EPTWhat the actual fuck? Like seriously be consistent for once Blizzard. Either be hands off or hands on, don't pick and choose races to be hands off or hands on with.
You either sit back for all of the races, or you are involved with all the races.
Situation Report: August 31, 2012 by David Kim - Page 23
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Femari
United States2900 Posts
What the actual fuck? Like seriously be consistent for once Blizzard. Either be hands off or hands on, don't pick and choose races to be hands off or hands on with. You either sit back for all of the races, or you are involved with all the races. | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:13 Yorbon wrote: Read. According to their data, it's not a regular situation in the sense that proposed balance changes may be countered by shifting metagame more than they anticipated. That has not happened before. So consistency has nothing to do with it. You're missing the point big time. The inconsistency is that Blizzard waited at all and watched for shifts in the meta. A number of Terran nerfs have occurred almost instantly after a single tournament or even a handful of games. Where was Blizzard's wait and see attitude then? Why is Blizzard content to let Terran get murdered in TvZ for months but not okay with giving Zergs time to figure out how to better defend against blue flame or work out new compositions in response to ghost-based lategame? The nerf hammer only seems to work one way in SC2, and it's getting really old. Especially at a time when every Terran from Mvp all the way down to Joe Diamond League feels like they have to thoroughly outplay Zergs just to have a shot at winning a game. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:25 Tao367 wrote: There is a quote somewhere that blizzard put all the mechanics and numbers in there, and let players figure out what to do. Like for example I don't think Blizzard envisioned forge fast expands vs zerg. Though you are generally right (I think), FFE is a Broodwar concept and was one of the first things that got experimented with. People just scrapped it due to terrible maps, overpowered roaches and bad Forcefielding skills (vs banelings) and only restarted FFE once Zergs figuered out sentry expands. | ||
|
Herect
Brazil216 Posts
With ghosts dealing with infestors Marines can attack BLs freely. Vikings will be way more effective without fungals. And, Ghosts demand the same infrastrcuture as Marauders (techlabed raxes), so Terran can deal with tech switches more easily (you don't have to throw 3 or 4 starports to get ravens or mass vikings). | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:34 Big J wrote: Though you are generally right (I think), FFE is a Broodwar concept and was one of the first things that got experimented with. People just scrapped it due to terrible maps, overpowered roaches and bad Forcefielding skills (vs banelings) and only restarted FFE once Zergs figuered out sentry expands. Its funny how the meta has basically changed to mimic BW's meta. FFE has been around since the days of  Nal_rA and has been seen for the better part of a decade before SCII was a twinkle in Blizzard's Development Teams' eyes. All the variations including gate expands and 2 gates as well as 1 rax FE are exact copies of the feel that BW builds had attained.What we should look for now is eventually seeing the builds evolve beyond what we have today. If you were to mention 3 base opening ZvP on BW forums, it might be a different build but the people would know what you're talking about. If you mentioned 1 rax FE or FFE on the BW forums, the same would apply. | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:25 happyness wrote: bolded partNo they have been inconsistent. They have been considerably slower in implementing balance changes as the game has progressed, and have been making smaller changes as well. The meta game is always shifting, so that isn't a real argument. It's probably a good thing, though. Some of the big, knee-jerk changes from te past is why the game is so bad right now (i.e. the infestor buff) Again, read. I said the proposed balance changes were countered by shifting metagame more than blizzard anticipated, as said in the article. So the metagame shifting in itself wasn't the reason of withdrawal of balance change proposal, so the that the metagame constantly shifts is not an argument against a change in policy. Before bolded part. Well, you're suggesting a balancing strategy (with which i can agree), and they've been consistent with that strategy. I don't see the inconsistency with that? Consistency does not mean always doing the same. Also, as I said and is mentioned in the article, the shift of metagame was so big relative the the anticipated impact of the proposed balance change, that this case could not be compared to other balance changes. That's why i said consistency is irrelevant, it's a whole new situation. | ||
|
Zealot Lord
Hong Kong744 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:13 Yorbon wrote: Read. According to their data, it's not a regular situation in the sense that proposed balance changes may be countered by shifting metagame more than they anticipated. That has not happened before. So consistency has nothing to do with it. I read it - what I don't agree with is that they are being inconsistent with their balancing approach. Theres been a ton of 'fixes' which never gave chance for metagame to develop/shift, they usually suggest it and implement the changes within weeks. The only difference this time is that there happened to be a tournament (IEM) that happened to have a lot of late game TvZ at the same time as the proposed balanced adjustments. But the main point is, how many people were complaining about TvZ matchup before patch? The one who plays better that game wins a large percentage of the time, which is what you want out of balance. They said themselves the win rates looked to be even, yet they implement changes to do what? Just to change the metagame for the sake of it? I'm a protoss player, so I don't have an allegiance to terran, but as a spectator, all I can is that TvZ is a snoozefest to watch nowadays (although to be fair some of the blame should go to the maps as well, like Atlantis spaceship etc.) =/ | ||
|
ThePlayer33
Australia2378 Posts
| ||
|
magnaflow
Canada1521 Posts
| ||
|
Lokian
United States699 Posts
| ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:44 Zealot Lord wrote: I read it - what I don't agree with is that they are being inconsistent with their balancing approach. Theres been a ton of 'fixes' which never gave chance for metagame to develop/shift, they usually suggest it and implement the changes within weeks. The only difference this time is that there happened to be a tournament (IEM) that happened to have a lot of late game TvZ at the same time as the proposed balanced adjustments. But the main point is, how many people were complaining about TvZ matchup before patch? The one who plays better that game wins a large percentage of the time, which is what you want out of balance. They said themselves the win rates looked to be even, yet they implement changes to do what? Just to change the metagame for the sake of it? I'm a protoss player, so I don't have an allegiance to terran, but as a spectator, all I can is that TvZ is a snoozefest to watch nowadays (although to be fair some of the blame should go to the maps as well, like Atlantis spaceship etc.) =/ like they changed ghosts like a week or less after the mvp vs nestea game that nestea threw | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:44 Zealot Lord wrote: I read it - but I don't agree they are being consistent with it. Theres been a ton of 'fixes' which never gave chance for metagame to develop/shift, they usually suggest it and implement the changes within weeks. The only difference this time is that there happened to be a tournament (IEM) that happened to have a lot of late game TvZ at the same time as the proposed balanced adjustments. But the main point is, how many people were complaining about TvZ matchup before patch? The one who plays better that game wins a large percentage of the time, which is what you want out of balance. They said themselves the win rates looked to be even, yet they implement changes to do what? Just to change the metagame for the sake of it? I'm a protoss player, so I don't have an allegiance to terran, but as a spectator, all I can is that TvZ is a snoozefest to watch nowadays (although to be fair some of the blame should go to the maps as well, like Atlantis spaceship etc.) =/ They always said that they are going to balance things if they think they are too strong, even if the winrates do not indicate that. That's why they did the queen/OL patch (too strong Terran allins early on), that's why they did the tank patch (tanks too good in all situations), that's why they did the roach patch (mass roach too hard to deal with) etc. They are very consistent with this, though I have to admit that following this logic they should have further nerfed the infestor and the marine a long time ago. | ||
|
Xova
United States342 Posts
My only complaint is how greedy zergs can be and get away with it with little to no risk of losing right then and there. Zergs can go so long without having to make any units besides a queen. They should be able to be punished, and forced to make units. Queens and infestors are too much of all around units. How they would fix that is beyond me, but something needs to be done to where we can force units and harrass again. | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:34 forsooth wrote: And i can say you are missing the point big time. Post hoc ergo propter hoc as well as not seeing the difference between a somewhat (temporarily) balanced game with undesirable strategies and a somewhat (temporarily) imbalanced game with desirable strategies. The first example needs to be removed, the second can even out (and that's what happening atm, imo).You're missing the point big time.The inconsistency is that Blizzard waited at all and watched for shifts in the meta. A number of Terran nerfs have occurred almost instantly after a single tournament or even a handful of games. Where was Blizzard's wait and see attitude then? Why is Blizzard content to let Terran get murdered in TvZ for months but not okay with giving Zergs time to figure out how to better defend against blue flame or work out new compositions in response to ghost-based lategame? The nerf hammer only seems to work one way in SC2, and it's getting really old. Especially at a time when every Terran from Mvp all the way down to Joe Diamond League feels like they have to thoroughly outplay Zergs just to have a shot at winning a game. most of the things i see blizzard do, make sense for me. (biggest exception is fungal in general) | ||
|
Seam
United States1093 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:51 zhurai wrote: like they changed ghosts like a week or less after the mvp vs nestea game that nestea threw Super heavy ghosts armies had been popular for about a month or two before that. | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
 . | ||
|
Mephtral
Sweden60 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:22 VanGarde wrote: I think the biggest beef most terran players have is not that the matchup is broken balance wise but that as you say you need amazing APM and multitasking to even stay even, at the same time you are subjected to some of the most volatile situations in any matchup. There are so many blink of an eye things that can instantly lose you the game as terran even if you were winning before. You just need to get your vikings fungaled ONCE in a bad position to instantly lose a won game. Yes it is right to say that you should not have gotten into the situation to get them fungaled in the first place but the point is there is no where near as many volatile situations for zerg. People are frustrated that they should need to have 100 more apm than the opponent to play the game evenly. Please upload your 10 most recent TvZ replays, i would like to see your 180-200 EPM, or 200-300 apm average ^^ I play mostly against high diamond and master T players and very few of them have more than 160 apm, and usually around 90-110 EPM. most of them, except high masters, just queue up drops and never look at them again (resulting in losing all the units + medivacs for no real reason, especially vs spores and spines) The problem with these TvZ discussions these days is that people just seem to assume that terrans are better at multitasking and got higher apm and are always outplaying zerg players that 1-A and drool.. and i'm yet to see anything that points towards that being true. Fun fact: most terrans in Diamond/mid master have their whole army on 1-2 hotkeys too, and move their armies in giant deathballs ^^ Terrans in diamond arent high master players being held back by nerfs, they are diamond terrans with around the same apm as their zerg opponents, do they get punished when making big mistakes like moving 50 marines in a giant clump and getting then fungaled? yeah, same happens with zergs that 1-a banelings into thors, infestors walking into siege range, and not defending vs drops properly. | ||
|
soiii
Germany266 Posts
Also the arguments about Taeja and MVP just being the best players are plain stupid and already known from zerg back when Nestea "just was the best player". Grow up and focus on getting better at the game instead of this useless discussion please. | ||
|
Zealot Lord
Hong Kong744 Posts
On September 01 2012 08:52 Big J wrote: They always said that they are going to balance things if they think they are too strong, even if the winrates do not indicate that. That's why they did the queen/OL patch (too strong Terran allins early on), that's why they did the tank patch (tanks too good in all situations), that's why they did the roach patch (mass roach too hard to deal with) etc. They are very consistent with this, though I have to admit that following this logic they should have further nerfed the infestor and the marine a long time ago. Right, agreed~ | ||
|
Zealot Lord
Hong Kong744 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:03 ZAiNs wrote: I'm disappointed he didn't say anything about the stale state of PvZ .I suspect its because there needs to be too large scale of a change to fix the lategame issues - and thus it likely will be addressed through HOTS. | ||
| ||
