|
On November 07 2012 23:17 LOLingBuddha wrote:
I agree that the "it's 50:50" response is a bit too short to really adress the problem..
let's leave out the actual win/loss statistics and believe DK in that they are 50:50
i feel one thing that they are overlooking, perhaps too much tunnelvision on w\l statistics.
BUT!!!
even if something has a 50:50 w/l that doesnt mean that its exciting.
what are the actual win/loss rates for when the zerg actually gets to tech to this composition? let's say how many times does a zerg lose when hes got 20 infestors and 8 broodlords? THATS what they should be looking at...
not the overall win\loss records that they keep mentioning, perhaps all the losses from zerg are because protoss is doing nothing but immortal allins because they feel that is their only chance to win???
now youve got a 50:50 matchup (balanced? no!)
not if its 100% win rate Immortal allin, and 100% winrate BL/infestor
of course i am exaggerating a little bit here but my point is the OVERALL win/loss percentages are not always a good indication of a balanced matchup.
i hope you understand what i am trying to say..
Remember that it may not be david's job to concentrate on that, since he is the balancer and browder is the designer/lead. And even past them, there are many other people working, and some may have conflicting views, thus making things take a while. Just be patient ^^
|
Balance patches should be made when a single player dominates, or single build/metagame for a particular race dominates the scene. Currently we expect Zerg to dominate.
what the .... ???? I should stop because this guy does nothing but pissing me off.
Boycott HotS y viva la revolucion <o/
|
On November 07 2012 01:02 wwowz wrote:
We saw a video posted by a foreign progamer comparing the Carriers from BW and WoL. We believe that we could use some of the suggestions provided in this video.
Thank you NonY!
|
On November 07 2012 23:17 LOLingBuddha wrote:
even if something has a 50:50 w/l that doesnt mean that its exciting.
what are the actual win/loss rates for when the zerg actually gets to tech to this composition? let's say how many times does a zerg lose when hes got 20 infestors and 8 broodlords? THATS what they should be looking at...
OK, so let's say, for the sake of argument, that barring some outlier games, 50% of the time Zerg is unable to survive against Protoss until Hive and Toss wins, and 50% of the time, Zerg manages to get Infestor/Broodlord and Zerg wins.
The problem is, no one is talking about nerfing Protoss, everyone is on the "nerf Zerg" bandwagon. So let's say Blizzard finally gives the pitchfork mob what they want, and nerfs Infestors and Broodlords. Now 50% of the time Zerg dies before Hive like before, and when they do manage to survive and get Hive tech, they still die half the time, because the game is "balanced", the way people want it.
But wait, Infestors themselves are not Hive tech. Zerg still loses to Protoss if they just have Infestors and no Broodlords. Case in point, DRG vs Rain, where Rain won every game with a pre-Hive push. DRG had lots of Infestors, but no Broodlords, and the "oh-so-OP" Infestors, which, according to some very talented pro players, are all a Zerg needs to win tournaments and collect totally undeserved oversized checks, somehow failed to allow DRG to skillessly a-move his way to victory.
So if Infestors are nerfed like everyone wants them to be, Zerg probably can't even survive 50% of the time until Hive tech in the first place.
But the mob has their pitchforks and they've decided their new target. Infestors were it for a while, they got them nerfed, were satisfied for a while, until they chose Mutalisks as their new target. They got a hard hard counter for it, which it turned out they didn't even need. Then again Infestors became it. So I wonder, if Infestors are nerfed, and ZvP win rates dip into something like 30%, what will the new target be? Mutalisks again?
Or perhaps... Hydralisks?????
|
On November 07 2012 23:42 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 23:17 LOLingBuddha wrote:
even if something has a 50:50 w/l that doesnt mean that its exciting.
what are the actual win/loss rates for when the zerg actually gets to tech to this composition? let's say how many times does a zerg lose when hes got 20 infestors and 8 broodlords? THATS what they should be looking at...
OK, so let's say, for the sake of argument, that barring some outlier games, 50% of the time Zerg is unable to survive against Protoss until Hive and Toss wins, and 50% of the time, Zerg manages to get Infestor/Broodlord and Zerg wins. The problem is, no one is talking about nerfing Protoss, everyone is on the "nerf Zerg" bandwagon. So let's say Blizzard finally gives the pitchfork mob what they want, and nerfs Infestors and Broodlords. Now 50% of the time Zerg dies before Hive like before, and when they do manage to survive and get Hive tech, they still die half the time, because the game is "balanced", the way people want it. But wait, Infestors themselves are not Hive tech. Zerg still loses to Protoss if they just have Infestors and no Broodlords. Case in point, DRG vs Rain, where Rain won every game with a pre-Hive push. DRG had lots of Infestors, but no Broodlords, and the "oh-so-OP" Infestors, which, according to some very talented pro players, are all a Zerg needs to win tournaments and collect totally undeserved oversized checks. So if Infestors are nerfed like everyone wants them to be, Zerg probably can't even survive 50% of the time until Hive tech in the first place. But the mob has their pitchforks and they've decided their new target. Infestors were it for a while, they got them nerfed, were satisfied for a while, until they chose Mutalisks as their new target. They got a hard hard counter for it, which it turned out they didn't even need. Then again Infestors became it. So I wonder, if Infestors are nerfed, and ZvP win rates dip into something like 30%, what will the new target be? Mutalisks again? Or perhaps... Hydralisks?????
Please dont get me wrong.. im not just pushing for a zerg CHANGE (notice i dont call it nerf  )
in my post i can of alluded to the fact that the immortal sentry allin is or at least can be just as much of a problem for zerg as the infestor BL combo is to protoss.
my main point was simply to respond to the comment made by blizzard that the matchups enjoy about a 50:50 win/loss ratio.
while that may be true that is not a solid indicator of balance. if 50% of matches are won by toss through immo/sentry alllin or if 50% of zerg wins through infestor/BL.
again, im not saying only zerg should get changed.
i wish i could offer a solution, but i admit that balancing something as complex as sc2 is something that is WAY out of my league..
|
On November 07 2012 23:36 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:
Balance patches should be made when a single player dominates, or single build/metagame for a particular race dominates the scene. Currently we expect Zerg to dominate.
what the .... ???? I should stop because this guy does nothing but pissing me off.
Boycott HotS y viva la revolucion <o/
Agreed. I don't understand how Blizzard-Activision is so.. unskilled, for lack of a better term.
|
On November 07 2012 23:48 LOLingBuddha wrote:
again, im not saying only zerg should get changed.
i wish i could offer a solution, but i admit that balancing something as complex as sc2 is something that is WAY out of my league..
And that is the problem, it's not as simple as nerfing Infestors and Broodlords like the pitchfork mob wants.
Let's look at another example, ZvT. Just look at the game between Mvp and DRG this season on Daybreak. DRG does a Muta/Ling semi-allin that does a ton of damage, just short of outright killing Mvp. When the dust is settled, DRG is on 4 bases with 70+ Drones vs Mvp on 2 with 30 SCVs. Mvp turtles hard, builds a mech army, and pushes out on 3 bases vs a maxed DRG on 5 bases. When the big exchange occurs, DRGs entire OP Broodlord Infestor army is wiped out, and 3-4 Siege tanks are still left for Mvp shelling DRGs 4th, but Mvp ggs out, because he has no economy, DRG has killed all the SCVs on his 3rd and denied mining and is about to remax.
Now imagine, DRGs army was nerfed, like the mob wants it to be. Mvp just crushes him instead of having only 3-4 siege tanks remaining, continues to push forward and kill off all his bases before he can remax, and rolls on to a victory, in a game where he was insanely behind. This would be "balanced" according to some...
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
For everyone arguing about DK just looking at the win-rates being ~50/50, and not accounting for the trend that Protoss/Terran get most of their wins before Zerg get's hive tech, and Zerg's get most of their wins once they get hive tech, I think they may be missing what DK is alluding to:
It sounds like they are expecting a meta-game shift where Zerg's play less economical in the early-mid game so as to be safer vs Terran and Protoss, and thus making their late-game weaker and/or come significantly later. Allowing Protoss and/or Terran to deal with the Zerg late game easier. (For example, it might just be that the Immortal/Sentry all in makes it so Zerg's can't go for the gasless 3 base style, leading to a completely different ZvP meta-game).
Do you feel like this is valid logic, or a reasonable expectation?
|
On November 08 2012 00:01 ZjiublingZ wrote:
For everyone arguing about DK just looking at the win-rates being ~50/50, and not accounting for the trend that Protoss/Terran get most of their wins before Zerg get's hive tech, and Zerg's get most of their wins once they get hive tech, I think they may be missing what DK is alluding to:
It sounds like they are expecting a meta-game shift where Zerg's play less economical in the early-mid game so as to be safer vs Terran and Protoss, and thus making their late-game weaker and/or come significantly later. Allowing Protoss and/or Terran to deal with the Zerg late game easier. (For example, it might just be that the Immortal/Sentry all in makes it so Zerg's can't go for the gasless 3 base style, leading to a completely different ZvP meta-game).
Do you feel like this is valid logic, or a reasonable expectation?
absolutely makes sense, however, that doesnt necessarily mean that protoss will not be able to attain that IMBA composition, or that zerg wont be able to attain that IMBA composition.
i think situations shouldnt exist where (IF LEFT ALONE) that a zerg/terran or protoss is able to build what he wants and results in an unwinnable composition.
I am of the opinion that MAX army should be able to trade with a MAX army in relatively equal fashion.
let's take zerg as an example..
Zerg is supposed to be a "zergy" race. (lots of units overwhelming the opponents, while at the same time suffering comparatively many losses.)
Zerg becomes one of the most cost efficient armies when they have xxx Infestors & xxx Broodlords. this is in my opinion not really what zerg means to me.. (but then again thats probably just me)
let's take protoss as an example..
Protoss is slower, heavy hitting armies. when teched to mothership things can get very dicy, no detection or sufficient anti-air to take out the mothership and it doesnt matter what composition you have, even if your army would decimate that protoss army if it had not had a mothership.
for terran...
thats a tough one for me.. i am a random player but terran is my worst race. i have a feeling that terran has all the tools to take out anything, however, i feel a fast aggressive tech switch from a zerg could be extremely problematic.
so after writing all this out i think i have to come to the same conclusion as many other posts :D :D
infestor & mothership = OP
i think terran is right where it should be, and some changes should be made to P and Z.
although i do think T could use an extra unit in HoTs
|
great read thanks for the interviews
|
On November 08 2012 00:01 ZjiublingZ wrote:
For everyone arguing about DK just looking at the win-rates being ~50/50, and not accounting for the trend that Protoss/Terran get most of their wins before Zerg get's hive tech, and Zerg's get most of their wins once they get hive tech, I think they may be missing what DK is alluding to:
It sounds like they are expecting a meta-game shift where Zerg's play less economical in the early-mid game so as to be safer vs Terran and Protoss, and thus making their late-game weaker and/or come significantly later. Allowing Protoss and/or Terran to deal with the Zerg late game easier. (For example, it might just be that the Immortal/Sentry all in makes it so Zerg's can't go for the gasless 3 base style, leading to a completely different ZvP meta-game).
Do you feel like this is valid logic, or a reasonable expectation?
The win rate will always be near 50% on ladder. It is pretty obvious Zerg is dominating in tournament. There is absolutely no balance at the top level against Infestors broodlords. I don't even know how anybody can justify it. I keep doing 2-3 bases push on ladder nowadays. I love to play macro games and always tried to mimic hero style. I just got sicked of trying. PvT is a blast for me, early/mid game back and forth action and late game macro!
|
Interviewer obviously a protoss. Terrans have been having MUCH MUCH MUCH more problems with Zerg... protoss performance been pretty good.
|
On November 07 2012 23:36 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:
Balance patches should be made when a single player dominates, or single build/metagame for a particular race dominates the scene. Currently we expect Zerg to dominate.
what the .... ???? I should stop because this guy does nothing but pissing me off.
Boycott HotS y viva la revolucion <o/
Yeah, I found that comment highly irritating. I am hoping that it was just a blunder.
Imagine if BW was balanced with this mode of thought? Bonjwa would have invoked super nerfs from Blizzard.
|
On November 07 2012 01:26 aTnClouD wrote:
How can he think the game is fine when people are leaving SC2 to watch League of Legends? There are serious issues that are shrinking the amount of people interested in the game and watching tournaments and all he can say is that the winrates and race distributions are fine. The incompetence and arrogance shown by David Kim make speechless every time. Seriously he's so bad at his job.
Why do people think that SC2 race balance has anything to do with people leaving to play/watch a new game?
|
On November 07 2012 23:54 Pasargadae wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 23:36 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:
Balance patches should be made when a single player dominates, or single build/metagame for a particular race dominates the scene. Currently we expect Zerg to dominate.
what the .... ???? I should stop because this guy does nothing but pissing me off.
Boycott HotS y viva la revolucion <o/ Agreed. I don't understand how Blizzard-Activision is so.. unskilled, for lack of a better term.
They might as well say "we're rigging the pro-scene results". That's disgusting :E
|
On November 08 2012 00:31 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 01:26 aTnClouD wrote:
How can he think the game is fine when people are leaving SC2 to watch League of Legends? There are serious issues that are shrinking the amount of people interested in the game and watching tournaments and all he can say is that the winrates and race distributions are fine. The incompetence and arrogance shown by David Kim make speechless every time. Seriously he's so bad at his job. Why do people think that SC2 race balance has anything to do with people leaving to play/watch a new game?
I don't think it is race balance as much as a dominate meta game which can get stale for viewers.
|
For me it's the deathball effect that makes it less interesting to watch. Sometimes it may as well be a "1 hero per side" moba. Protoss hits Q for FF, W for Storms, E for blink, and R for vortex.
|
On November 08 2012 00:38 Zorkmid wrote:
For me it's the deathball effect that makes it less interesting to watch. Sometimes it may as well be a "1 hero per side" moba. Protoss hits Q for FF, W for Storms, E for blink, and R for vortex.
I think the main difference between Fungal and other spells is that other spells have some sort of uncertainty factor to them. It's like "will he get good FFs?" "Will his Templar be EMPed?" "Will that Nuke get spotted?"
With Fungal it's just like all the burden is on the other player to split absolutely perfectly or die rather than on the Zerg to do anything particularly clever.
|
On November 08 2012 00:33 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 23:54 Pasargadae wrote:On November 07 2012 23:36 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:
Balance patches should be made when a single player dominates, or single build/metagame for a particular race dominates the scene. Currently we expect Zerg to dominate.
what the .... ???? I should stop because this guy does nothing but pissing me off.
Boycott HotS y viva la revolucion <o/ Agreed. I don't understand how Blizzard-Activision is so.. unskilled, for lack of a better term. They might as well say "we're rigging the pro-scene results". That's disgusting :E
Indeed, outcome based approaches on game balance is ridiculous.
|
On November 08 2012 00:01 ZjiublingZ wrote:
It sounds like they are expecting a meta-game shift where Zerg's play less economical in the early-mid game so as to be safer vs Terran and Protoss, and thus making their late-game weaker and/or come significantly later. Allowing Protoss and/or Terran to deal with the Zerg late game easier. (For example, it might just be that the Immortal/Sentry all in makes it so Zerg's can't go for the gasless 3 base style, leading to a completely different ZvP meta-game).
Do you feel like this is valid logic, or a reasonable expectation?
No, I think it's bullshit. If you've been watching the metagame, you should have noticed that the trend is to getting *earlier* brood lords, not delaying them.
A year ago, 17' was the standard for getting BLs+infestors.
Nowadays, Zergs have gotten better at scouting and knowing whether they're safe or not. And at delaying Protoss, by dropping a shitton of spines and doing run-bys, or even sacrificing their entire army. The first brood lords start morphing at 15' behind a strong lings/infestors army, spine wall and insane economy.
I've recently seen some pro games where the first brood lords were starting morphing at the 13' minute mark.
The better Zergs become, the earlier they can get their brood lords/infestors combo.
There's also a difference between the sentries/immortals all-in, and the late game BLs+infestors combo. With the sentries/immortals all-in, the fate of Zerg is in its own hands. It's hard, but it's mostly a matter of anticipating long enough in advance, and not under-estimating ( nor over-estimating ) the push. And engaging in an open space at the right time.
Once the BLs+infestors combo is out, Protoss has to rely on a lucky vortex or major mistake engagement from Zerg. There isn't much to be done here. It's too late, our fate is no longer in our hands.
And it's understandable. If you open a replay in this situation and check army values ( in minerals and gas worth ) you'll notice that Zerg's army is x1.5 to x2's worth of Protoss.
The whole unbalance problem comes from that IMO: when maxed, armies do not have comparable worth. It is currently not possible with Protoss ground/gate units to find a combo that can rival Zerg's army. Even if we had all the resources and time of the world to get those units out, it's a unit design/composition restriction at the core of the game.
Carriers + archons + templars can actually rival the worth of a BL+infestor army, but here the problem is transition, so I won't enter into this debate. There's no ground army compo that can stand on its own against BL+infestors, that's all I want to say.. and it's a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
