|
Look how amazing Zergs always emerge as champion everytime at their darkest times. Fruitdealer, DRG!!!!!
|
On March 03 2012 22:30 Crashburn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 22:26 Kukaracha wrote:On March 03 2012 22:17 kubiks wrote:
Hmmm you know 1-1-1 can have sth like 20 variation ?
You can produce 3 different units on each building and many combination makes sense (in at least one match-up :D), it's not really faire to count 1-1-1 as a single build.
Fair enough, then Protoss has sentry-heavy 5 Gate, 6 Gate, 7 Gate, 8 Gate, stalker-heavy 5 Gate, 6 Gate, 7 Gate, 8 Gate, 3Rax Void, 3Rax proxy Void, 3Rax DT, 3Rax proxy DT, 2 Immortals bust, 3 Immortals bust, 4 Immortals bust, etc, etc. I don't have a dog in this fight but I just think it's hilarious how you're double- and triple-counting strategies to make it seem like there's more variety. Why even bother arguing if you're not willing to change your mind and if you're going to make intellectually dishonest arguments? Jesus christ.
Hey, I'm just reacting to someone saying that 1-1-1 is "a lot of "all-ins. It's a build. Wether you get 1 more Banshee or not doesn't make it that different.
If you count 1-1-1 as multiple all-ins, then there are 1 Immortal, 2 Immortals, 3 Immortals and 4 Immortal all-ins.
|
On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote:
Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account.
As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game.
I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it.
|
On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote:On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote:
Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account.
As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it.
Balance
does not affect
anyone below high masters/GM.
It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below high masters/GM where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game.
Seriously, these arguments are getting old.
|
On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote:On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote:On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote:
Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account.
As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below mid masters. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below masters where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old.
You know that when Blizzard patched gateway timings (to weaken proxy gate), reaper speed upgrade (to make 2v2 playable) and many other such changes, the forums were shocked and couldn't stop complaining about how Blizzard was even thinking about lower level players. In fact, the game is mostly balanced at lower levels precisely so because they do put some effort into having it relatively fair. I'm not really complaining about the way it is now, just giving a counter argument for those that would be content to trivialize the playing experiences of what is the vast majority of the player base.
You also don't address the argument of having situations such as t > z > p > t where a lack of balance can make playing ladder pointless. If a race is equally weak in all match-ups, this actually does not really matter for your playing experience, the problem is relative weakness. Obviously you can just put all your practice into your one weakest match-up, but I don't always care to do so. Again, I don't think it's selfish if people want and expect an enjoyable playing experience at their level, I'm sure Blizzard would agree.
|
On March 03 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote:On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote:On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote:On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote:
Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account.
As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below mid masters. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below masters where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. You know that when Blizzard patched gateway timings (to weaken proxy gate), reaper speed upgrade (to make 2v2 playable) and many other such changes, the forums were shocked and couldn't stop complaining about how Blizzard was even thinking about lower level players. In fact, the game is mostly balanced at lower levels precisely so because they do put some effort into having it relatively fair. I'm not really complaining about the way it is now, just giving a counter argument for those that would be content to trivialize the playing experiences of what is the vast majority of the player base. You also don't address the argument of having situations such as t > z > p > t where a lack of balance can make playing ladder pointless. If a race is equally weak in all match-ups, this actually does not really matter for your playing experience, the problem is relative weakness. Obviously you can just put all your practice into your one weakest match-up, but I don't always care to do so. Again, I don't think it's selfish if people want and expect an enjoyable playing experience at their level, I'm sure Blizzard would agree.
What do you mean? People can still have an enjoyable playing experience at their level. It's just that some people think that they can't because they think they lose to some form of imbalance. There is no imbalance at lower levels. There is however, builds that are easier to execute than others but thats just part of the game. If people work on macro and learn how to execute simple build orders than they can easily improve and win against anything, regardless of "imbalance".
|
On March 03 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote:On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote:On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote:On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote:
Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account.
As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below mid masters. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below masters where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. You know that when Blizzard patched gateway timings (to weaken proxy gate), reaper speed upgrade (to make 2v2 playable) and many other such changes, the forums were shocked and couldn't stop complaining about how Blizzard was even thinking about lower level players. In fact, the game is mostly balanced at lower levels precisely so because they do put some effort into having it relatively fair. I'm not really complaining about the way it is now, just giving a counter argument for those that would be content to trivialize the playing experiences of what is the vast majority of the player base. You also don't address the argument of having situations such as t > z > p > t where a lack of balance can make playing ladder pointless. If a race is equally weak in all match-ups, this actually does not really matter for your playing experience, the problem is relative weakness. Obviously you can just put all your practice into your one weakest match-up, but I don't always care to do so. Again, I don't think it's selfish if people want and expect an enjoyable playing experience at their level, I'm sure Blizzard would agree.
t > z > p >t DOES NOT OCCUR AT LOWER LEVELS.
Blizzard patched gateway timings because 4 gate was simply too strong in certain positions and on certain maps, even at high level play. Reaper speed wasn't for 2v2, reaper speed was for 5 rax reaper, which was ridiculously imbalanced at any level of play.
Lower level play is balanced. If you don't think so, you haven't played enough and are simply not good at a certain match up/ups.
|
I like these people coming in here talking about buffing/nerfing races due to a tiny 300 game korean sample size that fluctuates MONTHLY in different races favors.
Some of you really need to take some statistics courses.
|
On March 02 2012 19:15 Tsubbi wrote:
despite all terran nerfs and map adjustments, tvz has been heavily t favored from release to now, maybe a more severe change to the core units of the matchup is needed
they already did that (ghost nerf???) it just doesn't reflect in this month tlpd. it will surely in the next month.
|
On March 03 2012 09:00 GodZo wrote:
The game is pretty balanced, Zerg is slightly behind in Korea as I expeted.
The maps influence a lot.
There's something at least slightly ironic about this statement with it coming a few hours after a Zerg player wins the most prestigious SC2 tournament in Korea.
|
On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote:On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote:On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote:
Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account.
As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below high masters/GM. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below high masters/GM where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old.
so assuming we would give for example marines 10 damage/shot, you are saying that it would not affect the ladder at all? or any patch until now had no affect at all at the ladder? that would be an incredibly stupid opinion.
|
On March 03 2012 23:32 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote:On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote:On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote:On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote:On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote:
Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account.
As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below mid masters. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below masters where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. You know that when Blizzard patched gateway timings (to weaken proxy gate), reaper speed upgrade (to make 2v2 playable) and many other such changes, the forums were shocked and couldn't stop complaining about how Blizzard was even thinking about lower level players. In fact, the game is mostly balanced at lower levels precisely so because they do put some effort into having it relatively fair. I'm not really complaining about the way it is now, just giving a counter argument for those that would be content to trivialize the playing experiences of what is the vast majority of the player base. You also don't address the argument of having situations such as t > z > p > t where a lack of balance can make playing ladder pointless. If a race is equally weak in all match-ups, this actually does not really matter for your playing experience, the problem is relative weakness. Obviously you can just put all your practice into your one weakest match-up, but I don't always care to do so. Again, I don't think it's selfish if people want and expect an enjoyable playing experience at their level, I'm sure Blizzard would agree. t > z > p >t DOES NOT OCCUR AT LOWER LEVELS. Blizzard patched gateway timings because 4 gate was simply too strong in certain positions and on certain maps, even at high level play. Reaper speed wasn't for 2v2, reaper speed was for 5 rax reaper, which was ridiculously imbalanced at any level of play. Lower level play is balanced. If you don't think so, you haven't played enough and are simply not good at a certain match up/ups.
This is what David Kim said about some protoss changes in patch 1.1:
We have two key changes in mind for the zealot: the build time is being increased from 33 to 38 seconds, and the warpgate cooldown is being increased from 23 to 28 seconds. Zealot rushes are currently too powerful at various skill levels, particularly those that rely on rapidly assaulting an enemy base from nearby "proxy" gateways.
This is what he said about the reaper change in patch 1.1.2:
We take teamplay seriously as well as 1v1. Recent 1.1.2 patch changed reapers. While reapers had no problem in 1:1, if you look at the top of the 2:2 team ranks, almost half of them are Terran+Zerg, and they all use reaper-ling. This problem is same in NA as well as in Korea. This means that you can't succeed all that well in teamplay unless you play a Terran+Zerg combination, so we try to fix it if the problem is as big as that. If not, then we try to balance around 1:1.
Also, the t > z > .... was just an arbitrary example, I didn't mean to imply anything with it. Just that if it occurred it would be really bad for low level play. You also have the impression I'm currently unsatisfied with low level play, when I'm mostly content with the current balance - my gripe is with people that dismiss the need for lower level balance at all.
Note that saying: "it's not imbalanced, it's just easier to execute" seems silly, since the latter has to be part of whatever definition of balance you use for it to have any meaning in a game like SC2.
|
For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance.
|
On March 03 2012 23:32 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote:On March 03 2012 23:12 Flonomenalz wrote:On March 03 2012 23:08 Grumbels wrote:On March 03 2012 22:45 SeaSwift wrote:On March 03 2012 22:32 Grumbels wrote:
Note that balance at lower skill levels is relevant, even if the matchmaking system will ideally keep you at a 50% win rate. As an example, suppose you have a completely degenerate situation where protoss > zerg > terran > protoss goes very strongly. Then your placement is decided solely by your mirror match-up, as the other ones aren't really contributing to measuring your skill. So such things lead to frustrating match-ups, because a player simply can't avoid playing certain races, so he will keep having these awfully hard games where he isn't favored at all. It's an issue with the match making system that doesn't take skill at specific match-ups into account.
As far as me personally goes, I sometimes feel like playing against protoss can be like trying to get through a barrier/wall and no matter how many tricks or tactics you use, you're just not even able to make a dent. You don't feel outplayed, you feel outmatched and completely helpless. That doesn't have too much to do with balance, but it's just annoying. It is relevant, but not nearly as important. You don't win or lose a tournament worth thousands of dollars because balance in Silver League is very Zerg favoured (for example). It matters if the balance is so horrific that Blizzard are turning people away from the game, and making people less likely to buy the expansion, but to be honest it clearly isn't that bad watching the game, and if win/lose means that much more to you than just playing at a level you are satisfied with, you shouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 at a low level anyway - it might be more worthwhile for you to either improve enough that the balance at that level doesn't affect you any more, or to play a different game. I'm sorry for you if some people actually play the game and want to have engaging and balanced match-ups at their level. I guess it's highly selfish, but I care a lot more about having a fun playing experience at my level of play than at a pro level. I recognize the need for both, and of course Blizzard can prioritize and such, but arguments that just wave away the existence of, say, gold-diamond players, as if they're worthless scum that don't deserve any consideration do annoy me. Starcraft is like the only game where if you say: "I'd like a fun playing experience for myself" people tend to hate you for it. Balance does not affect anyone below mid masters. It simply does not. If you don't have the time to put into the game to improve, then that's just the way it is. You cannot ever show me a game between two players below masters where I would say that balance had an impact on the outcome of the game. Seriously, these arguments are getting old. You know that when Blizzard patched gateway timings (to weaken proxy gate), reaper speed upgrade (to make 2v2 playable) and many other such changes, the forums were shocked and couldn't stop complaining about how Blizzard was even thinking about lower level players. In fact, the game is mostly balanced at lower levels precisely so because they do put some effort into having it relatively fair. I'm not really complaining about the way it is now, just giving a counter argument for those that would be content to trivialize the playing experiences of what is the vast majority of the player base. You also don't address the argument of having situations such as t > z > p > t where a lack of balance can make playing ladder pointless. If a race is equally weak in all match-ups, this actually does not really matter for your playing experience, the problem is relative weakness. Obviously you can just put all your practice into your one weakest match-up, but I don't always care to do so. Again, I don't think it's selfish if people want and expect an enjoyable playing experience at their level, I'm sure Blizzard would agree. t > z > p >t DOES NOT OCCUR AT LOWER LEVELS. Blizzard patched gateway timings because 4 gate was simply too strong in certain positions and on certain maps, even at high level play. Reaper speed wasn't for 2v2, reaper speed was for 5 rax reaper, which was ridiculously imbalanced at any level of play. Lower level play is balanced. If you don't think so, you haven't played enough and are simply not good at a certain match up/ups.
Wow what a bunch of bullshit.
Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? If balance does not affect lower levels then Blizzard are either handing out wrong information (for whatever reason) or terran players are simply worse than their Zerg and protoss counter parts. And really, is that what we are arguing here? Think again.
|
On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote:
Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!?
Link?
|
On March 04 2012 00:31 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote:
Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!? Link?
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/3599263/Questions_from_the_Community_-25_01_2012#blog
We don’t think this is an accurate assessment of the matchup because win/loss ratios are swinging both ways. This is especially true at league levels below Masters. That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss.
-David Kim, Sc2 Balance Designer.
Now please take your "sc2 is balanced at all levels of play" and leave this thread.
|
Thanks for the link, ChaosTerran.
What you said:
On March 04 2012 00:23 ChaosTerran wrote:
Did you read blizzard's blog in which they said that below master league terran is getting dominated by zerg and to a lesser extent by protoss?!?!?
What Blizzard said:
That said, we have noticed that terran at lower skill levels are underperforming a bit, especially vs. zerg and somewhat vs. protoss.
_______________________
On March 04 2012 00:41 ChaosTerran wrote:
Now please take your "sc2 is balanced at all levels of play" and leave this thread.
Wrong person. I never said that sc2 is balanced at all levels of play. I said that balance is irrelevant unless the game is completely broken.
|
On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote:
For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance.
The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP.
|
On March 04 2012 00:54 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:01 SeaSwift wrote:
For fuck's sake, if you aren't a pro, any percieved imbalance at your level of play can be overcome by just playing better instead of whining on forums. End of story. Unless the game is completely broken and imbalanced to the point of being unplayable, eg the 10 damage per shot Marine, you are not affected by balance. The problem is when you have to play twice as good as your opponent and still barely beat him in standard macro game eg: TvP.
Of course, that might be problem.
And we can know this to be true because... you said so.
|
On March 02 2012 17:53 lichter wrote:
Someone needs to do an analysis as to why Korean and International winrates are so different
Obviously it's because of a larger number of games, and Korea being based off very few tournaments, so if a player or two of a race make a deep run in the GSL it really off sets the score to one side
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
