt PROVE anything and I agree with that. But for those that are not obviously biased (like you) this fact at least SUPPORTS the hypothesis.
|
On December 01 2011 11:49 OSM.OneManArmy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 14:43 thesauceishot wrote:
The thing that's cool about Terran units is that they're strong without micro, but have even stronger capabilities when micro'd. You mention banshees, well they actually have sick DPS, they fly, and they can cloak. They're strong without micro but like you said they be micro'd to kite marines. And marines, well they have insane DPS and when they're in a ball they are extremely cost effective even when 1a'ing, and with stim. And when combined with medivacs it makes stimming extremely forgiveable, so they move super fast too.But they and marauders can be stutter stepped to be even more cost effective. Tanks take no micro except positioning, but can be awesome when target firing a clump of banes. Vikings have very long range, but they can also kite.
So I disagree with the OP, Terran units don't have to be micro'd to be cost-effective. I'm biased, but I would say that Protoss units need to be micro'd the most in order to be cost effective. Stalkers have terrible dps, but they're mobile and they have a blink ability - all which make it a micro unit. Zeals don't take much micro but they do need to be positioned in front of the army at all times. Sentries have barely any DPS, and FF's are so crucial that if you miss one on your ramp you can lose a game. Yeah let's just a-move our really strong terran marines and marauders into a giant deathball with 3-5 colossus, they're so strong even without micro!! Marines and marauders wipe the floor with any unit composition of the same tier except maybe banelings when stimmed and a-moved. They are far less fragile than BW MM.
I for one think that the game would be really broken if a t1 unit can beat a t3 unit designed to counter said t1 unit without micro.
|
On December 01 2011 12:15 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 11:49 OSM.OneManArmy wrote:On November 30 2011 14:43 thesauceishot wrote:
The thing that's cool about Terran units is that they're strong without micro, but have even stronger capabilities when micro'd. You mention banshees, well they actually have sick DPS, they fly, and they can cloak. They're strong without micro but like you said they be micro'd to kite marines. And marines, well they have insane DPS and when they're in a ball they are extremely cost effective even when 1a'ing, and with stim. And when combined with medivacs it makes stimming extremely forgiveable, so they move super fast too.But they and marauders can be stutter stepped to be even more cost effective. Tanks take no micro except positioning, but can be awesome when target firing a clump of banes. Vikings have very long range, but they can also kite.
So I disagree with the OP, Terran units don't have to be micro'd to be cost-effective. I'm biased, but I would say that Protoss units need to be micro'd the most in order to be cost effective. Stalkers have terrible dps, but they're mobile and they have a blink ability - all which make it a micro unit. Zeals don't take much micro but they do need to be positioned in front of the army at all times. Sentries have barely any DPS, and FF's are so crucial that if you miss one on your ramp you can lose a game. Yeah let's just a-move our really strong terran marines and marauders into a giant deathball with 3-5 colossus, they're so strong even without micro!! Marines and marauders wipe the floor with any unit composition of the same tier except maybe banelings when stimmed and a-moved. They are far less fragile than BW MM. I for one think that the game would be really broken if a t1 unit can beat a t3 unit designed to counter said t1 unit without micro.
Yes, yes, you've stated your opinion several times in this thread already as well as calling it to be closed.
I think the most difficult thing about balancing for blizzard at this point will be the foreigner-korean differences. Foreigners are still progamers, so they have a countable opinion in balancing.... but koreans can just so easily get more usage out of units. i would prefer for them to find a way to even out all the races through changes to z/p because terran just feels fantastic when you can pull off some of that pro micro... but that's very unlikely, unfortunately :S
|
Russian Federation142 Posts
On December 01 2011 11:59 TuElite wrote:
Balancing across multiple levels lolololol that is so wrong.
I don't know how Blizzard handles balance issue but I sure do hope they don't do it according to "skill levels".
There is no skill levels. There is playing the game right and playing it wrong.
If you're not at the top of Masters league or beyond, you're playing it wrong and your game experience should be ignored and disregarded because you don't know wtf you're doing. That's how it should be balanced imo. lol multiple skill levels that makes me laugh and facepalm so munch.
You've missed OP's point. The OP was comparing foreign sc2 terran pros to korean sc1/2 terran pros. That's a good bit better than master league. Foreign terrans can't win tournaments. Korean terrans easily take tournament wins over and over again.
On December 01 2011 12:15 RavenLoud wrote:
Marines and marauders wipe the floor with any unit composition of the same tier except maybe banelings when stimmed and a-moved. They are far less fragile than BW MM.
I for one think that the game would be really broken if a t1 unit can beat a t3 unit designed to counter said t1 unit without micro.
What tier 3 units can terrans field in the course of a typical game? There is no balance based on "tiers" in sc2. This isn't Supreme Commander.
SC1 marines were far less fragile in the TvZ matchup because lurkers aren't as stupidly overpowered as banelings are. 1 Lurker cost: 150 gas cost total. That's 6 banelings worth of gas in sc2. You'd be lucky if one lurker killed one marine in sc1 over the course of a normal game. How many marines can 6 banelings kill?
TvP and TvT they got instagibbed ya. But mech didn't suck in sc1.
|
On December 01 2011 11:31 Chamenas wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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"?
That's why I decided to make my post above. To give people a structure to work with, and I'm probably not the only one that thinks that people just give their opinions instead of well argued statements or facts/statistic. That's the major problems with forums anyway. Here, hypothesis form once someone decides to make a more or less supported thread, while the posters discuss. I completely agree with you that the way it's running, probably won't give any satisfactory results, unfortunately. It should be that, as long as someone hasn't made their mind up yet, they shouldn't wholeheartedly post. But cmon, it's a forum. So, the best one can do is to read as many opinions as one can, and weight and evaluate the infos as best they can.
And the only reason I told you that the graph is not worth nothing, was because it's a graphic that well models the OPs hypothesis. You didn't give it credits for the role it was supposed to have. And you should have at least thought it through, how the hypothesis could work instead of dismissing as false, simply because it didn't have arguments (that you agree on). If the hypothesis is close to the truth, but the statements are false, the hypothesis is still close to the truth. In predicate logic, it's the same. An implication as a whole is always true, if the outcome is true, even though the statement might be wrong, because the way it was derived was wrong (still doesn't make it less true).
On the terran topic, it is a fact that it used to be that there were much more terran players than zergs, but nowdays, the percentage has gone down. Else, on average, a terran player has been playing less games than a protoss or a zerg. So, one could definitely state, that terran has become less and less popular for whatever reasons, so that terran players either stop playing, switch races (many more than that are coming over at least), and those that don't play less than their counterparts. I have rough estimates, but by first glance, those numbers are pretty statistically significant. Maybe I get motivated enough to work something up.
Anyways, may it be the patches (terran nerfs, z/p buffs), the metagame, terran player mentality, the race mechanics, or the skill ceiling (or for any other reason(read hypothesis)), playing terran doesn't seem to be a very satisfactory experience, and doesn't seem to motivate people. Why is that? I personally believe, it's because terran players don't *perceive* the game to be fair. I believe that the basic motivation of someone playing a game after the current one, especially after a loss, is that one believes that they will be able to win the next game, and that they'll improve gradually, and that they have enough mental condition to keep their game up. You don't play the game, if you know you'll lose most likely, and you probably won't play, if you're tired as hell, and if you do, you'll probably lose (and then you'll be pissed, and won't play). You might play, even if you're not improving, but about the first two, I'd like to find someone who disagrees.
If either of them is true to some extend, ruling out them being the only contributors, then I'd like to explore each individually. Why is it, that terrans don't think as much that they'll win the next one? Firstly, maybe, because terrans are told, and terrans experience that they are at a disadvantage the longer the game goes, and feel like playing against a timebomb. That they feel that they need to harass and do damage to become even with the opponent. That playing just like the opponent won't result in a win. This would feel overwhelming. Those are reasons that I have come up with for now why it might be demotivational.
If the latter is somewhat true, then terrans might get tired more easily then zergs/protoss. It might be due to the fast-paced micro required for terrans. It might be due to the mental stress of believing, that simply macroing won't always win you the game. It might be because of the need to constantly produce instead of in waves. It might be due to the slow army movement speed of almost any terran unit compared to the other races, resulting in more stress. Maybe it's the frequent badmanner received that they don't deserve the win, when terran players win. That all would drain some mental toughness.
Now that is some thought I have about why terran nowdays has become the least played race. That unfortunately doesn't explain much why terran hasn't been as succesful when played as a foreigner, which is the original issue. That's why I am in this thread. Trying to read what others think.
|
On December 01 2011 12:15 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 12:02 Chamenas wrote:
Another point:
Here's this thread in a nutshell:
OP: Point
Supporters: Agree!
Detractors: You're Wrong!
Supporters: How can you disagree, you're stupid!
Detractors: Your points and counter points are wrong.
Supporters: Your points and counter points are wrong.
We can run around in circles all day, because all anyone is throwing up is opinion. Unfortunately, one side is asserting these opinions as something akin to fact, they're making claims like "most micro intensive race" or "race with the highest skill ceiling", claims which require evidence, of which very little to none is being offered (and when it is being offered, it's usually unrelated).
Neither side is right, nor is either side wrong. But, here's the kicker: the burden of proof isn't on the detractors. We're not the ones making a claim which needs to be supported. I'm not saying that Terran isn't the most "Micro Intensive" "Skill Required" "Highest Ceiling" race because I'm not qualified to make that judgment, nor do I have the data to support it. All I'm asking for is the data to support the equally ridiculous claim that the Terran race is all of those things.
It's true that the original argument was much broader than that one claim, but, the fact of the matter is that the rest of the argument hinges on the assumption being true. If that assumption is not true then we can interject with [your favorite race here] instead. Maybe it's not Terrans that have the problem being balanced because they require so much micro and skill, maybe it's Zerg? Who knows? Suddenly the entire thing shifts simply because the basis of the argument was founded on an unsupported presumption.
Does that make sense? Maybe? I should probably listen to the number one rule of the internet and realize that no matter what I post I'm never going to change your mind. If you're going to stubbornly exist that what you believe is true and that the evidence you've presented is sufficient, I suppose nothing will change your mind, and, as a result, we'll just continue in pointless circles indefinitely. There is no simple way to actually PROVE that Terran has the highest skill ceiling compared to Protoss and Zerg. Proving is something indeed really strong. What the OP (and supporters) are actually doing is stating that Terran has the highest skill ceiling based on intuition (what some people call common sense). This statement is supported by the fact that T foreigners lose to foreigner P/Z while Korean T wins against Korean P/Z (in general sense). You obviously will say that this fact doesnt PROVE anything and I agree with that. But for those that are not obviously biased (like you) this fact at least SUPPORTS the hypothesis.
When I use statements like "burden of proof" it's because "burden of evidence" wouldn't make sense. I never said they had to prove their point, only that the burden was on them, but that burden is to produce any sort of concrete evidence which is convincing. Ideally it would be provable, and therefore irrefutable, but any intelligent person can reason that that's not likely in this situation, so, instead, convincing evidence would be sufficient. But even that hasn't been offered. NOTHING has been offered except for conjecture.
You can label me biased all you want, but I'm not the one making ridiculous claims. I'm just asking for evidence, evidence which hasn't been produced. Nothing has supported the hypothesis except conjecture, assumptions and anecdotes. That is NOT how you support a hypothesis. "Intuition" is not a worthy bias-free way to suggest anything.
My intuition tells me that Protoss has a higher ceiling than Terran. How will you refute that? I'm sure if I wanted I could get people to agree with my stance. Are we going to have a popularity contest? Need I show you all the examples of where common sense fails?
|
On December 01 2011 11:58 Vei wrote:
i would say the problem is more that
a) they can deny scouting easily
b) they have 12 combat units to zerg's 9 and protoss's 10
a) All the races can deny scouting easily. Stalkers run down workers no problem and Protoss can wall regardless. Zerg can use lings to keep scouts away as well. And before someone says "bu-but scan!" no good Terran player is going to scan in the early stages of the game. It isn't worth it.
b) Where are you getting 10? Zealot, stalker, sentry, high templar, dark templar, archon, immortal, colossus, phoenix, void ray, carrier, mothership, warp prism makes 13 units not counting observers since they don't serve a "direct" combat role.
|
@ Kwanny - I respect your knowledge of logic and argument. My points against the logic of opposing arguments was less about the structure and more about the fallibility of the information they were trying to support. But I'm very tired now and have been for a bit, so I'm quite certain that my ability to make sense is falling apart. It doesn't help that there are still individuals in this thread who insist on resorting to personal attacks to make their point, which always frustrates me.
Good night!
|
On December 01 2011 08:21 Rye. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 07:09 Plansix wrote:On December 01 2011 06:58 ppdealer wrote:On December 01 2011 06:11 mlspmatt wrote:Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult Yeah, that's why Terran is doing so well outside Korea. Come on. With the increased skill cap Terran has comes the OBLIGATION to use that skill cap to equal the other races. The micro and multitasking is clearly more difficult, but you can delude yourself in believing otherwise. You have no proof that this so called "increased skill cap" lies in micros requirement as opposed to game sense requirement. And Terran are obliged to use their race to their full potential? LOL I don't think you understand the whole idea of competitive gaming. You must really hate esport if you think players should be able to do well at the top without actually using everything that's given to them in the game. If there's something truly broken, Blizzard should just fix what's broken, i.e. increase the animation cool-down for marine/marauder so they can't be stutter-stepped as well, just like they did with reaver in BW. The wrong thing to do is to make one race so imbalanced at the top just to compensate all the scrubs at the lower level that it will literally destroys the whole competitive scene. Last time I checked there's no Global Red Alert League or anything resembling it. We will soon if everyone starts switching to Terran at the top level play because it's the only race viable. TLDR: (Some) low-level Terran are really a bunch of entitled crybabies. I don't know where people get the audacity to put their own low-level frustration ahead of the top-level play, where people's careers and livelihood are directly affected by game balance. You are braver than I sir, but I totally agree. All of the recent threads have basicly come down to "make the game easier for me, you removed all the abusive things I used and its not fair". I'm amazed so many people think the bronze - platinum players arnt important. We make up 80% of all players. This is blizzards design. I'd have little interest in SC2 if i didn't play it and enjoy playing it. I watch player streams and tournaments, and keep an eye on TL forums. I imagine many other bronze - plats do the same and they are probably a large proportion of stream viewers. my point If we bronze to plat players arnt happy, we'll leave. THATS 80% OF PLAYERS. so get of your high horse about pro players and their livelihoods when WE 80% allow them to have it.
Blizzard specifically stated that they care about team games and low levels. Dustin Browser said in the HotS interview that they didn't want to make shredder drop too unforgiving for the bronze players.
However, it is absolutely UNJUSTIFIED to claim that the balance of a game must be catered towards the beginners, giving them ezpz wins so they won't leave. Blizzard want Starcraft to have the following in order to succed as an e-sport: easy to understand game dynamic, easy to learn yet impossible to master difficulty curve and balance at the top level. It is absurd to blame that the game is not giving you a easy time so you will have less incentive to improve.
|
On December 01 2011 12:40 serge wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 11:59 TuElite wrote:
Balancing across multiple levels lolololol that is so wrong.
I don't know how Blizzard handles balance issue but I sure do hope they don't do it according to "skill levels".
There is no skill levels. There is playing the game right and playing it wrong.
If you're not at the top of Masters league or beyond, you're playing it wrong and your game experience should be ignored and disregarded because you don't know wtf you're doing. That's how it should be balanced imo. lol multiple skill levels that makes me laugh and facepalm so munch. You've missed OP's point. The OP was comparing foreign sc2 terran pros to korean sc1/2 terran pros. That's a good bit better than master league. Foreign terrans can't win tournaments. Korean terrans easily take tournament wins over and over again. Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 12:15 RavenLoud wrote:
Marines and marauders wipe the floor with any unit composition of the same tier except maybe banelings when stimmed and a-moved. They are far less fragile than BW MM.
I for one think that the game would be really broken if a t1 unit can beat a t3 unit designed to counter said t1 unit without micro. What tier 3 units can terrans field in the course of a typical game? There is no balance based on "tiers" in sc2. This isn't Supreme Commander. SC1 marines were far less fragile in the TvZ matchup because lurkers aren't as stupidly overpowered as banelings are. 1 Lurker cost: 150 gas cost total. That's 6 banelings worth of gas in sc2. You'd be lucky if one lurker killed one marine in sc1 over the course of a normal game. How many marines can 6 banelings kill?TvP and TvT they got instagibbed ya. But mech didn't suck in sc1.
6 banelings can kill anywhere from 20 to 0 marines depending on the situation, if you send 6 banes towards a marine/sieged tank line you'd likely get 0.
lol @ lurkers not killing marines. Though it is true that the space control aspect of the lurker is more arguably more important, they murdered marines, even with a Casy split you'd still lose a few. Anyway enough of this useless theorycraft. Marines are beefier in SC2, and marauders are so tank against everything.
The tier thing is indeed difficult to assess in Starcraft, other than Zerg it isn't very well defined. You can argue that banshees are t3 even. Nevertheless, a colossus is a typical hardcounter unit to infantry, and it isn't as good as the reaver was against bio because of the marauder, not a bad thing since it made bio viable.
This mindset that we shouldn't use one unit because the opponent could shut it down with their counter is short sighted. Why don't you stop building marines against storm then? Oh wait because you can build ghosts to counter the templars, and you can hit where the templars aren't with drops and abuse whatever the situation offers. With the amount of gas terran float in the lategame, it's not like there isn't room for improvements. Ravens probably need a acceleration buff though, they are hard to keep alive.
|
I'm not sure why people can't seem to accept the possibility that the race they play may require less skill than another race at a particular level of play. In BW, there's consensus that Protoss is a bit easier while Terran is a bit harder at a certain level.
Maybe what's wrong is that people in ladder games too often use the excuse "your race is easy and that's why I lost" and BM their opponents with this opinion. If people care so much about this, then I can see them wanting to avoid affirming the conclusions of the OP because then it gives whatever race requires more skill a free pass to say this all the time.
People get mad when they perceive that they are a better player but they still lose the game. This is the wrong way to think about it. You should think about your games as a test of how well you can play your chosen race against how well your opponent can play their race. Because that's how the ladder matches you.
Unless you're actually a professional player that's going to win or lose money based on the outcomes of your games, you shouldn't care if your opponent has a higher or lower "potential skill level." Even if your race is easier to play, you should be proud of your wins because the system matched you against someone that was supposed to have your skill level with whatever race they play.
|
Make protoss and zerg units better with good micro, but worse without micro. /thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
