|
On December 25 2011 08:49 TheTurk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 05:48 Lebzetu wrote:
EDIT: And yes, I think ZvP is Zerg favored and that ZvT is the most balanced matchup in the game. ZvT has NEVER, in the history of SC2 SINCE THE BETA been balanced, on any server, in a any region, in any patch. Terran has ALWAYS statistically had a higher win rate. This is true both on ladder and tourneys all over the world.
even if statistically thats true I would still say zvt is the most balanced match up in the game.
|
i wish someone would ask about the process of balancing something out... how much internal testing and how its ranked or rated? is anything computer calculated in terms of case scenarios? etc...how do you balance from a to b and how some decision gets final approval.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50533 Posts
On December 25 2011 10:56 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2011 08:49 TheTurk wrote:On December 22 2011 05:48 Lebzetu wrote:
EDIT: And yes, I think ZvP is Zerg favored and that ZvT is the most balanced matchup in the game. ZvT has NEVER, in the history of SC2 SINCE THE BETA been balanced, on any server, in a any region, in any patch. Terran has ALWAYS statistically had a higher win rate. This is true both on ladder and tourneys all over the world. even if statistically thats true I would still say zvt is the most balanced match up in the game.
ZvT has never been 50% ever in the history of starcraft its always been terran favored.
its never going to change.
I'm not complaining either, i'm just saying that there is no point to it.
|
I hope they don't get rid of mothership. It's just beginning to find a place in a lot end game PvZ in dealing with the newish Zerg death ball of infestor/brood, Carrier is a POS though. I can't imagine any unit being worser.
|
I hope they hold out on nerfs and buffs for a few more months. Already, since october of when this interview was given, we've seen a 10% shift in PvT in favor of protoss and this may possibly still be an ongoing trend.
|
On December 26 2011 13:15 BLinD-RawR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2011 10:56 blade55555 wrote:On December 25 2011 08:49 TheTurk wrote:On December 22 2011 05:48 Lebzetu wrote:
EDIT: And yes, I think ZvP is Zerg favored and that ZvT is the most balanced matchup in the game. ZvT has NEVER, in the history of SC2 SINCE THE BETA been balanced, on any server, in a any region, in any patch. Terran has ALWAYS statistically had a higher win rate. This is true both on ladder and tourneys all over the world. even if statistically thats true I would still say zvt is the most balanced match up in the game. ZvT has never been 50% ever in the history of starcraft its always been terran favored. its never going to change. I'm not complaining either, i'm just saying that there is no point to it.
I think the reason why nobody ever complains about ZvT is because Terrans on ladder can't abuse their micro. So so so often I see a bunch of blings crash into a bunch of marines poorly split or Terrans doing a timing push and then never being aggressive again.
Then when I see the Korea Terrans, they split their marines so effectively, drop all over the place and do deadly timing pushes. Not to mention Marines are so good when microed properly.
It's really evident in their winrates too. A lot of Terrans are good at TvZ, but only a few are good at ZvT. DRG, who is probably the best at ZvT only has a 62% win rate.
|
A. (David Kim) When we get rid of the units, we look at how often the units are used in a game. In Terran, all the units are often used, therefore there’s really nothing to get rid of. Instead of weakening Terran, we have added new units for the other races to make them strategically stronger.
Don't terran get the most new units overall? How does this make sense?
|
On December 26 2011 21:53 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +A. (David Kim) When we get rid of the units, we look at how often the units are used in a game. In Terran, all the units are often used, therefore there’s really nothing to get rid of. Instead of weakening Terran, we have added new units for the other races to make them strategically stronger. Don't terran get the most new units overall? How does this make sense?
It makes perfect sense. /bias
|
On December 26 2011 21:53 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +A. (David Kim) When we get rid of the units, we look at how often the units are used in a game. In Terran, all the units are often used, therefore there’s really nothing to get rid of. Instead of weakening Terran, we have added new units for the other races to make them strategically stronger. Don't terran get the most new units overall? How does this make sense?
Makes perfect sense in blizzard land.
|
|
|
Ooooh that's musci 4 my ears 
Go Nerf Terran seriously, do something 4 rines and give some Toss units a sense. Thx Kim
|
I believe packaging Blizzard Dota with HotS will lead to more sales overall, though it will lead to less people playing actual SC2.
|
On December 27 2011 08:19 WeaVerPrime wrote:Ooooh that's musci 4 my ears Go Nerf Terran seriously, do something 4 rines and give some Toss units a sense. Thx Kim
Dude that interview is more than 2 months old...
|
|
|
Are you serious? TLPD is now evidence that a certain race is weak/strong?
|
A. (David Kim) When we get rid of the units, we look at how often the units are used in a game. In Terran, all the units are often used, therefore there’s really nothing to get rid of. Instead of weakening Terran, we have added new units for the other races to make them strategically stronger.
Motherships and Carriers are seeing more play. Does this mean if these units continue to grow in use they might not remove them anymore? Also, did David miss the other point of the question? About why they decided to give Terran a super unit and take away Protoss's?
If one purchases the Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, one will still have the option to play the Terrans: Wings of Liberty.
Does Chris mean that you can play WoL without buying WoL if you have HotS? Does this mean that HotS and LotV might be full price, or close to it, instead of being cheaper since someone will have to buy WoL too?
Even within Blizzard, we sometimes fear that we have changed the game too much with the Heart of the Swarm. After the release, we will have to wait for the feedbacks and make final decisions.
Is David talking about the beta release? Why would you make final decisions after a game is released?
For example, in the Heart of the Swarm, there is a unit called “Shredder ” that cannot be used near his own units. Therefore the Heart of the Swarm will require the player to divide the army more.
I think the difference between the action, in some match ups at least, is not very different than in BW. In BW there were a lot of clashes where one would pull back or such, and fights went longer since units were less clumped. But in TvZ in SC2, I think some games have more action than the average BW game. Maybe not though. The question stated that in SC2 the battles are more climatic. I hope they mean in relation to the other clashes/fights throughout a game of SC2? Because if the deciding battle in a SC2 game is more climatic vs a BW deciding battle, that might actually be better for a game to be more boring and have less action but end up in 1 bigger, climatic battle.
PvZ is weird cus it's either a macro up to a deathball then push kind of game, or it's like a 2 base aggressive timing or all-in, in which the latter, especially, can lead to a very intense, back and forth micro-oriented action game.
TvP seems to be the match up where it is usually 2 big deathballs that clash
Also David here says that the Shredder will force players to divide up units. But won't it do the opposite? Right now, you have to divide up precious units you need in your main army to defend, or you have to split off forces from your main army to defend, which could be less optimal. But by introducing a new unit that should be better than both of those options, that can sit there and defend better and take up less food than the other units Terran would have previously used, does that not mean that Terran will actually have a stronger deathball? Also having better defense against counter-attacks in this case would mean there is less incentive for Zerg to split their army up. Unless they make Zerg better at counter-attacking and/or harassing to balance out the Shredder's role, I don't understand how this makes sense.
Furthermore... the Shredder is the only unit as of now whose purpose, according to David, is to encourage smaller deathballs right?
In the patch 1.4, Bionic units were very powerful. We are trying to make it so that Terran players play bio half the time and mechanic the other half the time.
I'm guessing he's saying Bio is strong because BFH was nerfed and so is seen less in TvT? But that's the only real thing isn't it? The EMP nerf didn't come yet, and BFH damage from 10 to 5 wasn't that big of a deal, though it did hurt a little in TvP.
I thought I remembered maybe Dustin or even David himself saying something previously (two times) about wanting to make bio the most common play style, or main play style, or whatever. Now they're saying half and half. If this is true, then cool.
But I guess this also means that Air is not intended to be "viable", at least not as a style/composition that you can do EVERY game, regardless of whether or not your opponent knows you are going Air (or later trying to transition into Air). I'm sort of disappointed lol. I talked with David one time and I asked him if Air was supposed to be a "viable strategy". He didn't answer that question xD.
Q. In the Expansion Pack (SC2), you tried to change the flow of the multiplayer games….
I understand the answer but I do not understand the basis for the question...
Also, CROSS-REGIONAL BATTLES YAY! And before HotS! :D
On December 27 2011 13:19 Newbistic wrote:
I believe packaging Blizzard Dota with HotS will lead to more sales overall, though it will lead to less people playing actual SC2.
Some people might try SC2 then since they bought it... you never know.
|
On December 27 2011 15:37 doko100 wrote:Are you serious? TLPD is now evidence that a certain race is weak/strong?
ELO is a reliable mathematical formula showing them as weaker. You could always look at months of Code S and results too for a more narrow quantification. Statistically they are weak at the top period even David Kim says so.
|
On December 27 2011 16:01 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 15:37 doko100 wrote:Are you serious? TLPD is now evidence that a certain race is weak/strong? ELO is a reliable mathematical formula showing them as weaker. You could always look at months of Code S and results too for a more narrow quantification. Statistically they are weak at the top period even David Kim says so.
First of all, this interview is more than 2 months old, so "he says" is wrong. "he said" is correct.
And second of all, TLPD is inaccurate as hell, a system in which Deezer has a higher ranking than someone like White-Ra or Boxer can not be taken seriously.
edit: Calling TLPD reliable is actually a joke. Or can you seriously reliably conclude that Deezer is better than Boxer and White-Ra?
|
On December 27 2011 16:04 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 16:01 tdt wrote:On December 27 2011 15:37 doko100 wrote:Are you serious? TLPD is now evidence that a certain race is weak/strong? ELO is a reliable mathematical formula showing them as weaker. You could always look at months of Code S and results too for a more narrow quantification. Statistically they are weak at the top period even David Kim says so. First of all, this interview is more than 2 months old, so "he says" is wrong. "he said" is correct. And second of all, TLPD is inaccurate as hell, a system in which Deezer has a higher ranking than someone like White-Ra or Boxer can not be taken seriously. edit: Calling TLPD reliable is actually a joke. Or can you seriously reliably conclude that Deezer is better than Boxer and White-Ra?
I'd think again before you disrespect something that people put tons of effort into.
ELO just shows how well someone is doing right now. Deezer probably won a tournament or placed high or something. Also, he might be a huge stream cheating/sniping asshole, but he's actually not that bad a player. (Not to say he's Whitera's or Boxer's level.
|
On December 27 2011 16:15 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 16:04 doko100 wrote:On December 27 2011 16:01 tdt wrote:On December 27 2011 15:37 doko100 wrote:Are you serious? TLPD is now evidence that a certain race is weak/strong? ELO is a reliable mathematical formula showing them as weaker. You could always look at months of Code S and results too for a more narrow quantification. Statistically they are weak at the top period even David Kim says so. First of all, this interview is more than 2 months old, so "he says" is wrong. "he said" is correct. And second of all, TLPD is inaccurate as hell, a system in which Deezer has a higher ranking than someone like White-Ra or Boxer can not be taken seriously. edit: Calling TLPD reliable is actually a joke. Or can you seriously reliably conclude that Deezer is better than Boxer and White-Ra? I'd think again before you disrespect something that people put tons of effort into. ELO just shows how well someone is doing right now. Deezer probably won a tournament or placed high or something. Also, he might be a huge stream cheating/sniping asshole, but he's actually not that bad a player. (Not to say he's Whitera's or Boxer's level.
doesnt change the fact that its inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
