On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release.
and then we have ZvP, this amazing match up in the beautifully balanced game of SC2 where the devs are making amazing maps with great features, such as 3 pylon blockable ramps, rocks on 3rds, and they are truly doing everything in their power to make SC2 as marketable and enjoyable as possible! (This is said in a semi-jokingly manner, with an edge put on everything)
I don't like how he repeats that people "hate ZvZ" like it's an established fact though. To a lot of people it's the best mirror, and it's better than any Protoss matchup for sure.
On July 04 2012 09:44 MilesTeg wrote: Interesting article thanks.
I don't like how he repeats that people "hate ZvZ" like it's an established fact though. To a lot of people it's the best mirror, and it's better than any Protoss matchup for sure.
That's true, but I think it's fair to say that most people dislike it
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release...As a game designer myself I can not begin to explain to people how hard it is to build something as good as SC2.
If we're talking game design, I mostly agree. Speaking specifically about balance, though, it's pretty clear that... no. Sc2 as released wasn't even close to balanced. Look at stuff like 5-rax-reaper and 2-armor-1-supply Roaches. And even from the game design perspective, there's a lot of stuff like Fungal Growth, Marauders+Concussive Shell, Collossus, Mothership/Archon interactions with BroodFestor, and Force Field dependency which is the result of bad design.
On July 04 2012 09:44 MilesTeg wrote: Interesting article thanks.
I don't like how he repeats that people "hate ZvZ" like it's an established fact though. To a lot of people it's the best mirror, and it's better than any Protoss matchup for sure.
That's true, but I think it's fair to say that most people dislike it
But they're wrong :p
No, seriously I think a lot of people aren't giving it a chance (and mirrors tend to be less popular for people playing another race). It's dynamic, fast paced, depends entirely on skills and on non-stop action throughout the game. I have a lot more fun playing ZvZ than ZvP.
People may have some stupid losses from time to time but most of the time it's because of basic and avoidable positioning mistakes, not because you need god-like micro to play solid.
No doubt very "coin flippy", especially if you dislike using or playing against mutalisk. Just lost a game to some chobo where he literally made 50 spines on two base and went for the base trade whenever I moved out. Even nydus'd with a ton of queens and hydras and was successful but the fucker killed all my buildings before I killed his. I don't mind roach battles, ling baneling or whatever but Mutalisk can be downright silly in ZvZ.
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release...As a game designer myself I can not begin to explain to people how hard it is to build something as good as SC2.
If we're talking game design, I mostly agree. Speaking specifically about balance, though, it's pretty clear that... no. Sc2 as released wasn't even close to balanced. Look at stuff like 5-rax-reaper and 2-armor-1-supply Roaches. And even from the game design perspective, there's a lot of stuff like Fungal Growth, Marauders+Concussive Shell, Collossus, Mothership/Archon interactions with BroodFestor, and Force Field dependency which is the result of bad design.
I agree that it is definitely not perfectly designed. But it is hard to claim that there is such a thing as a perfect design. The more complex things get, the harder it is to make such a claim...Maybe for a paperclip, ok, but SC2 is incredibly complex. Just look at something "small" like a range buff on the queen has a big impact on the higher level of play, and this is just one unit, now scale this up to dozens of units, dozens of buildings, many different tech paths, different maps, and then take a group of maybe 5 designers (i don't think it is much more, would be counterproductive) who are responsible to balance this all out. All things considered I think they did a great job, maybe not a perfect job, but I do think it is a great one.
On July 04 2012 09:44 MilesTeg wrote: Interesting article thanks.
I don't like how he repeats that people "hate ZvZ" like it's an established fact though. To a lot of people it's the best mirror, and it's better than any Protoss matchup for sure.
That's true, but I think it's fair to say that most people dislike it
But they're wrong :p
No, seriously I think a lot of people aren't giving it a chance (and mirrors tend to be less popular for people playing another race). It's dynamic, fast paced, depends entirely on skills and on non-stop action throughout the game. I have a lot more fun playing ZvZ than ZvP.
People may have some stupid losses from time to time but most of the time it's because of basic and avoidable positioning mistakes, not because you need god-like micro to play solid.
ya, personally, I love watching ZvZ because it is so tense and exciting, and I mostly like playing it, but strictly from a competitive point of view it is kind of too volatile and unforgiving. I don't agree that it is based entirely on skill, because computers aren't perfect, Bnet isn't perfect, and you WILL lose a ZvZ because you dropped a couple frames during a hectic micro war once or twice when you play that much, and this is extremely offputting from a competitors point of view I think.
For me I think z v z is in a much better place than last year simply because every game isn't an insane micro fest in the early game and then it's over before anything happens. I hated z v z with a passion last year, one reason being because I'm a July fan and he is terrible at the matchup. This year the matchup has been more entertaining perhaps because of the uncertainty in the midgame
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release.
and then we have ZvP, this amazing match up in the beautifully balanced game of SC2 where the devs are making amazing maps with great features, such as 3 pylon blockable ramps, rocks on 3rds, and they are truly doing everything in their power to make SC2 as marketable and enjoyable as possible! (This is said in a semi-jokingly manner, with an edge put on everything)
Are the game designers the same people that make the maps? ...
On July 04 2012 04:49 Existor wrote: Roach to roach. It's so interesting. I have hope for Hots, where that Roach-festor combo will not be an ultimate combo in zvz
I face mass Roach like one out of every 50 games. People always do baneling all-in or some sort of muta play in the mid game. I never see people just play standard and go into roaches ^^
On July 04 2012 10:04 Sumahi wrote: For me I think z v z is in a much better place than last year simply because every game isn't an insane micro fest in the early game and then it's over before anything happens. I hated z v z with a passion last year, one reason being because I'm a July fan and he is terrible at the matchup. This year the matchup has been more entertaining perhaps because of the uncertainty in the midgame
The Queen buff certainly improved the match up by A LOT, in terms of less random baneling/ling wars and shit, but then we get a lot of other wacky shit Overall I agree that it is much muc better now than it was last year
On July 04 2012 08:31 Domus wrote: Just had to respond to this...First, I have to agree that with Idra's current results he should do less talking about balance, and look more at his own results...I wish I could put it in a more respectful way, but I really don't feel like he is an authority on this subject, I dont think you can be with that winrate.
A lot of posters think that if you win a lot you are suddenly qualified to say things about the game. If you don't win a lot your opinion is trash. This isn't to pick on Domus. A lot of posters on TL have made it very clear that this is what they believe. Furthermore, they feel they "just have" to chip in with their opinion that this is the case.
Well, seriously now.
I suppose if you're an engineer that designs rifles, that your opinion has zero validity unless you're an Olympic-level shooter. If you're an architect that designs houses, your opinion has zero validity if you live in a house that you yourself didn't build. If you're a forensic scientist, your opinion has zero validity unless you're examining your own corpse. Obviously nobody can be an expert on poisons. Because anyone that hasn't taken fatal amounts of poison is clearly not qualified to be an expert, and anyone that *has* taken fatal amounts of poison isn't qualified to judge anything. Q.E.D.
I think your argumentation is flawed tough...
A cop who likes to shoot guns might not know how to design a good gun, an olympic-level shooter might know a lot about a very specific gun. But the person who designs guns day in day out should have most knowledge about designing guns. Idra is the cop...
A carpenter might know how to put down a good floor, but he does not design the house. A master carpenter might know how to make a very good floor. An architect knows the ins and outs about building a house..Idra is the carpenter...
...etc...So yes, I would value the opinion of the game designers of SC2 over that of the best pro player. They have all the data, they have all the internal knowledge, and know what went into the decision making....but I would value an incredibly skilled player opinion over that of an average player.
When we're talking about balance, I'd much rather have the opinions of a pro player over a game designer. It's more like talking to an architect and a home resident. The architect is telling you that the ceiling is fine and totally secure, don't even worry about it, while the homeowner is busy digging himself out of his collapsed house.
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release.
and then we have ZvP, this amazing match up in the beautifully balanced game of SC2 where the devs are making amazing maps with great features, such as 3 pylon blockable ramps, rocks on 3rds, and they are truly doing everything in their power to make SC2 as marketable and enjoyable as possible! (This is said in a semi-jokingly manner, with an edge put on everything)
Are the game designers the same people that make the maps? ...
It was meant a a light hearted criticism of everything Blizzard, so see it as what it is and don't read much into it
ZvZ for the best players must be a nightmare. It's the only matchup where you can lose your entire army in less than a second, not even five minutes into a game. Unfortunately I don't see how HotS can change early-game ZvZ.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
I would not say there is any luck or randomness; those are just excuses. Every loss can be traced back to a bad read, an overly risky decision or a lapse in mechanics.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
I would not say there is any luck or randomness; those are just excuses. Every loss can be traced back to a bad read, an overly risky decision or a lapse in mechanics.
what about a 6pool vs 15 hatch? 6pool vs 14 pool? Luck and randomness definitely play a big role in the early game, it can win you games or give you massive advantages, if it works.
On July 04 2012 10:09 Areon wrote: ZvZ for the best players must be a nightmare. It's the only matchup where you can lose your entire army in less than a second, not even five minutes into a game. Unfortunately I don't see how HotS can change early-game ZvZ.
Certain players find it extremely easy. It's all about how well you understand it and most people don't because some of the principles are counter-intuitive.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
I would not say there is any luck or randomness; those are just excuses. Every loss can be traced back to a bad read, an overly risky decision or a lapse in mechanics.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
I would not say there is any luck or randomness; those are just excuses. Every loss can be traced back to a bad read, an overly risky decision or a lapse in mechanics.
what about a 6pool vs 15 hatch? 6pool vs 14 pool? Luck and randomness definitely play a big role in the early game, it can win you games or give you massive advantages, if it works.
BO orders =/= randomness
In a way, they do. Can't really scout a 6-pool before your 15-hatch. Can't really scout a 14-pool before you 6-pool. Wrong opening = GG. That's less true now, though, as everyone's sorta going 15/15/15.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
I would not say there is any luck or randomness; those are just excuses. Every loss can be traced back to a bad read, an overly risky decision or a lapse in mechanics.
what about a spike in lag during a baneling war?
What about a spike in lag during a 8 gate?
On July 04 2012 07:38 Hardigan wrote:
On July 04 2012 07:26 CosmicSpiral wrote:
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
I would not say there is any luck or randomness; those are just excuses. Every loss can be traced back to a bad read, an overly risky decision or a lapse in mechanics.
what about a 6pool vs 15 hatch? 6pool vs 14 pool? Luck and randomness definitely play a big role in the early game, it can win you games or give you massive advantages, if it works.
BO orders =/= randomness
In a way, they do. Can't really scout a 6-pool before your 15-hatch. Can't really scout a 14-pool before you 6-pool. Wrong opening = GG. That's less true now, though, as everyone's sorta going 15/15/15.
That's the risk you take when you attempt to mindgame your opponent. It's nobody else's fault but your own.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
I would not say there is any luck or randomness; those are just excuses. Every loss can be traced back to a bad read, an overly risky decision or a lapse in mechanics.
what about a 6pool vs 15 hatch? 6pool vs 14 pool? Luck and randomness definitely play a big role in the early game, it can win you games or give you massive advantages, if it works.
6 pool is a BO loss to every other build
I've seen some dumb things, but this is pretty high up there.
Go hatch first against a 6 pool, I bet you can totally hold it.
On July 04 2012 07:14 Ziktomini wrote: If anything it's the early zvz which isn't mapped out, Mid-game and late game zvz is definitely understandable, it's only early game where luck and randomness comes into play.
I would not say there is any luck or randomness; those are just excuses. Every loss can be traced back to a bad read, an overly risky decision or a lapse in mechanics.
what about a 6pool vs 15 hatch? 6pool vs 14 pool? Luck and randomness definitely play a big role in the early game, it can win you games or give you massive advantages, if it works.
6 pool is a BO loss to every other build
I've seen some dumb things, but this is pretty high up there.
Go hatch first against a 6 pool, I bet you can totally hold it.
He's saying that a 6 pool loses against basically every other build except for a 15 hatch and a 14 pool.
EPT
, I think you undervalue the game designers of SC2, to me they are worth a 100 pro-gamers. They built this amazing game that is still played and enjoyed by millions of people, and they created a product that people pay to watch years after its release. 
Overall I agree that it is much muc better now than it was last year 
