|
So Protoss is doing well overall, with the exception of tournament wins, which are decided amongst a select group too small for any statistical relevance. And Terran is doing ok-ish at high levels, but struggingly below masters, which is a group representing a huge percentage of the playerbase.
And they're considering buffing protoss overall, but Ghosts are fine and maybe they'll screw around a bit with the Hellions, both of which are units that have the highest effect with great control but get destroyed quickly by players lacking the proper micro (i.e. the huge parts of sub-masters players that have issues in TvZ and TvP).
By no means do I want to complain about balance; I realize that I'm in no position to properly judge it anyway. But I find it curious that Blizzard constantly needs to appease the "pro" figureheads with comments like these, while the masses get vague promises about maybe fooling around with this or that.
And they should fix the game's horrible battle.net interface before they tinker with balance issues. I bet it'd take a fraction of the time to polish this game's menu to the level of SC/BW and WC3 than it'd take for all the fine-tuning the majority won't even notice.
|
On January 26 2012 03:52 Treehead wrote:
So um - this thread is supposed to be about what David Kim said - right? Seems like everyone has decided this is another "designated balance" thread, and are just talking about random reasons every other race is imba.
we're talking about the relationship between mutas and phoenixes and other relationships said in the interview. Not balance whining.
|
It seems Dayvie does not feel that Protoss has a critical mass problem. It is massively overpowered in late game max vs max situations, where it loses is the midgame. This is why high level Terrans have maintaned good winrates against Protoss for pretty much all time, because they are very active. Low leaguers are too passive and too keen to play deathball vs deathball which is impossible currently.
Against Zerg, it is all about getting over 150 supply. Nothing can happen in the game until Broodlords are out, and even those aren't all too powerful on some of the maps. The fact is that Mutalisks are the only thing you can do to win at ZvP besides Broodlord/Infestor situationally, and it seems Protosses are going to figure out Mutas as well.
I think the game doesn't look so good balance-wise. It is the same problem of the game being imbalanced in different spots in favor of all races, which makes the numbers look good. But the game lacks some playability because the races are not quite equal at all times and we end up in situations where we don't have a chance to win any more despite supply, economy, or units lost looking equal.
|
On January 26 2012 03:53 johnnywup wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 03:52 Treehead wrote:
So um - this thread is supposed to be about what David Kim said - right? Seems like everyone has decided this is another "designated balance" thread, and are just talking about random reasons every other race is imba. we're talking about the relationship between mutas and phoenixes and other relationships said in the interview. Not balance whining.
If you just want to complain about mutas I believe there's already a thread about it.
|
On January 26 2012 03:53 50bani wrote:
It seems Dayvie does not feel that Protoss has a critical mass problem. It is massively overpowered in late game max vs max situations, where it loses is the midgame. This is why high level Terrans have maintaned good winrates against Protoss for pretty much all time, because they are very active. Low leaguers are too passive and too keen to play deathball vs deathball which is impossible currently.
Against Zerg, it is all about getting over 150 supply. Nothing can happen in the game until Broodlords are out, and even those aren't all too powerful on some of the maps. The fact is that Mutalisks are the only thing you can do to win at ZvP besides Broodlord/Infestor situationally, and it seems Protosses are going to figure out Mutas as well.
I think the game doesn't look so good balance-wise. It is the same problem of the game being imbalanced in different spots in favor of all races, which makes the numbers look good. But the game lacks some playability because the races are not quite equal at all times and we end up in situations where we don't have a chance to win any more despite supply, economy, or units lost looking equal.
Pretty much to the point!
|
On January 26 2012 02:55 SeaSwift wrote:Some of the replies are pretty hilarious. It is the battle.net forums after all, I guess. Edit: as far as the article itself goes, it reassures me that they are keeping in contact with the community. Something I've been interested to know for quite some time is how much they look at TL, compared to other forums and especially Battle.net. Of course, for lower league complaining you'd typically go straight for Battle.net, because that kind of thing is frowned upon here, but I wonder if some unlucky bloke is given the task of trawling through the Balance Discussion Thread and the LR threads every so often. No answers reek of genius, but all of them seem sensible. I'm happy with it 
Yea, I'll second this. Much of these concerns are things I've either experienced myself or seen others express frustration over on these forums. Whether they resolve the issues before Heart of the Swarm, or not, I think this is a relatively accurate assessment of major community problems (problems for the general rather than the pro gamer).
I am surprised to see fewer Zerg concerns. While I do see nydus as a bit too situational, I also haven't seen much griping about it for a few months. That said, I've also seen more zerg using nydus effectively...especially against FFEs.
|
On January 26 2012 03:52 Shockk wrote:
By no means do I want to complain about balance; I realize that I'm in no position to properly judge it anyway. But I find it curious that Blizzard constantly needs to appease the "pro" figureheads with comments like these, while the masses get vague promises about maybe fooling around with this or that.
Please refrain from doing so, then. It's an ongoing struggle to beat these kinds of concerns out of the collective conciousness of the TL section of the SC2 community, so that we can eventually end up at something approaching a 'smart community'.
|
On January 26 2012 03:55 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 03:53 johnnywup wrote:On January 26 2012 03:52 Treehead wrote:
So um - this thread is supposed to be about what David Kim said - right? Seems like everyone has decided this is another "designated balance" thread, and are just talking about random reasons every other race is imba. we're talking about the relationship between mutas and phoenixes and other relationships said in the interview. Not balance whining. If you just want to complain about mutas I believe there's already a thread about it.
complaining!=discussing
that being said i don't necessarily feel mutas are imbalanced vs protoss at all. i just feel like mass muta become a bit too strong (and i play zerg). because the article talked about mutas vs protoss, i feel like this is an appropriate place to talk about it.
|
On January 26 2012 03:07 Tsubbi wrote:
somehow it baffles me how blizzard is ignoring the utter domination of terran at the highest skill level, especially korea which is what an esports game should be balanced around
everyone is joking about it, everyone knows it, even koreans joke all the time about it, yet the only glimmer of community interaction by blizzard talks about carriers, nydus worms and ghosts being too weak
what needs to happen, more than 20 terrans in code s?
Well, he said he doesn't think Terran needs any buffs. To me, that suggests that they are aware of the power of the T race in skilled hands.
|
On January 26 2012 02:55 SeaSwift wrote:
Some of the replies are pretty hilarious.
It is the battle.net forums after all, I guess.
I agree…lol It always amazes me the insight that most of the TL community has in comparison to the battle.net forums. I think it’s a great article and just goes to show you that they are actually listening. Most of his comments are good ones. You can argue with whether you agree on their take on the situation or not, but I think the most important point here is that they are listening to our concerns and have the ability to weed through real concerns vs. community garbage.
The one that strikes me most, because I am a Terran player is the complexity of Terran. It’s hard to master, but when you do, the skill cap is extremely high. As a gold player, I find myself frustrated to no end with Protoss, but then I watch semi-pro & pro matches showing me that it is not impossible and the combinations are endless. I think this is even more apparent when you look at the win/loss ratios from gold to diamond showing Terran is quite low proving that they struggle.
I would also add that I know some would argue that Terran still needs to be nerfed, because in skilled hands they dominate. Well, I’m here to tell you that it’s fine line and they have to be extremely careful with what they do without affecting silver, gold, platinum and even diamond players. You nerf to much and affect the majority of players making it worse than it already is and you are going to have a lot of players just stop playing Terran or the game all together. They obviously don’t want that.
|
On January 26 2012 03:52 Shockk wrote:
So Protoss is doing well overall, with the exception of tournament wins, which are decided amongst a select group too small for any statistical relevance. And Terran is doing ok-ish at high levels, but struggingly below masters, which is a group representing a huge percentage of the playerbase.
ok-ish? OK-ISH? Terran are doing AWESOME at high level.
And seriously, if you can't understand that eSport and pro-level of play is where the balance is relevant... i'm sorry for you. Any balance statement is falacious and utterly stupid if the game is not played at a very high level, simply because it means that the players are only using a small percentage of what is available to them and not efficiently.
And, the game feel actually quite balanced lately.
|
I've always thought the fix for pvz mutas was simple. +1 phoenix air attack range, while keep their ability the same range It would only have an effect against Mutas, and make phoenix worth their cost as viable anti air.
|
On January 26 2012 03:52 Treehead wrote:
So um - this thread is supposed to be about what David Kim said - right? Seems like everyone has decided this is another "designated balance" thread, and are just talking about random reasons every other race is imba.
I haven't seen any balance whining. All I've seen is discussion on design and relationships between units.
|
lmao Forge FE is hard for Zerg to deal with. Wtf is that kinda question? Protoss either gonna 3 gates expand or take risk to FFE, and even with 3 gates expand they're still so far behind in economy and Zerg doesn't want Protoss to play an econ and macro games? Well if FFE is hard to deal with then they should just bring back the good old 4 gates lol.
|
Forge Fast Expand is Difficult to Stop as Zerg
This is something we discussed at BlizzCon as well. The new units we’re bringing in should allow zerg to play more aggressively versus players who are defending heavily with little intention of attacking in the early/mid game. For now, we believe this isn’t a game breaking issue because overall, zerg is performing well against protoss. In fact, zerg is not struggling at any level of play, and their win ratio compared to skill is extremely solid at every skill level.
I really hope this is PR directed at bronze league zergs, if they actually want to change the way the match up work into non ffe than i am worried for the knowledge of the game ( and strategy game in general ) as well as the way pvz is now and how it was in the gw expand days when zerg did not knew how to play eco.
|
On January 26 2012 03:01 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 03:00 sotaporo wrote:
i knew terran was weakest race below pro level=D finally someone with credit says that They are "weakest" at lower levels because lower level players can't play terran that great. Its not a balance problem its a skill problem.
ok i should have chosen my words better sorry for my bad english. its hardest race on lower levels. ty
|
On January 26 2012 03:08 mTwTT1 wrote:
phoenix's deal splash damage to air units. bam problem fixed
I agree with this, but I think it should be a bounce attack, like the muta's glaive
|
On January 26 2012 03:05 Treehead wrote:
The top level of play in SC2 is certainly a testament to how quickly the human mind can learn to think and adapt in new and abstract environments - which I've always thought is inspiring. Then, I see comments like these:
•Protoss Win Rate is Too Low in Tournaments
•Terran Can’t Beat Protoss
•Forge Fast Expand is Difficult to Stop as Zerg
The fact that these three are all "hot topics" - and mutually exclusive - is a testament to just how idiotic the human mind can be in large groups. I suppose you take the good with the bad, eh?
Haha ya I was just going to say the same thing. Pretty hilarious series of statements.
|
On January 26 2012 04:05 Aterons_toss wrote:Show nested quote +Forge Fast Expand is Difficult to Stop as Zerg
This is something we discussed at BlizzCon as well. The new units we’re bringing in should allow zerg to play more aggressively versus players who are defending heavily with little intention of attacking in the early/mid game. For now, we believe this isn’t a game breaking issue because overall, zerg is performing well against protoss. In fact, zerg is not struggling at any level of play, and their win ratio compared to skill is extremely solid at every skill level. I really hope this is PR directed at bronze league zergs, if they actually want to change the way the match up work into non ffe than i am worried for the knowledge of the game ( and strategy game in general ) as well as the way pvz is now and how it was in the gw expand days when zerg did not knew how to play eco.
When I saw this i giggled a lot... As a protoss player roach busts on every map except Shakuras are nearly impossible to hold (the one base version more so)... If you do hold you usually lose your entire wall off and maybe an expo... I cant believe that people say it is even remotely hard to play against.
|
On January 26 2012 04:01 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 03:52 Shockk wrote:
So Protoss is doing well overall, with the exception of tournament wins, which are decided amongst a select group too small for any statistical relevance. And Terran is doing ok-ish at high levels, but struggingly below masters, which is a group representing a huge percentage of the playerbase.
ok-ish? OK-ISH? Terran are doing AWESOME at high level. And seriously, if you can't understand that eSport and pro-level of play is where the balance is relevant... i'm sorry for you. Any balance statement is falacious and utterly stupid if the game is not played at a very high level, simply because it means that the players are only using a small percentage of what is available to them and not efficiently. And, the game feel actually quite balanced lately.
So in essence you are saying “let’s exclude the majority of our customers and only pander to the highest level of players” affectively wiping out three fourths of their customers making the game not very profitable. You have to make the game fun at all levels, which means balanced at all levels. Not just the highest even if you consider the highest the most relevant.
And I agree the game does feel fairly balanced even no I have an endless amount of frustration at my level, but I realize I just haven't been able to master Terran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
