|
On January 06 2012 20:42 deadmau wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 17:51 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 16:08 biology]major wrote:On January 06 2012 16:03 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK. more gg = more skill, its an attitude thing. The game balance has nothing to do with the mindset of getting better and ignoring the rest. This is why some people are in gm and beyond, while many are stuck in a hopeless shithole The attitude is about realizing that you control 90% of the game. It's, as you said, a mindset for improving, not a model of how games are actually decided. "The only reason you didn't win was because you didn't have better macro/micro/strategy." is untrue, but it makes a good meme. You have horrible mindset, and you will forever remain in limbo with your "racial imbalance" mindset. Pros hardly ever complain about racial imbalance, and again i said "hardly" not "never." Especially the tip-top pros we all oh so love to put on a pedestal, yea the Koreans. When they run into losses, they find solutions, they don't sit there and whine about this race is imbalanced this and that, that's why they are fucking pros. This is why you will never ever become a pro heck you won't even be tip top tier foreigner, because you sit there and whine all day about this huge immovable obstacle that stands in the way of you winning tiny meaningless games, where as pros play thousands and thousands and realize their losses are nothing but their mistakes, and that is it.For Christ's sake if you are not a fucking pro, you have almost no right to complain about balance, you are fucking terrible at the game, so there's other shit holding you back. I am not pro, so when I lose, it's because of my mistakes, and my piss poor mechanics that are not up to par with pros/my opponent, this is fucking fact! Quit the bullshit my fellow non-pro players, which I will call casuals. As casual players you're just bad, so please stfu and play, and enjoy watching pros play at a level you will never reach because you bitch and complain.
yey, the first clever post in this thread, awesome.
|
I wasn't trying to be clever, but it gets really ignorant and silly that players COMPLETELY disregard their lack of perfection-of-skillsets required to play this game and complain that their losses are in no way self inflicted. This game takes so much damn practice and until you truly hit top-tier or pro level, your perceptions are probably way off, there are some smart people that can argue properly but not this bull shit total disregard of "it wasn't my micro/macro/strategy, it was his/her race"
|
On January 06 2012 20:57 deadmau wrote:
I wasn't trying to be clever, but it gets really ignorant and silly that players COMPLETELY disregard their lack of perfection-of-skillsets required to play this game and complain that their losses are in no way self inflicted. This game takes so much damn practice and until you truly hit top-tier or pro level, your perceptions are probably way off, there are some smart people that can argue properly but not this bull shit total disregard of "it wasn't my micro/macro/strategy, it was his/her race"
Quote me where I said anything about losses not being due to micro/macro/strategy? Newsflash: Things can have more than one contributing factor.
|
On January 06 2012 20:37 Artok wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 19:49 AndAgain wrote:
My theory on why there aren't that many terrans at masters is that it's the least intuitive race to play strategically. Masters is the point where you need to have a little understanding of how timings work. Terran generally doesn't make units in bursts, so it's not clear how one takes advantage of timings.
Conversely, there are so many zergs around this level because they can make the most units in a small window of time. Protoss is in between. wat?.. there arent as many terrans cuz their race involves most micro, which seems to be pretty hard for eu/na players, compared to z/p terran has to multitask drops while pushing in zvt at the proper timing window, lategame battles in tvp (ghosts emp/snipe hts while splitting army).
Shift-click moving a medivac with a drop command at the end of the shift-queue, after that move your army out.
I don't see how this requires much micro on the T side?
The defending player will be the one that will have to multitask the battle ánd defending the drop, not the terran player.
Drops are done in spare APM time, it's defending the drop that's multi-task intensive.
|
On January 06 2012 21:06 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 20:57 deadmau wrote:
I wasn't trying to be clever, but it gets really ignorant and silly that players COMPLETELY disregard their lack of perfection-of-skillsets required to play this game and complain that their losses are in no way self inflicted. This game takes so much damn practice and until you truly hit top-tier or pro level, your perceptions are probably way off, there are some smart people that can argue properly but not this bull shit total disregard of "it wasn't my micro/macro/strategy, it was his/her race" Quote me where I said anything about losses not being due to micro/macro/strategy? Newsflash: Things can have more than one contributing factor.
unless you are high gm the micro/macro/strategy is the biggest contributing factor, and your clueless bitching abt the smallest factor is annoying and doesnt have any value.
On January 06 2012 21:16 kaluro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 20:37 Artok wrote:On January 06 2012 19:49 AndAgain wrote:
My theory on why there aren't that many terrans at masters is that it's the least intuitive race to play strategically. Masters is the point where you need to have a little understanding of how timings work. Terran generally doesn't make units in bursts, so it's not clear how one takes advantage of timings.
Conversely, there are so many zergs around this level because they can make the most units in a small window of time. Protoss is in between. wat?.. there arent as many terrans cuz their race involves most micro, which seems to be pretty hard for eu/na players, compared to z/p terran has to multitask drops while pushing in zvt at the proper timing window, lategame battles in tvp (ghosts emp/snipe hts while splitting army). Shift-click moving a medivac with a drop command at the end of the shift-queue, after that move your army out. I don't see how this requires much micro on the T side? The defending player will be the one that will have to multitask the battle ánd defending the drop, not the terran player. Drops are done in spare APM time, it's defending the drop that's multi-task intensive.
I'm zerg player myself, and to me dropping marines, moving them to choke point in 2 different places, macroing and pushing at the same time seem harder than defending from drops, but whatever.
|
On January 06 2012 21:06 hummingbird23 wrote:
Quote me where I said anything about losses not being due to micro/macro/strategy? Newsflash: Things can have more than one contributing factor.
As I said, until your play is at top tier or pro level, you still got a lot of other more important stuff to work on than this supposed "racial imbalance." Just think about when coaches coach newbies, often they find students always worrying about useless stuff like trying to counter this, or counter that, or should i do this or that build order, but when in reality, they need to just focus on mechanics in order to even begin thinking about strategy, or else they get pigeonholed into a spot where they plateau because like you, your mechanics are unrefined, and have hit a ceiling.
So when you hit that ceiling with your oh so UBER knowledge of strategy, build orders, and tactics, but your mechanics suck, you are tricked into thinking you actually are better than you are because you have all this knowledge, but can't use it because your mechanics are bad. Get over it man, we are all bad at this game, unless we are GM/pros. I do not know how you continue believe you are any better than you are? It takes a RIDICULOUS amount of work that I don't think you can fathom with your mindset. Until you put in that work to fix your play, your perceptions of imbalance whether they carry weight or not, are relatively meaningless because you're just bad, me included so why even complain about balance.
P.S. humming im not personally attacking you, i'm saying we are all bad because our mechanics are shit compared to GM/pros, and any thought of racial imbalance just doesn't carry any or much weight, if you think it does well you're delusional as many others are.
|
Terran is going to continue being the dominant race, at least until HotS were things can change dramatically in all directions.
|
On January 06 2012 20:42 deadmau wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 17:51 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 16:08 biology]major wrote:On January 06 2012 16:03 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK. more gg = more skill, its an attitude thing. The game balance has nothing to do with the mindset of getting better and ignoring the rest. This is why some people are in gm and beyond, while many are stuck in a hopeless shithole The attitude is about realizing that you control 90% of the game. It's, as you said, a mindset for improving, not a model of how games are actually decided. "The only reason you didn't win was because you didn't have better macro/micro/strategy." is untrue, but it makes a good meme. You have horrible mindset, and you will forever remain in limbo with your "racial imbalance" mindset. Pros hardly ever complain about racial imbalance, and again i said "hardly" not "never." Especially the tip-top pros we all oh so love to put on a pedestal, yea the Koreans. When they run into losses, they find solutions, they don't sit there and whine about this race is imbalanced this and that, that's why they are fucking pros. This is why you will never ever become a pro heck you won't even be tip top tier foreigner, because you sit there and whine all day about this huge immovable obstacle that stands in the way of you winning tiny meaningless games, where as pros play thousands and thousands and realize their losses are nothing but their mistakes, and that is it.For Christ's sake if you are not a fucking pro, you have almost no right to complain about balance, you are fucking terrible at the game, so there's other shit holding you back. I am not pro, so when I lose, it's because of my mistakes, and my piss poor mechanics that are not up to par with pros/my opponent, this is fucking fact! Quit the bullshit my fellow non-pro players, which I will call casuals. As casual players you're just bad, so please stfu and play, and enjoy watching pros play at a level you will never reach because you bitch and complain.
lol you are very angry.
At this point, I don't really care about the pros. I don't want the game to be balanced around 200 guys in Korea, sue me. I just want to play casually and know that I can play a variety of ways and still have a relatively equal chance of winning against someone of equivalent skill level. And right now, I don't feel like I can win in late game tvp and that makes me not want to play as much and that should worry blizzard more than the balance at the highest level.
|
It would be interesting adding GM winrates also in this context - should be the only data from ladder that is not on an even 50 50 winrate base.
|
On January 06 2012 19:44 HaruRH wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 18:50 secretary bird wrote:On January 06 2012 18:36 HaruRH wrote:
Nobody should compare international graphs with the korean graphs. The graph we should be spotting out for is the international graph, simply because we are not koreans and we do not play like them. A 55% win rate for protoss in korea does not reflect the winrate of protosses internationally. Korean's mindset is to kill the enemy as soon as possible, while the mindset out of korea is to be really passive. Therefore, the graph of korea cannot represent the top level of play in StarCraft2. It only represents the korean's community in all aspect. The korean graph represents the highest level of play,the international one doesnt because most of the players are pretty bad. The international tournament winrates dont represent most of us because we dont play in tournaments and its meaningless because its for the most part progamers against random masters players, top koreans against foreigners and rarely players of somewhat equal skill against each other. What would you consider highest level of play? The korean graph represents the 'highest korean level of play', not the 'highest level of play throughout the world'. The highest level of play is not playing with korean mindsets.
Just because you think that koreans cheese too much and should play passive most of the time doesnt make it the best way to play. The fact is that koreans own everyone else with a few exceptions.
I dont think you realize just how bad many of these international tournament players are. They make too many mistakes to show if something is balanced or not if you play correctly.
|
On January 06 2012 21:37 maize wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 20:42 deadmau wrote:On January 06 2012 17:51 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 16:08 biology]major wrote:On January 06 2012 16:03 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 06 2012 15:39 xrapture wrote:On January 06 2012 06:17 Raambo11 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:50 Mash2 wrote:On January 06 2012 04:33 Recognizable wrote:
I'm going to switch to zerg or toss, i'm fucking done with this. Protoss is just too easy to play and because of the pro's terran keeps getting nerfed. Unless you are some god who can do all the multitasking required in a lategame situation against toss you aren't going to win shit. It's just rediculous. Just an example, protoss deals with drops by warping in zealots. I fucking lose against 8 marines in a tvt. Protoss macro is just too easy and PvZ, PvT is for both terran and zerg like a ticking time bomb, the longer the game goes on the lesser your chances are and the better then your opponent you have to be. Cool story bro. Stop bitching and switch then. It could be... just maybe... that Terran players are better? This is such a bad argument. Anyone who has ever taken a college statistics course should realize that. At the pro level its a perfectly valid argument. Anyways I am thinking of switching from terran as well, if you have laddered lately you know a lot of Terran already have. Seeing these winrates makes me think another nerf is coming and if it does it will be close to unplayable until the pro levels, just my opinion. I don't have the time to practice all day until I can split vs storms while sniping HT at the same time. Just because you'll lose a lot makes it unplayable? I've played Terran since beta and I'm not going to switch now just because times are tough. My macro games vs toss probably have me at a 30% winrate, hell I've even lost to plat tosses I've tried to play in a macro game, but working your ass off trying to improve your multitasking and micro against toss should be the main goal. Who care's if Koreans are causing Terran to get nerfed? Any game we lose is SOLEY because our micro or macro wasn't good enough. More GG = More Skill. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Games that you lost were not solely because of your macro/micro or strategy. Those are enormous variables, yes, but it doesn't zero out the contribution of race dynamics. You're matched with someone that the system thinks is equally skilled, you're not playing against HuK. more gg = more skill, its an attitude thing. The game balance has nothing to do with the mindset of getting better and ignoring the rest. This is why some people are in gm and beyond, while many are stuck in a hopeless shithole The attitude is about realizing that you control 90% of the game. It's, as you said, a mindset for improving, not a model of how games are actually decided. "The only reason you didn't win was because you didn't have better macro/micro/strategy." is untrue, but it makes a good meme. You have horrible mindset, and you will forever remain in limbo with your "racial imbalance" mindset. Pros hardly ever complain about racial imbalance, and again i said "hardly" not "never." Especially the tip-top pros we all oh so love to put on a pedestal, yea the Koreans. When they run into losses, they find solutions, they don't sit there and whine about this race is imbalanced this and that, that's why they are fucking pros. This is why you will never ever become a pro heck you won't even be tip top tier foreigner, because you sit there and whine all day about this huge immovable obstacle that stands in the way of you winning tiny meaningless games, where as pros play thousands and thousands and realize their losses are nothing but their mistakes, and that is it.For Christ's sake if you are not a fucking pro, you have almost no right to complain about balance, you are fucking terrible at the game, so there's other shit holding you back. I am not pro, so when I lose, it's because of my mistakes, and my piss poor mechanics that are not up to par with pros/my opponent, this is fucking fact! Quit the bullshit my fellow non-pro players, which I will call casuals. As casual players you're just bad, so please stfu and play, and enjoy watching pros play at a level you will never reach because you bitch and complain. lol you are very angry. At this point, I don't really care about the pros. I don't want the game to be balanced around 200 guys in Korea, sue me. I just want to play casually and know that I can play a variety of ways and still have a relatively equal chance of winning against someone of equivalent skill level. And right now, I don't feel like I can win in late game tvp and that makes me not want to play as much and that should worry blizzard more than the balance at the highest level.
Balancing around top players is how competitive games are done, you are always free to switch games, and no, worrying about random ignorant guy shouldnt be higher priority than making game into esport, bye.
|
I have no intention of getting heavily into that argument, but you have to remember that if people are complaining based on ladder, they're complaining based on at least moderately equivalent skill-level opponents, even with all the people who may have ridden their way to a certain level on seemingly abusively strong all-ins etc, even those that might be less skilled an managing to stay at whatever level from "abuse" would not typically be too much below the similar MMR opponents who might supposedly be better. This means that saying this like "improve micro, macro" etc likely apply equally to their opponents, so if they improve those and their MMR increases, they will mostly be against opponents who (supposedly) have the same level of macro/micro as the now improved subject has. Improving mechanics would affect the general level of the opponents, so it makes no difference to any inherent balance/imbalance with the exception of specific micro manoeuvres that favour one (eg. once terrans at a certain level learn to split marines well. Even if the game is balanced only around the tip-top level, balance exists at all levels. We may decide that at below-Platinum (wherever; it's an example) balance is pretty much irrelevant, but if some unit is super duper for little bronzies and they improve their mechanics, they might find it's not so super anymore, or it might be just as super strong, in which case people can feel it's UP/just as OP at the new level. What people often find is that they can put a lot of time into practising, work hard and study tip-top prefssionals and find that as they improve, as they realise how much better they're becoming strategically and mechanically...something may still have no efficient way of being dealt with, just inefficient measures. If they are improving so much, the level of their opponents does also and the apparent 'imbalance' may never disappear, because as they get better at dealing with it, so do their opponents become better at using it.
If people were finding things to be balanced from lower levels and continue to be balanced as they and their opponents improve, we'd think that's great. Instead, people can find that they do improve, there opponents do, nothing changes, but that's bad, because it was never balanced in the first place. This whole discussion of balance being irrelevant to discussion by non-GMs is ridiculous; plenty of the swings have (yes, as you said) come as a result of hard work paying off...AFTER THE RELEASE OF A PATCH. They can work hard at it, get it to work a bit better but still find something too strong, then a patch gets release and suddenly what they've been working hard at falls into place! Yippee! If the patch hadn't come though, the hard work may not have amounted to much.
It's NOT just a matter of mechanics being more important, because they ARE, but being "MORE important" is unimportant here, when both are so relevant.
Now, I keep changing my mind about whether I want to take much notice of these charts or not and if so, which to go by, but so that I can see the statistics, where is the korean one? I thought they were only initially uploaded to Twitter, but I refuse to use that ( ) and there will always be others, so I expect they're somewhere. *Goes on a hunt, checks older posts*
On January 06 2012 21:41 Artok wrote:
Balancing around top players is how competitive games are done, you are always free to switch games, and no, worrying about random ignorant guy shouldnt be higher priority than making game into esport, bye.
Don't be so quick to call another "random ignorant guy". Consider that if the majority of the "top players of one race" (and this is just discussion) were all a little more skilled than the majority of another race, but the second players' race was too strong at some points at that level, you might see ~50% winrates, which, with the knowledge that the first group was overall superior, we could see was not balance. I'm not saying that IS the case now, but it should always be considered that the highest amount of skill involved in using a race could be higher than another. It also does not mean that the potential skill of the second race's players was lower, it could mean the skill cap of their race was lower; less might be needed to handle the basics, less multitasking at the very top level, less micro at the top level. If you balance based on the highest skill of each race but one race simply has more that they could do with 100% perfect, like-a-robot precision, when most GMs and pretty high up players would not be quite so strong as that, you end up balancing around one race playing with more micro, multitasking etc than another, which means that for a 50% winrate, players of the first need to do more than players of another. More should be done to balance these sorts of requirements for each race, to see if we can avoid letting this be the case. Heck, if toss had more to do at the lower levels (say Diamond and below?), I'm sure the amount of whinge from zergs about multitasking requirements and how much more they have to "do" would drastically decline, without the strength of the units overall being affected.
I agree that the game should mostly be balanced with top professionals in mind for the highest skill caps, but the ignorant people are the ones who truly believe that you can't simultaneously balance below that as well. If mechanics are the key thing for people to improve, then shouldn't ranks and leagues mostly be an indicator or that? Currently, they are not.¹
¹ I mean, obviously in general higher league players have better mechanics :Þ, but at levels below diamond (or at Diamond too, I think) there is certainly a discrepancy in mechanical skill requirement right now.
EDIT 2: Just in, live on the IM stream, just to make the point, Nestea just said, as the one piece of advice to zergs looking to improve, "Don't play zerg". Now Nestea doesn't COMPLAIN about it often, but you must acknowledge that koreans mostly have just as strong opinions about the balance of the game as 'foreigners'. Whether they mention them often or not is another matter, but it's not like plenty of them not thinking about it regularly too.
|
On January 06 2012 21:53 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:I have no intention of getting heavily into that argument, but you have to remember that if people are complaining based on ladder, they're complaining based on at least moderately equivalent skill-level opponents, even with all the people who may have ridden their way to a certain level on seemingly abusively strong all-ins etc, even those that might be less skilled an managing to stay at whatever level from "abuse" would not typically be too much below the similar MMR opponents who might supposedly be better. This means that saying this like "improve micro, macro" etc likely apply equally to their opponents, so if they improve those and their MMR increases, they will mostly be against opponents who (supposedly) have the same level of macro/micro as the now improved subject has. Improving mechanics would affect the general level of the opponents, so it makes no difference to any inherent balance/imbalance with the exception of specific micro manoeuvres that favour one (eg. once terrans at a certain level learn to split marines well. Even if the game is balanced only around the tip-top level, balance exists at all levels. We may decide that at below-Platinum (wherever; it's an example) balance is pretty much irrelevant, but if some unit is super duper for little bronzies and they improve their mechanics, they might find it's not so super anymore, or it might be just as super strong, in which case people can feel it's UP/just as OP at the new level. What people often find is that they can put a lot of time into practising, work hard and study tip-top prefssionals and find that as they improve, as they realise how much better they're becoming strategically and mechanically...something may still have no efficient way of being dealt with, just inefficient measures. If they are improving so much, the level of their opponents does also and the apparent 'imbalance' may never disappear, because as they get better at dealing with it, so do their opponents become better at using it. If people were finding things to be balanced from lower levels and continue to be balanced as they and their opponents improve, we'd think that's great. Instead, people can find that they do improve, there opponents do, nothing changes, but that's bad, because it was never balanced in the first place. This whole discussion of balance being irrelevant to discussion by non-GMs is ridiculous; plenty of the swings have (yes, as you said) come as a result of hard work paying off...AFTER THE RELEASE OF A PATCH. They can work hard at it, get it to work a bit better but still find something too strong, then a patch gets release and suddenly what they've been working hard at falls into place! Yippee! If the patch hadn't come though, the hard work may not have amounted to much. It's NOT just a matter of mechanics being more important, because they ARE, but being "MORE important" is unimportant here, when both are so relevant. Now, I keep changing my mind about whether I want to take much notice of these charts or not and if so, which to go by, but so that I can see the statistics, where is the korean one? I thought they were only initially uploaded to Twitter, but I refuse to use that ( ) and there will always be others, so I expect they're somewhere. *Goes on a hunt, checks older posts*
So, i read your post 3 times, started having a headache and still didnt really understand it, may have something to do with me being tired as hell, but oh well. The same balance on all ladders is impossible as long as there are different races in the game, since different skill sets come with time, lets say race that is heavily reliant on timing attacks will do bad at lower levels, because to get a proper timing attack done you need to have decent amount of mechanics, including macro and micro, while heavily turtle based strat may work at low level better, because its easier to defend badly done attacks than properly done ones, and these factors only already make only at least gm player's opinions valid, since most of them are well developed in every aspect of mechanics. I'm sorry if i totally missed your point ;/
EDIT to counter your ninja edit:
Overall i think balance discussion is pretty silly when game is in such an early stage, unless its an obvious imbalance like thor push against toss was, and i called him ignorant because, well, read his posts about competitive game that should be balanced around him.
Another edit:
and about races requiring different amount of skills, i wouldnt say its really possible, lets say even though terran requires more unit micro, toss requires a lot of spellcast precision and zerg probably requires more macro management skills, so they require different skill sets, but you cant really call one easier to pull out.
|
On January 06 2012 22:20 Artok wrote:
So, i read your post 3 times
I'm laughing so hard right now, I'm not even kidding. "So, i read your post 3 times..."
How the hell, I stopped after 3 broken sentences, my mind could not process this at this hour 5:30am PST.
|
On January 06 2012 22:27 deadmau wrote:I'm laughing so hard right now, I'm not even kidding. "So, i read your post 3 times..." How the hell, I stopped after 3 broken sentences, my mind could not process this at this hour 5:30am PST.
Well, it didn't seem like another one of those "that race is op cuz i lost to it on my gold league account" posts.
|
Don't really care about Deadmau's opinions nor him laughing after his points, but sorry, where were the broken sentences? I was in the process of editing again (not ninja, just not wanting to double-post) so I may have left some sentences incomplete while trying to watch Nestea and check the Homestory Cup stream.
EDIT: Yeah, thanks for confirming the above, it's meant as discussion not complaining and I disagree with the mentality some people have about achieving balance.
|
On January 06 2012 22:32 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
Don't really care about Deadmau's opinions nor him laughing after his points, but sorry, where were the broken sentences? I was in the process of editing again (not ninja, just not wanting to double-post) so I may have left some sentences incomplete while trying to watch Nestea and check the Homestory Cup stream.
Hey I'm not want to criticize another's English, as it's just a language, sorry if i offended you. I was just surprised that another poster actually read your post 3 times over, where as I couldn't make it through one read, without getting a headache.
|
Ah, okay.
Just for the laugh, "Hey I'm not want to criticize" should be "Hey, I'm not one to criticize" or Hey, I'm not wanting/don't meant to criticize, but it's 5:30am there. :D
|
On January 06 2012 22:32 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
Don't really care about Deadmau's opinions nor him laughing after his points, but sorry, where were the broken sentences? I was in the process of editing again (not ninja, just not wanting to double-post) so I may have left some sentences incomplete while trying to watch Nestea and check the Homestory Cup stream.
EDIT: Yeah, thanks for confirming the above, it's meant as discussion not complaining and I disagree with the mentality some people have about achieving balance.
At least for me your post was pretty unclear, like there didn't seem to be a real statement made, so it was kinda weird responding to it ^_^
at above: you are baiting a war now :D
|
On January 06 2012 22:39 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
Ah, okay.
Just for the laugh, "Hey I'm not want to criticize" should be "Hey, I'm not one to criticize" or Hey, I'm not wanting/don't meant to criticize, but it's 5:30am there. :D
EDIT: D: You think I'm baiting? As Cloud would say, I disagree!
Bah, meant to edit previous post. At above, not below now. :\
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
