| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
stebo
United States45 Posts
On March 28 2012 04:52 blade55555 wrote: So yes you come off as a troll when you absolutely refuse to post a legitimate replay. So by your logic, I'm a troll because I simply expressed my honest opinion? After posting every single replay, do you want me to write you a 50 page report too? Wow, I just remembered why I hardly post in these forums. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On March 28 2012 02:54 ppgButtercup wrote: 1. Statement is made 2. Counter-arguments ignore most of statement and request replays 3. Replays are made (albeit terrible as the people playing had not adjusted to the changes) 4. Information in replays disregarded because it didn't conform to hypothetical playstyle 5. Any imbalance shown in replays disregarded as this concept is not about balance At what point is a replay required if it is impossible to draw anything from replays since the game is not balanced around this concept? If I am thinking through this correctly, there is no way (using your flawed logical rules) to prove your point invalid; thereby making it valid? It has been a long time since I took a logic class, but I'm pretty sure that is a strawman or red herring or something. You cannot create an environment that demands proof, and then setup rules to where any proof given is irrelevent or not applicable. Yes, the game I posted was terrible. But the truth of it is that thousands of games would have to get played to prove every scenario. The reality of it is that Zerg production is tied to expanding and Zergs commonly don't saturate their bases completely anyways. This means that they will always scale faster. This means taking a 3rd or 4th will become exponentially more difficult for Protoss (and to a lesser extent Terran). This is a conceptual flaw in the idea that has very little to do with game balance. Protoss cannot put on sufficient pressure with their limited low-base income, so Zerg can just explode at a rate they cannot keep up with. You are limiting options. You force low-econ all-ins, or explosive expanding: two things the Zerg race excels at compared to Terran and Protoss. Much better post. ^^ It's certainly frustrating to meet "prove it", try to, and get "that doesn't prove anything!", but in the first place it's not possible to prove anything without thousands of games and players, which you yourself note. You were met with the same vitriolic tone you projected. Not the most productive scenario but it brought the point into focus, so whatevs. I'm glad you guys seem to actually care in some way beyond wanting to shit on an experiment, thus continued (thoughtful) posting. The point you are trying to make is stated well (in the bold). I think many of us have already been down that thought process, including myself and Barrin, long ago. Will FRB be untenable without balance changes? Perhaps, but for now it's only been 2 weeks for people to work on openings where all the timings are completely different. On top of that, map adjustments can easily drastically change the "imba" landscape. If you want, I would gladly test roach ling vs protoss 3rd over and over. There are a lot of different opening build orders that can vastly alter how that would play out at 8-10 minutes. For example, your fast pool no gas expand expand was something I had never seen before and consequently I made a mockery of a build order after changing my plan 2 or 3 times. I'm pretty sure it would die to a 3gate all in. There was a time when 4gate seemed nearly impossible for zerg to hold in 8m, and now it's a laughable option. There are examples of strong builds losing their luster going in the other direction as well. It's not clear to me the same wouldn't apply here. Without a basic mapping of the metagame our only option is to set a constant build to test against and try various counterbuilds to A.) see if it can be crushed/break even B.) figure out what the scouting cues are that would lead to the proper deviations/adjustments (for both sides). ---- @ Barrin: btw I usually rally mineral probes beyond 12 to my nat, because 12 on 6 patches is optimal saturation. I guess I should actually check and see if 13 and 14 probe on distance mining is better, but anyway that's why. I'm sure anything beyond 15 or 16 should certainly be distance mining. | ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
also... how could we get Blizzard to follow this model? Its literally impossible to do without there support. We would be separating the communities entirely... not to mention all tourneys need the thumbs up from blizzard... And separation of the communities is exactly what they want to avoid. Which I believe we can all agree on.. any sort of isolation would be bad for e-sports. I really think the next step for this.. past the testing would be too approach blizzard with this idea.... Thoughts? | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On March 28 2012 05:26 archonOOid wrote: is there any streams of a skilled player playing 6m maps? You would need 2 skilled players.  No one "pro" is streaming this, no. But there are plenty of casted games thanks to pull and senex, and some other casters. And there are replays. Look around. | ||
|
Split.
Switzerland234 Posts
On March 28 2012 05:24 VPCursed wrote: Would it be better to bring back BW gas? (1 gas - more return per scv trip ) also... how could we get Blizzard to follow this model? Its literally impossible to do without there support. We would be separating the communities entirely... not to mention all tourneys need the thumbs up from blizzard... And separation of the communities is exactly what they want to avoid. Which I believe we can all agree on.. any sort of isolation would be bad for e-sports. I really think the next step for this.. past the testing would be too approach blizzard with this idea.... Thoughts? Blizzard is very open to this. I can't find the link to the source right now, but a map maker contacted Blizzard about a map (I believe it was Ohana) and asked how they felt about this and received a positive response. But of course the only chance that this actually makes it into the game is intensive testing and very positive feedback from all the testers and the community as well | ||
|
ultimfier
Canada29 Posts
I am not a terran player but it seems like making a squad of 8-12 reapers and using them for harass could be very effective on some of these maps, especially devolution. The worst thing about reapers is their long build time, but since the games last long on average that weakness should not make as much of a difference. Pure theorycrafting here just wondering if any terrans have tried it or would like to. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
www.twitch.tv/godlycheese | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On March 28 2012 04:59 stebo wrote: So by your logic, I'm a troll because I simply expressed my honest opinion? After posting every single replay, do you want me to write you a 50 page report too? Wow, I just remembered why I hardly post in these forums. lol... You say your opinion like it's a fact and post NO evidence. I actually think protoss is overpowered on these maps. I think I am 100% correct to on it as well. | ||
|
Rumpus
United States136 Posts
But where it differs is, Barrin has picked up the slack on half of the problem with Starcraft 2 (at least so far it feels this way). What people like buttercup and of the like don't see is that, we can't begin messing with unit and upgrade costs just yet. It has to all start at the economy and then we can work up to costs and unit design. I mean obviously all these horribly designed units (thanks Dustin) aren't going to withstand this experiment under its current conditions. But I'd rather do this testing and tweaking, help make this game into something better, than continue to watch it wither and die before me. So please guys, don't take it as the definitive direction of all of Starcraft 2. Help out. If you think there is changing to be done on the unit level. Test it out, we'll get there. It's like looking at a math problem and saying "well I don't know how to do it so it either can't be done, or it's wrong." We gotta try at the very least. (: | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On March 28 2012 05:40 ultimfier wrote: I was wondering if any terrans had experimented with using reapers in the mid to late game on these maps. I am not a terran player but it seems like making a squad of 8-12 reapers and using them for harass could be very effective on some of these maps, especially devolution. The worst thing about reapers is their long build time, but since the games last long on average that weakness should not make as much of a difference. Pure theorycrafting here just wondering if any terrans have tried it or would like to. I watched some games on Devolution where the terran did this. Just a few, it was very early on, the control from either player wasn't fantastic. That said, there were some cool fights where the reapers used the high ground outside the 3rd to get away. It's strong to make a false marine tank push and then hit their other bases (like in the corner) with reapers. In general the idea that there are more targets to hit make reapers stronger than 8m later in the game, but I don't know if tight play would really allow the terran player to spend that barracks time early on without falling behind in some other way. | ||
|
TheGreenMachine
United States730 Posts
On March 28 2012 06:29 Barrin wrote: Been over this in OP Fallacy B: "But isn't lowering the resources per base going to give players less options and thus make it less interesting?" It's important to understand that when you give one person something you're also giving it to the other person. When you give each player more resources, you are giving both of them what they need to both defend and attack. Interestingly enough, this has not proven to create back-and-forth games by itself. However, when you limit their resources, you are limiting their tools. You are forcing them to make decisions with which tools to use. This gives both players the opportunity to find which tool(s) the opponent lacks and attempt to punish it with superior use of another tool. This does not necessarily imply imbalance or coin-flipping, and Asymmetric forces are exciting. In other words, giving both players all the tools they need (more resources) is like a macho-man, arm-wrestling, head-butting match (that catalyzes the snowball effect). Limiting the tools they have (less resources) turns it into an intricate dance (in a masculine way ^^). Can I focus on this part? How does limiting the amount of viable builds start to make it more interesting? If you give them less mineral patches in their main they will obviously want to take their natural asap. You are near max saturation at 12 supply without gas, 15 supply with gas. The 3rd worker mining a far mineral patch takes far too long to pay for itself. By giving yourself 6 patches and 1 super strong gas. You're basically forcing people to start mining gas once they are fully saturated (which happens extremely fast). Doesn't that turn out to all be the same build every game? Then theres builds that go CC first or the like. Because of the fact early greedy expand builds pay off so much with fewer patches per base, this gives a bigger incentive to do blind greedy builds. With more reward it causes players to do that build. This also makes the other flavor of players want to do hardcounter builds like 8,9, 10pool. Turns the whole thing into an even more coinflip situation. On March 28 2012 06:29 Barrin wrote: In other words, giving both players all the tools they need (more resources) is like a macho-man, arm-wrestling, head-butting match (that catalyzes the snowball effect). Limiting the tools they have (less resources) turns it into an intricate dance (in a masculine way ^^). You can just as easily say having fewer things lowers the skill cap and makes everyone do the exact same early expand opening or be forced into a Hit or Miss situation since half-way builds are so inefficient. Could you elaborate how having less gives you more? | ||
|
stebo
United States45 Posts
On March 28 2012 05:57 blade55555 wrote: I really hope that last sentence is a joke, because if isn't you are completely contradicting yourself. All I did was agree with Buttercup and claim this whole idea was terrible in my first post. Other than the post I made about 6m Devolution being a competely imbalanced map (which completely digresses the point of this thread), please point out specifically where my 'opinions' started to sound like 'facts'. lol... You say your opinion like it's a fact and post NO evidence. I actually think protoss is overpowered on these maps. I think I am 100% correct to on it as well. Either way, I'm not sure why or how that makes me a troll or why it gives permission for moderators to accuse members being 'attention whoring trolls'. As for yourself, repeating the same thing over & over, 'show me replayz plz', is just as effective in an argument as a child throwing a tantrum, which explains why a majority of the time we have just been ignoring you. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On March 28 2012 05:24 VPCursed wrote: Would it be better to bring back BW gas? (1 gas - more return per scv trip ) also... how could we get Blizzard to follow this model? Its literally impossible to do without there support. We would be separating the communities entirely... not to mention all tourneys need the thumbs up from blizzard... And separation of the communities is exactly what they want to avoid. Which I believe we can all agree on.. any sort of isolation would be bad for e-sports. I really think the next step for this.. past the testing would be too approach blizzard with this idea.... Thoughts? We already have separation in this community much like the WC3's and SC:BW's. This is no different. Hell, we already have a lot of separation in the SC2 community and a lot of that has to do with the fact with how the U.I. was built. If we go by what was said in that podcast, which still seems unlikely to me, Blizzard will respond. Yawn, drop the esports hoopla already. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On March 28 2012 07:44 stebo wrote: I really hope that last sentence is a joke, because if isn't you are completely contradicting yourself. All I did was agree with Buttercup and claim this whole idea was terrible in my first post. Other than the post I made about 6m Devolution being a competely imbalanced map (which completely digresses the point of this thread), please point out specifically where my 'opinions' started to sound like 'facts'. Either way, I'm not sure why or how that makes me a troll or why it gives permission for moderators to accuse members being 'attention whoring trolls'. As for yourself, repeating the same thing over & over, 'show me replayz plz', is just as effective in an argument as a child throwing a tantrum, which explains why a majority of the time we have just been ignoring you. of course it's a joke lol i'm being sarcastic because that is how you sound by stating it as a fact but with no evidence. It's ok you are just theorycrafting with no proof and think you are right which is why most people in this thread aren't taking you seriously and calling you a troll. I could be saying how toss is actually OP on devolution with my theorycrafting and I could think I am 100% correct and that is what you sound like. | ||
|
ppgButtercup
United States159 Posts
On March 28 2012 06:29 Barrin wrote: Fallacy B: "But isn't lowering the resources per base going to give players less options and thus make it less interesting?" It's important to understand that when you give one person something you're also giving it to the other person. When you give each player more resources, you are giving both of them what they need to both defend and attack. Interestingly enough, this has not proven to create back-and-forth games by itself. You are not giving the same thing to both players unless you are talking about a mirror match-up. Zerg utilize saturation very differently then Protoss or Terran. Obviously a game with two Terran players (TvT) will be balanced: although not necessarily better then regular SC2. But, your argument that you're giving people the same tools does not apply when you are referring to ZvT, ZvP, and TvP. With the exception of TvP, the ability for both races to expand at equivalent rates isn't even close. Zerg can expand across the board far easier as they have faster units and more dynamic expanding mechanics. You can give two people shovels and tell them to dig, but if one of them is in better shape the outcome will be vastly different. | ||
|
stebo
United States45 Posts
On March 28 2012 07:49 blade55555 wrote: of course it's a joke lol i'm being sarcastic because that is how you sound by stating it as a fact but with no evidence. It's ok you are just theorycrafting with no proof and think you are right which is why most people in this thread aren't taking you seriously and calling you a troll. I see you are still refering to Buttercup as a 'theorycrafter'. Hmmm let's see here... On March 27 2012 15:45 blade55555 wrote: I'm wondering if greenmachine/stebo/buttercup just read this and automatically assumed what will beat protoss and that protoss will be able to do nothing and haven't even watched/played any of the 6m games. On March 27 2012 15:50 blade55555 wrote: Can you at least play some games on it or something and show it rather then theorycrafting? Think that would be good to see rather then just assume when for all you know you are completely wrong. Your first two posts you made directing at this debate were completely false assumptions. Theorycraft refers to any game strategy that exists only in theory and never actually put into action, which is the complete opposite of what Buttercup is doing; he has actually been testing his theories out. As for you demanding replays, I don't see how that makes a huge impact seeing is how you find any reason to nitpick why the game is completely irreverent to his theory in the first place. Despite how bad the replay he sent you was (and how laughable the players were), if you actually pay attention you can clearly see the point he is trying to make; I had no trouble distinguishing what Buttercup was getting across in his argument by watching the replay. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
1. the game can easily adapt to the new maps and a community can be formed around it, if the gameplay turns out as advertised. 2. with specific maps, maybe a gentleman's agreement to not play certain rush builds, the game can be just as enjoyable as in the first scenario. Because of the lack of competitive players, actual imbalance won't even be too noticeable. An experiment like this might attract more explorative players over competitive ones anyway. 3. it's just too broken to be playable with the current set of units. In this case it can't be tested whether Less Resources is even a good idea as that requires more thorough play of more balanced maps. In all cases it brings attention to the wants of the community for certain dynamic macro gameplay. Even if the third scenario is true, you can't be sure of this right away, so there's no harm in letting it play out until this can be established with more certainty. I think it's best if one would focus on the high concept of the less resources in a more abstract way, assuming balance is maintained and such. This implementation variant might be flawed then, but can still provide useful data and attract attention. If the idea was too obviously bad, a better sort of implementation would have to be found, if one thought less resources had potential at all. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
WardiTV European League
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
The PondCast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
