|
On November 13 2012 19:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 18:12 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 13 2012 18:06 Kharnage wrote:On November 13 2012 15:47 Rabiator wrote:On November 13 2012 15:37 TERRANLOL wrote:On November 13 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On November 13 2012 05:50 sieksdekciw wrote:On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote:
We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better". Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before. Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race. In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them. The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced. Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now. Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right. Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower. That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use]. Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off. You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong. Who the FUCK do you think you are??? You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +or woman, just an expression... who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion. This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them. Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up.
As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
|
On November 13 2012 18:06 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 15:47 Rabiator wrote:On November 13 2012 15:37 TERRANLOL wrote:On November 13 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On November 13 2012 05:50 sieksdekciw wrote:On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote:
We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better". Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before. Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race. In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them. The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced. Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now. Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right. Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower. That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use]. Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off. You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong. Who the FUCK do you think you are???
Developers might be qualified, but the leader always decides how things gonna be. Considering that sc2 lead designer is from C&C and BfME -esque rts games no wonder that starcraft 2 isn't what we wanted it to be. At least for majority of us.
On November 13 2012 19:34 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 19:01 Big J wrote:On November 13 2012 18:12 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 13 2012 18:06 Kharnage wrote:On November 13 2012 15:47 Rabiator wrote:On November 13 2012 15:37 TERRANLOL wrote:On November 13 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On November 13 2012 05:50 sieksdekciw wrote:On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote:
We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better". Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before. Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race. In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them. The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced. Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now. Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right. Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower. That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use]. Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off. You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong. Who the FUCK do you think you are??? You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +or woman, just an expression... who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion. This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them. Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part. As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
And, this.
|
On November 13 2012 19:34 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 19:01 Big J wrote:On November 13 2012 18:12 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 13 2012 18:06 Kharnage wrote:On November 13 2012 15:47 Rabiator wrote:On November 13 2012 15:37 TERRANLOL wrote:On November 13 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On November 13 2012 05:50 sieksdekciw wrote:On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote:
We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better". Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before. Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race. In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them. The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced. Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now. Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right. Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower. That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use]. Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off. You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong. Who the FUCK do you think you are??? You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +or woman, just an expression... who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion. This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them. Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part. That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up. As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
Yeah, I see what you are saying, but just look at his example of unit movement, here is a quote from DB:
We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it...
There is quite some more on that topic in this thread on B.net. And it clearly shows, that the discussion is there, that blizzard cares, and the developers do have a clue about the game.
So in conclusion (in my eyes), this guy is nothing but an (uninformed?) hater of the development team. Yes, Kharnage's reaction was quite fierce, but I fully understand him, because we all want SC2 to be the best it can be, yet it gets really frustrating to read everybodies amateur opinion over and over again on topics that people have already tested and argued through with a lot more effort than "the developers are not the right people to judge their game".
And yes, things are not clear in the beginning. That's why I said there is nothing interesting about claiming that stuff, the interesting stuff is trying to prove it, be it by a good detailed (and therefore probably long) arguement/discussion, or probably even better, through straight up testing.
|
On November 13 2012 19:16 Stilgorn wrote:
infestor buff removed any cap skill involved with the zerg race. Honestly when the game was balanced tvz was the most exciting and entertaing matchup to watch. Nowadays we've noname and noskill player like vortix or slivko facing (and defeating) MVP with plain AMOVE.
right now zerg are unharassable early game thx to siegequeen, utterly strong in mid game and totally op in late game: well this is a bit too much even for the asymmetrical balance.
master league is filled with zerg just because of infestors: otherwise these retards would never break through platinum league, where they deserve to rest forever.
Sweet, sweet terran tears.
I would point to all of your mistakes and pure rage post, but I won't miss my time with you more than these two lines.
User was warned for this post
|
rage? its truth.
infestor nerf= mass demotion.
|
On November 13 2012 18:06 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 15:47 Rabiator wrote:On November 13 2012 15:37 TERRANLOL wrote:On November 13 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On November 13 2012 05:50 sieksdekciw wrote:On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote:
We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better". Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before. Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race. In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them. The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced. Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now. Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right. Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower. That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use]. Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off. You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong. Who the FUCK do you think you are???
I am just someone who is most likely older than you and who is not connected to any race in SC2 deeply enough to care about it. I am not an SC2 player, but I have played BW for a long time ... for fun ... so I can compare the two. What I see is that there are general problems with the "newer and more advanced" game which the older game did not have and I complain about them. Then guys like you come around and tell me to "fuck off" or "stop trying to turn SC2 into BW" which totally isnt the point. If you have problems understanding the arguments I make then I could help you understand maybe, BUT the devs at Blizzard *should be* smart enough to understand them and they dont seem to be. So I cry foul and call them "unwise", because they are taking the tough and complicated way to balance the game and its new expansion.
Thinking and arguing about the points made is MUCH preferrable to pure braindead arrogance and zealous belief in that "everything will turn out for the better" and that "Blizzard devs will set us free". So dont rage ... ARGUE YOUR POINT INSTEAD. I have given you my views on the matter, now tell me why automatically clumped up units is the better way to go.
|
On November 13 2012 20:25 Stilgorn wrote:
rage? its truth.
infestor nerf= mass demotion.
Yeah sure, because only terran belongs to GM and above, and all zergs are just noobs who a move to victory.
Are you watching the GSL today? Great games, and few infestors. But hey, zergs win because the infestor is OP (even if the infestor was the same for almost a year)
|
I'm glad they've decided to share this with us. This kind of transparency is really helping me understand where we're at with balance.
|
On November 13 2012 19:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 18:12 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 13 2012 18:06 Kharnage wrote:On November 13 2012 15:47 Rabiator wrote:On November 13 2012 15:37 TERRANLOL wrote:On November 13 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On November 13 2012 05:50 sieksdekciw wrote:On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote:
We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better". Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before. Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race. In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them. The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced. Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now. Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right. Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower. That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use]. Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off. You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong. Who the FUCK do you think you are??? You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +or woman, just an expression... who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion. This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them. Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
There are two ways of judging a problem or risk:
1. Only experts can really see/decide which way is the best way.
2. Only unconnected people can decide on an impartial basis.
As an example you should ask yourself if scientists should decide about nuclear power plants OR if people who arent biased or blind in some way should do it. Scientists are usually really smart and always see the "ideal solution" and how things could be implemented for example, but never factor in the humans which still have to keep safety measures up. We know how things go from the oil spill in the gulf of mexico, which was caused by a company saving on necessary regular safety protocols and replacements.
This is the reason why I question the ability of Blizzard devs to judge the necessary changes accurately. They think that they can fix the problems through units because thats what they have done so far, but that is an illusion IMO and is made impossibly hard by the movement mechanics (auto-clumping) and unlimited unit selection. Just compare SC2 battles to BW battles and you will notice that it didnt really matter that Siege Tanks and PSI Storm were "a bit powerful" in BW, because you still werent able to annihilate your opponent in less than a minute like it would be able if those two attacks had the same values in SC2. Thus the changes made to the density of units is important. Obviously this is a statistic which is not listed anywhere and thus it isnt on the minds of the devs ... which makes them partially blind to its effect.
Just look at the changes of the dps between the games and you see that the Siege Tank and Storm got reduced dps and that the single Marine didnt change that much, BUT due to the fact that those Marines can walk around in a tight bunch of more than 12 units they have a much higher dps as a group. This is the change which made SC2 acquire the deathball (all fighting units in a tight clump from both sides in a grand 30 second battle and either one of them wins or they macro up to try it again).
Micro of units - like Nony's Carrier micro - is pretty much useless compared to the increased dps of a clump of infantry. So that is another loss and nothing can make that work without the unit clumping being removed first. SC2 should be a strategy game and not a "who builds the better army faster than his opponent?" one. The devs dont see that or at least they dont see that the solution to many of these problems is ...
- forced unit spreading while being able to clump your units through micro,
- limited unit selection and
- reduced unit production (just remove all the asymmetric production speed boots along with the economic speed boost).
This should make the game much more interesting, because the deathball will be less likely to happen and positional and defensive play will have their place. It should also allow for more interesting abilities which can be overpowered as well ... just as it was in BW.
|
Question, what about a different targeting reticle? A teardrop shape with a fixed starting point would make balled up infestors unable to target a wide unit formation since teardrops are all slim and stuff.
|
On November 13 2012 19:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 19:34 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 13 2012 19:01 Big J wrote:On November 13 2012 18:12 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 13 2012 18:06 Kharnage wrote:On November 13 2012 15:47 Rabiator wrote:On November 13 2012 15:37 TERRANLOL wrote:On November 13 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On November 13 2012 05:50 sieksdekciw wrote:On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote:
We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better". Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before. Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race. In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them. The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced. Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now. Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right. Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower. That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use]. Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off. You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong. Who the FUCK do you think you are??? You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +or woman, just an expression... who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion. This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them. Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part. That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up. As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified. Yeah, I see what you are saying, but just look at his example of unit movement, here is a quote from DB: Show nested quote +We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it... There is quite some more on that topic in this thread on B.net. And it clearly shows, that the discussion is there, that blizzard cares, and the developers do have a clue about the game. So in conclusion (in my eyes), this guy is nothing but an (uninformed?) hater of the development team. Yes, Kharnage's reaction was quite fierce, but I fully understand him, because we all want SC2 to be the best it can be, yet it gets really frustrating to read everybodies amateur opinion over and over again on topics that people have already tested and argued through with a lot more effort than "the developers are not the right people to judge their game". And yes, things are not clear in the beginning. That's why I said there is nothing interesting about claiming that stuff, the interesting stuff is trying to prove it, be it by a good detailed (and therefore probably long) arguement/discussion, or probably even better, through straight up testing.
Whoa there buddy, your tell me that theory-crafting on forums is less effective that straight up testing? Those are some strong words your using there and you better be prepared to back that up with FACTS. I mean, theory-crafting has to be effective, look at all the people who are doing it. I mean, the community agrees, look at all the people posting about how to fix the game.
Or...it is just easy.
|
I do agree that Rabiator's substantial point is weak. Neither the unit test map here on TL nor that blue post support the hypothesis that unit clumping is the solution to the current problems.
I'm mostly interested in the idea that there are too many (or few) hard counters. Too many in terms of marines/corruptors making carriers borderline useless and too few in terms of the infestor being too versatile. No-one has thought about unit selection for a while though. The latest patch made it even easier with the "select the entire army" button being added.
I have the feeling that this is a problem for beginners and not pros. Would limiting selection have a major effect on top-end games? I'll just leave that question out there. I don't have an answer.
But I do look forward to cringing less when I see my bronze-level friends leaving army behind all over the map...
|
used to be gm terran for 6 seasons, tvz was the most fun matchup which kept me on playing, stopped 2 month after the quen buff, game just isnt fun anymore, now playing dota which is fun! gj blizz :D
|
Both posts are from the Code S Group A LR.
On November 13 2012 07:26 JJH777 wrote:
This GSL is the first big tournament where zerg has been so overrepresented
I consider MLGs, WCS Korea, WCG Korea, certain dreamhacks, certain IEMs, WCS Asia, OSL, and some other random tournaments to have been the major ones since the patch. Which dreamhacks and IEMs I consider major are based on how many koreans/the quality of koreans that went to them.
There have been 4 MLGs since the patch with the exception of the first one after the patch (like within a week of the patch) they have been the most balanced MLGs ever as far as ro16s and ro8s. WCS Korea was heavily Protoss dominated, WCG Korea was mostly Terrans and Protoss, and WCS Asia was protoss dominated. For dreamhacks I'm pretty sure the one Mana won was after the patch? Then there was the Taeja ForGG finals one. IEM the only one I remember is the one MVP won which aside from MVP beating all of them zerg did very well at I will admit. OSL zerg did badly in. Only 2 in ro16 and 1 in ro8. For other random tournaments there are like Asus Rog tournaments, ESWC, Lone Star Clash, Home Story Cups, TSL4 etc. Zerg won the HSC that was post patch and Lone Star. Mana won ESWC and Taeja won the Asus Rog. Creator won TSL4. Results have been pretty balanced post patch.
Please read this post.
And this post.
On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote:
you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get.
but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be.
From T/P's point of view: Just because Terran (or Protoss) has had their share of OP'ness, it doesn't justify Z being OP right now, sure.
I agree with JJH777 that the results haven't been as imbalanced as one should suggest, purely looking at premier tournaments.
I agree with Idra that the playstyles of T/P aren't developing, or are just starting to. People seem to realize dropping more severely hurts turtling as zerg, most of the time you can't defend the 4th AND 5th as a BL/Infestor army. (Look at Code S!).
Hell, I'd even say that the PvZ was less balanced when Nestea and Stephano managed to figure that matchup out so much they were able to withstand every all-in and get on 3 bases without really building attacking units. Still, we don't see that build anymore.
Give it another month, maybe 2, and it'll be balanced again.
Now can we please stop whining?
|
On November 13 2012 19:16 Stilgorn wrote:
master league is filled with zerg just because of infestors: otherwise these retards would never break through platinum league, where they deserve to rest forever.
This sentence made my day. So true.
Just look at IPL Fight Club again. HyuN's 14th victory in a row. A Terran or Protoss could NEVER achieve that. It's a joke.
Sometimes I even think the whole Zerg race is just poorly designed - not just the Infestor. I don't know what to say.
|
On November 13 2012 21:15 Ghanburighan wrote:
I do agree that Rabiator's substantial point is weak. Neither the unit test map here on TL nor that blue post support the hypothesis that unit clumping is the solution to the current problems.
I'm mostly interested in the idea that there are too many (or few) hard counters. Too many in terms of marines/corruptors making carriers borderline useless and too few in terms of the infestor being too versatile. No-one has thought about unit selection for a while though. The latest patch made it even easier with the "select the entire army" button being added.
I have the feeling that this is a problem for beginners and not pros. Would limiting selection have a major effect on top-end games? I'll just leave that question out there. I don't have an answer.
But I do look forward to cringing less when I see my bronze-level friends leaving army behind all over the map...
The testing methods usually only involved spreading out units, but that is only one of the things that need to be changed. Unit selection has to be adjusted and AoE needs a rebalance as well, so those tests were bound to fail.
IMO limiting the unit selection would actually help casuals since the battles would be on a much smaller scale and thus MUCH slower than those giant battles in SC2 right now where you can make a misclick and half your army is dead. Sadly too many people dont see this point from my perspective and only think that "oh I have everything in one box and that makes it easier because I dont need to switch". It is not that easy ...
Oh and please tell me why the point is weak ... I have yet to encounter someone actually trying argue with my reasoning ... instead its just flat statements.
|
On November 13 2012 19:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 19:34 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 13 2012 19:01 Big J wrote:On November 13 2012 18:12 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 13 2012 18:06 Kharnage wrote:On November 13 2012 15:47 Rabiator wrote:On November 13 2012 15:37 TERRANLOL wrote:On November 13 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On November 13 2012 05:50 sieksdekciw wrote:On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote:
We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better". Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before. Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race. In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them. The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced. Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now. Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right. Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower. That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use]. Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off. You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong. Who the FUCK do you think you are??? You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +or woman, just an expression... who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion. This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them. Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part. That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up. As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified. Yeah, I see what you are saying, but just look at his example of unit movement, here is a quote from DB: Show nested quote +We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it... There is quite some more on that topic in this thread on B.net. And it clearly shows, that the discussion is there, that blizzard cares, and the developers do have a clue about the game. So in conclusion (in my eyes), this guy is nothing but an (uninformed?) hater of the development team. Yes, Kharnage's reaction was quite fierce, but I fully understand him, because we all want SC2 to be the best it can be, yet it gets really frustrating to read everybodies amateur opinion over and over again on topics that people have already tested and argued through with a lot more effort than "the developers are not the right people to judge their game". And yes, things are not clear in the beginning. That's why I said there is nothing interesting about claiming that stuff, the interesting stuff is trying to prove it, be it by a good detailed (and therefore probably long) arguement/discussion, or probably even better, through straight up testing.
So if Blizzard half-heartedly tests something that isnt going to work in its implementation and which was regarded as a joke in the thread anyways (after that kind of "we dont take your ideas serious enough to even try them out in the beta" answer) it is enough for you? Well not for me and if you think I am wrong then ARGUE WITH THE REASONING. Explain to me why ...
1. asymmetric production speed boosts for the three races which kick in at different timings and dont work for every unit of each race are a good idea.
2. tightly clumped up groups of infantry are a good idea, because to make the game "fair" they had to nerf AoE abilities ... which usually are the exciting points in the game.
3. the deathball is a good thing.
4. tightly clumped units of Marines (and Hydras and Blink Stalkers) are NOT responsible for capital ships and defensive structures being more or less useless.
Just remember ... "because the devs say so" or something similar isnt a good enough reason. If you dont answer then I have to assume that I am right in that these things are terrible AND a problem of the game.
EDIT:
Slight addition to the above: How "high quality" and "thorough" Blizzard internal testing is can be clearly seen by the HotS units and their really wild changes. I for one dont put much stock in those skills ... with such uninspired and almost random ability changes.
|
On November 13 2012 21:46 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 21:15 Ghanburighan wrote:
I do agree that Rabiator's substantial point is weak. Neither the unit test map here on TL nor that blue post support the hypothesis that unit clumping is the solution to the current problems.
I'm mostly interested in the idea that there are too many (or few) hard counters. Too many in terms of marines/corruptors making carriers borderline useless and too few in terms of the infestor being too versatile. No-one has thought about unit selection for a while though. The latest patch made it even easier with the "select the entire army" button being added.
I have the feeling that this is a problem for beginners and not pros. Would limiting selection have a major effect on top-end games? I'll just leave that question out there. I don't have an answer.
But I do look forward to cringing less when I see my bronze-level friends leaving army behind all over the map... The testing methods usually only involved spreading out units, but that is only one of the things that need to be changed. Unit selection has to be adjusted and AoE needs a rebalance as well, so those tests were bound to fail. IMO limiting the unit selection would actually help casuals since the battles would be on a much smaller scale and thus MUCH slower than those giant battles in SC2 right now where you can make a misclick and half your army is dead. Sadly too many people dont see this point from my perspective and only think that "oh I have everything in one box and that makes it easier because I dont need to switch". It is not that easy ... Oh and please tell me why the point is weak ... I have yet to encounter someone actually trying argue with my reasoning ... instead its just flat statements.
Oh, I meant it's weak because the tests you mentioned failed. The full package has not been tested yet. Remember, I'm the guy on your side in the end... But do expand on how the problematic combination of Broodlord/infestor/spines/corruptors would be improved. I still don't see it.
|
BWC will be fun ...NOT! It will be Infestor/Broodlord vs Protoss... in every fucking game. :o
|
On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote:
you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get.
but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op
(you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.)
Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor.
This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base.
Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor.
Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences.
There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army.
An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
