|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On March 27 2012 17:06 Archvil3 wrote:
@ppgButtercup
6m1g has never been claimed to be perfectly balanced as the game is designed around 8m2g. What is being investigated here is the gameplay effects of designing the game around 6m1g.
Why are you putting so much effort into bashing what could possibly be the best thing that ever happened to SC2(HoTS being balanced around lower income in order to improve micro and having less deathballs)?
I wouldn't mind his bashing so much if he actually had concrete evidece rather then his word. He says he played on it and tested it a couple times and his theory is correct. Would really love to see those replays (and hopefully their mid-high masters level and not diamond) and see if he might be correct or if he is just playing it wrong or if in the slight chance he is correct and there is no way to beat "roach/ling so toss never gets a third" as he keeps saying with no evidence.
|
On March 27 2012 16:58 ppgButtercup wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:52 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:
To be fair, you did start theorycrafting (which in itself is okay) and then when people who have actually played it counter your argument and say that protoss actually seems to have more gas, you theorycraft some more to 'show' them they are wrong. No one countered my argument ever. They told me to play the maps: which I have. But I didn't even need to play the maps to realize how flawed the idea is. Show nested quote +I don't know who is right here, but at least I know that I can't know until I try. You can't possibly think you understand the whole dynamic going on here, do you? Just experiment a bit. Many people think this is interesting, so why not? The flaws are obvious, and I did just play two games to back my point up. Protoss can never take a 3rd against a competent Zerg player who abuses the low-gas requirement of Ling/Roach since Protoss has to counter that play with tech (which they cannot afford). Show nested quote +Repeatedly bashing the idea based on your judgement that you understand the game better than anyone who has so far been positive about this does seem a bit troll like. Whether you are purposefully being a troll or not, I'm sure you can see that you sort of acting like one.
Try to keep the argument constructive. I bashed the idea "ONCE" and got jumped on by a bunch of bronze-level players who love the idea but have no idea how game mechanics and timings work. Low-econ play is already strong against tech play. edit: and the players who are master-level are playing the map the way this thread suggests, and not playing to win like they would if this was the way the game was actually changed to. My arguments are valid, and backed up by lots of experience (and even testing on these maps). The only things said in response to my (valid) argument are people telling me to play the maps or calling me a whore.
Just under you post people were saying that there actually was more gas based on their experience. Anyway, great that you tried, but you still don't seem to be understanding the part about being constructive. You say that there is a fault with the idea, you say what it is, you say that you are in a great position to show this, you play games, yet don't share the replays? Come on man, I'm sure many people here would love to see them!
|
The best thing that ever happened to SC2? Are you kidding?
All you are doing is making it impossible for Protoss to ever take a 3rd against a Zerg player, and making Terran very difficult for Zerg to fight in the late game.
This is why I am protesting this thread: people like Archvil3 actually thinking this is something amazing.
|
On March 27 2012 17:09 ppgButtercup wrote:
The best thing that ever happened to SC2? Are you kidding?
All you are doing is making it impossible for Protoss to ever take a 3rd against a Zerg player, and making Terran very difficult for Zerg to fight in the late game.
This is why I am protesting this thread: people like Archvil3 actually thinking this is something amazing.
Ok can you please stop saying what we know and post some evidence? Is this so hard to do? Or are you just trolling? Right now I think are you talking out your ass to be honest as you refuse to put any source of evidence other then you just saying it. We all know what are you saying so why not prove it? If you can't prove it then stop posting in this thread about it.
|
On March 27 2012 17:08 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:
Just under you post people were saying that there actually was more gas based on their experience. Anyway, great that you tried, but you still don't seem to be understanding the part about being constructive. You say that there is a fault with the idea, you say what it is, you say that you are in a great position to show this, you play games, yet don't share the replays? Come on man, I'm sure many people here would love to see them!
How do you have more gas on 2 bases when effectively you can only mine the equivalent of 1.5 bases previously?
It is a misconception because they have less minerals then before, and it makes them feel like they have more gas.
|
You pay half the overhead in minerals to get 1.5 times as much gas.
edit: I think 1 base openings will be more common than ffe. I've said this several times and you haven't responded.
|
In the original post, Barrin made no effort to show an actual counterpoint to his argument, instead opting to list his own straw man arguments. When a few people actually disagree with his idea, he calls them "attention whoring trolls". That is god damn disgraceful.
On March 27 2012 16:53 Dodgin wrote:" Oh and mule's will be stronger! "
Like people haven't thought of those simple things already.
Unless I missed something, there was absolutely no mention of how Mules could be stronger in this scenario on the first page. Maybe these simple things have been thought of already, but they were not made aware to the readers, so you cannot really fault the critics for this.
On March 27 2012 17:06 Archvil3 wrote:Why are you putting so much effort into bashing what could possibly be the best thing that ever happened to SC2(HoTS being balanced around lower income in order to improve micro and having less deathballs)?
Why are people putting so much effort into silencing any possible critics? Maybe this is not the best thing that could happen for the game, and you guys should actually be open to criticism.
|
On March 27 2012 17:15 Timmay wrote:In the original post, Barrin made no effort to show an actual counterpoint to his argument, instead opting to list his own straw man arguments. When a few people actually disagree with his idea, he calls them "attention whoring trolls". That is god damn disgraceful. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:53 Dodgin wrote:" Oh and mule's will be stronger! "
Like people haven't thought of those simple things already. Unless I missed something, there was absolutely no mention of how Mules could be stronger in this scenario on the first page. Maybe these simple things have been thought of already, but they were not made aware to the readers, so you cannot really fault the critics for this. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 17:06 Archvil3 wrote:Why are you putting so much effort into bashing what could possibly be the best thing that ever happened to SC2(HoTS being balanced around lower income in order to improve micro and having less deathballs)? Why are people putting so much effort into silencing any possible critics? Maybe this is not the best thing that could happen for the game, and you guys should actually be open to criticism.
I am fine with it if you can actually put forth evidence. butter isn't putting forth any of his so called evidence. He just ignores and keeps saying how protoss can't win pvz due to never getting a third but that's all he says.
I call him out on it to post some replays and he just ignores it. So if you can put forth evidence your arguments are fine, if you just theorycraft and act like you are 100% correct then we have a problem.
On March 27 2012 17:14 sam!zdat wrote:
You pay half the overhead in minerals to get 1.5 times as much gas.
edit: I think 1 base openings will be more common than ffe. I've said this several times and you haven't responded.
He's ignoring my posts to lol and all I want is his evidence.
|
Guys, calm down. You must all keep in mind that we are one community with diverse opinions.
This is being experimented and has no plans (or intentions) of being implemented into SC2 unless blizzard takes the initiative which is not likely at this point.
I am reading through this thread and understand the concerns others may have, but please, for the beard of Zeus, post some replays to back up your opinions on what you think is too strong. Visually looking at the maps and playing on the maps for a couple minutes will never be enough to judge its destined demise. In fact, it's the same as if you looked at the map, Ohana, for 5 minutes and said it's a horrible map for Zerg in ZvP, when in fact ZvP is 10-9 so far. As a map-maker, theorycrafting, biased judgements, and non-replay analysis doesn't pass my radar when I make map changes, so I just want to point that out to you guys.
Yes, some of you are coming off as trolling, and there is quite a bit of theorycrafting, which again leads me to say please show us some replays of all-ins, certain builds, or contains that you think are completely dominant on any of these maps. This is the only way we can truly be analytical about it. I'm open for suggestions and ideas, but I can't do this when it's just all words.
|
On March 27 2012 17:09 ppgButtercup wrote:
The best thing that ever happened to SC2? Are you kidding?
All you are doing is making it impossible for Protoss to ever take a 3rd against a Zerg player, and making Terran very difficult for Zerg to fight in the late game.
This is why I am protesting this thread: people like Archvil3 actually thinking this is something amazing.
You sir, are narrowminded and ignorant, to say the least. You are criticizing specific gameplay situations that are only relevant in the current gamedesign.
The current gamedesign is in fact irelevant when it comes to the future of SC2. Take everything you know about timings, races and balance and forget it for a minute and focus solely on the gameplay effects that lower income may have on the game. Specificly how micro and mobility will advantance in favor of turtling and deathballs.
Yes in its current state it is imba as fuck, which has never been denied that it is, but if you were to redesign parts of the game, as will happen in HoTS, wouldnt it better to design it around better gameplay?
We are currently just investigating the actual gameplay effects of lowered income and not how it will effect the current balance of the game.
|
On March 27 2012 17:17 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 17:15 Timmay wrote:In the original post, Barrin made no effort to show an actual counterpoint to his argument, instead opting to list his own straw man arguments. When a few people actually disagree with his idea, he calls them "attention whoring trolls". That is god damn disgraceful. On March 27 2012 16:53 Dodgin wrote:" Oh and mule's will be stronger! "
Like people haven't thought of those simple things already. Unless I missed something, there was absolutely no mention of how Mules could be stronger in this scenario on the first page. Maybe these simple things have been thought of already, but they were not made aware to the readers, so you cannot really fault the critics for this. On March 27 2012 17:06 Archvil3 wrote:Why are you putting so much effort into bashing what could possibly be the best thing that ever happened to SC2(HoTS being balanced around lower income in order to improve micro and having less deathballs)? Why are people putting so much effort into silencing any possible critics? Maybe this is not the best thing that could happen for the game, and you guys should actually be open to criticism. I am fine with it if you can actually put forth evidence. butter isn't putting forth any of his so called evidence. He just ignores and keeps saying how protoss can't win pvz due to never getting a third but that's all he says. I call him out on it to post some replays and he just ignores it. So if you can put forth evidence your arguments are fine, if you just theorycraft and act like you are 100% correct then we have a problem.
You're starting to sound like a broken record player. While you've been here repeating yourself I've actually been playing/observing several high level PvZ's on 6m maps, all of them having insanely hard difficulty securing a third against aggressive three base Roach/Ling pressure. Buttercups statements have truth to them.
|
On March 27 2012 17:24 stebo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 17:17 blade55555 wrote:On March 27 2012 17:15 Timmay wrote:In the original post, Barrin made no effort to show an actual counterpoint to his argument, instead opting to list his own straw man arguments. When a few people actually disagree with his idea, he calls them "attention whoring trolls". That is god damn disgraceful. On March 27 2012 16:53 Dodgin wrote:" Oh and mule's will be stronger! "
Like people haven't thought of those simple things already. Unless I missed something, there was absolutely no mention of how Mules could be stronger in this scenario on the first page. Maybe these simple things have been thought of already, but they were not made aware to the readers, so you cannot really fault the critics for this. On March 27 2012 17:06 Archvil3 wrote:Why are you putting so much effort into bashing what could possibly be the best thing that ever happened to SC2(HoTS being balanced around lower income in order to improve micro and having less deathballs)? Why are people putting so much effort into silencing any possible critics? Maybe this is not the best thing that could happen for the game, and you guys should actually be open to criticism. I am fine with it if you can actually put forth evidence. butter isn't putting forth any of his so called evidence. He just ignores and keeps saying how protoss can't win pvz due to never getting a third but that's all he says. I call him out on it to post some replays and he just ignores it. So if you can put forth evidence your arguments are fine, if you just theorycraft and act like you are 100% correct then we have a problem. You're starting to sound like a broken record player. While you've been here repeating yourself I've actually been playing/observing several high level PvZ's, all of them having insanely hard difficulty securing a third against aggressive three base Roach/Ling pressure. Buttercups statements have truth to them.
Ok then can I have some replays? Thanks  . All I have been asking for from you guys and it just gets ignored (like this probably will).
|
It seems obvious to me that pggButtercup is just making claims out of his theorycrafting, which is why I won't care until he provides a replay. Either way, failing to take a 3rd twice as a masters player does not make it impossible.
And then there is the question; if the same mineral/gas ratio is maintained, why would is be harder for a P to take a 3rd?
"- Well, P needs gas units to protect themselves!" Well, obvioiusly P will need less gas units ifthere are less attacking forces, duh?
Additionally, one could argue that since it is cheaper to mine gas than on 8m2g, and therefore P will have excess minerals to expand faster.
The MULE argument has been discussed earlier, but I understand that everyone cannot read through 80 pages.
The thing is that while the MULE sure will increse the income off a base by a higher percentage, it does not necessarily have to be OP. For example, to use MULES the T players need OCs, which in turn will haveto be spread out which opens up for harass.
Also, when claiming that they will make 1 base OP, one has to consider that there generally is a long rush distance which makes 1 base less effective.
Another thing to consider is the critical mass that range units need to win certain engagements. For example, 2 zerglings > 1 marine, 40 zerglings might not win vs 20 marines. This critical mass will be reached slower and therefore the Z player will have time to prepare accordingly. This might very well balance out the MULE, we DO NOT KNOW! And that's why we need to play these maps and test them.
|
If it actually happens and blizzard will change mappool to 6m1g (or similar low eco variation). I want them to give credits to Barrin. Naming one map after him would be really great. Smth like Barrin Sakes
|
Stebo and Buttercup,
You are theorycrafting.
You think you are right, and you say you are right --- but you won't show that you are correct. This is what we're asking for: REPLAYS. Your continued denial to prove it in a replay reveals the very nature of your theorycrafting.
As mappers, we love opinions, thoughts, and ideas, but we don't like theorycrafters, so if you want us to consider any proposed change, you have to back up your analysis with replays. If you cannot do this, then consider your voices muted by the ones who created the maps for FRB.
|
On March 27 2012 17:24 stebo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 17:17 blade55555 wrote:On March 27 2012 17:15 Timmay wrote:In the original post, Barrin made no effort to show an actual counterpoint to his argument, instead opting to list his own straw man arguments. When a few people actually disagree with his idea, he calls them "attention whoring trolls". That is god damn disgraceful. On March 27 2012 16:53 Dodgin wrote:" Oh and mule's will be stronger! "
Like people haven't thought of those simple things already. Unless I missed something, there was absolutely no mention of how Mules could be stronger in this scenario on the first page. Maybe these simple things have been thought of already, but they were not made aware to the readers, so you cannot really fault the critics for this. On March 27 2012 17:06 Archvil3 wrote:Why are you putting so much effort into bashing what could possibly be the best thing that ever happened to SC2(HoTS being balanced around lower income in order to improve micro and having less deathballs)? Why are people putting so much effort into silencing any possible critics? Maybe this is not the best thing that could happen for the game, and you guys should actually be open to criticism. I am fine with it if you can actually put forth evidence. butter isn't putting forth any of his so called evidence. He just ignores and keeps saying how protoss can't win pvz due to never getting a third but that's all he says. I call him out on it to post some replays and he just ignores it. So if you can put forth evidence your arguments are fine, if you just theorycraft and act like you are 100% correct then we have a problem. You're starting to sound like a broken record player. While you've been here repeating yourself I've actually been playing/observing several high level PvZ's on 6m maps, all of them having insanely hard difficulty securing a third against aggressive three base Roach/Ling pressure. Buttercups statements have truth to them.
I have no idea about the situation of PvZ on these 6m1g maps, but its common practice here to submit evidence (replays being the most common form) when making strong assertions. Try to ask for advice, post strategy ideas, or balance complaints in the Strategy Forum, I doubt there is a mod here that would allow the thread to survive longer than a day if you don't submit replays as evidence.
All people want to see are some examples. No one cares about the things you've "actually been playing/observing" unless they can see it for themselves. How hard is it to just post a couple of replays?
|
|
|
@IronManSC & Balde:
More replays are coming, don't worry. We are just having to much fun crushing Masters Protoss players atm.
|
On March 27 2012 17:37 ppgButtercup wrote:http://www.sc2replayed.com/replay-videos/18446Lol at how horrible FGGreen played and how the Protoss player couldn't get an economy at all. Admittedly not the highest-level of play, but both were master-level players.
Toss didn't even try to get a third that game until he lost all his units, his build was really weird forge first as if he was going to go forge expand, zerg went fast 3 base and he ended up doing 3 gate expand. Then he lost his sentries in the middle of the map to speedlings.
On March 27 2012 17:41 stebo wrote:
@IronManSC & Balde:
More replays are coming, don't worry. We are just having to much fun crushing Masters Protoss players atm.
Looking forward to it, but that first replay didn't show anything as a toss losing all his units then trying to take a third isn't going to work out even with 2 gas per base.
|
What you guys don't seem to understand is that there will be imbalances. There's no doubt about that. Be they timings, macro mechanics, what-have-you; it doesn't really matter. It'd be just like if Brood War suddenly decided to increase the rate at which workers mine, or if the macro mechanics from SC2 were added in. The game is not at all balanced around such mechanics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
