On November 28 2012 02:02 arcHoniC wrote: Although people dont want to admit it, Dustin knows a lot more about this game than anyone gives him credit for. People think they have all the answers but they havent put near the time thinking about this game as the developers have. Have a little faith. WoL was a success imho (I've been playing for 2.5 years and it still isnt boring) and I would be really surprised if HotS did anything but elevate the game.
How you can still have faith when the game clearly has systematic problems AND the answers of the developers are stupid as heck AND the actions of the development team for the expansion are changing units almost erratically or at random is beyond me.
Maybe you are gifted in that you are able to ignore them [ignorance is bliss after all], but they do exist and you dont need "proof" or "data" for them, because they are pretty obvious and easy to understand if you simply look. The only hard part is getting away from the "everything is going to be great" propaganda which Dustin spreads and to get a pretty objective point of view of the game not blinding yourself by "oh this unit is OP" or "this build is too tough" opinions. Here are some general questions to think about and they arent specific to any race:
Do you think it is a good idea to have the balance between units depend upon the numbers of them present? This is the "Marines can stack up tighter and thus have a higher dps per area compared to Stalkers" question.
Do you think "critical number" is a good thing in an RTS, where you are getting beyond a certain number of units and are able to one-shot big and expensive units OR get near invulnerable against large groups of units? Having lots of Infestors in a tight clump so you ALWAYS have a few Fungals available to stop any enemy units so they can be killed by your damage units is one example. Having enough Stalkers to one-shot Broodlords is another example ... but the game almost REQUIRES you to have that many.
Do you think the deathball - all units in a tight clump to battle against your opponents clump - is a good way to have in an RTS to the point that other tactics (spreading out and sieging an opponents base for example) are downright inefficient? This is a question of taste, but isnt choice better for the game? If the deathball was made harder and other ways of playing became equally viable it would add more options for the players.
What is exciting in the game? Are those abilities limited by being "too efficient" against tight clumps of units? In Broodwar there was the Reaver and it dealt 100 damage each shot which was A LOT, but there were two costs for it in the form of resources and the somewhat random nature. In SC2 this couldnt be done, because it would be totally overpowered ...
Are "bigger battles" with "bigger explosions" more exciting or can small engagements be just as exciting? This is the point where I keep on mentioning the BW pros, who are able to micro their own 2 Zerglings so well that they win a battle against an opponents 2 Zerglings without losing one of their own. Its also a question of "which type of micro do you prefer? shifting clumps of units into a concave OR moving individual units for higher efficiency?".
Do you think that watching big clumps of units - especially Roaches - battling each other is interesting for a viewer? This is where I always quote "the shark and the fish swarm" problem, where the shark is unable to focus on a fish, because there simply are too many.
Lots of questions which all deal with a fundamental problem of SC2 ... the deathball / tight unit clumping and the general size of armies in the games. The experience of Dustin Browder doesnt mean anything if he is coming to the wrong conclusions and this is very likely if he never ever "takes a step back" from designing new units or trying to balance existing units or simply dealing with the day-to-day details of his job. You need to step back and take a deep breath on a project of this size and ask yourself "Am I overlooking something?" while trying to be objective about it. I think he doesnt do this ... and thus he is bound to fail no matter what his experience with game design is.
Even though WoL was a success it doesnt mean it couldnt be better. At the beginning there were soooo many things the community criticised (BNet0.2, no LAN, Facebook integration, chat channels, custom map system, ...) and most of them havent been improved one bit. This has cost Blizzard A LOT of reputation and probably damaged the success of HotS.
I have a great Idea for Balancing the game better, and making the games more fun to play. What I think is the biggest problem is the clustering up of Units. Why don't they design the units in a way that they can't cluster up that much. No more ball of death. no more one battle decides the hole game. It would also be more similar to BW. what do you guys think?
This has been tried already in a community mod, but simply increasing the radius of the units is a terrible solution, because it prevents clumping. The game should FORCE SPREAD while moving and allow clustering through micro. Add to this an increase in AoE damage and you get flexibility AND choice for the players (and viewers) AND you have a potential gain through clumping which is balanced by the potentially deadly AoE damage.
Anything less would be a terrible compsomise which makes the game worse.
But the Dev Team has been reducing AoE damage since day 1, they reduced tank damage, collosus dmg,emp radius,fungal radius, etc,etc.
High damage worked in BW because the clumping wasnt so hardcore as in SC2.
Im just saying AoE damage and cumpling are tied together.
IMHO, they will never fix the death ball issue until they drop the mentality: "but what about bronze leaguers?, we need to make easy for them", its a shame how after 2 years bronze leaguers are still top priority.
If they actually cared about bronze leaguers, you'd think they would have buffed Terran some time in the past 10 months...
it's too bad such a motivated worker doesn't get shit on what's happening around in his own game and actually manages to sound like a retard when hes talking about it
I have a great Idea for Balancing the game better, and making the games more fun to play. What I think is the biggest problem is the clustering up of Units. Why don't they design the units in a way that they can't cluster up that much. No more ball of death. no more one battle decides the hole game. It would also be more similar to BW. what do you guys think?
This has been tried already in a community mod, but simply increasing the radius of the units is a terrible solution, because it prevents clumping. The game should FORCE SPREAD while moving and allow clustering through micro. Add to this an increase in AoE damage and you get flexibility AND choice for the players (and viewers) AND you have a potential gain through clumping which is balanced by the potentially deadly AoE damage.
Anything less would be a terrible compsomise which makes the game worse.
But the Dev Team has been reducing AoE damage since day 1, they reduced tank damage, collosus dmg,emp radius,fungal radius, etc,etc.
High damage worked in BW because the clumping wasnt so hardcore as in SC2.
Im just saying AoE damage and cumpling are tied together.
IMHO, they will never fix the death ball issue until they drop the mentality: "but what about bronze leaguers?, we need to make easy for them", its a shame how after 2 years bronze leaguers are still top priority.
If they actually cared about bronze leaguers, you'd think they would have buffed Terran some time in the past 10 months...
For Bronze league it isnt necessary to buff or nerf a race, but rather to make the game equally difficult to play. Using a bunch of Banelings againts Marines is EASY, defending against that by splitting your units is HARD. This is the biggest problem for the lower leagues. In addition there is that problem of not scouting and then being overrrun by an easily produced horde of units due to the turbo boosts for production. Sadly they are either afraid to do anything about this or they dont notice this or they dont care.
Specific racial adjustment are only useful after these general problems have been solved.
@Rabiator: No game can be balanced and "equally hard to play for the 3 races" at every level. Lower leaguers can either change race if theirs is too hard, or learn to play better.
On November 29 2012 04:33 Salteador Neo wrote: @Rabiator: No game can be balanced and "equally hard to play for the 3 races" at every level. Lower leaguers can either change race if theirs is too hard, or learn to play better.
Thats the stupid way to answer the problem ... "l2p" ... and it is also not true.
The thing is that Broodwar was NOT that different to master because the units didnt have that many gimmicks AND you didnt have those masses of units which REQUIRE that you have precise and good control. BW was much easier on the newbie while offering lots of chances to learn nifty tricks if you had the patience and skill for it. Soooo ... if it has been done once already, why cant SC2 do it? The answer to this is easy: Blizzard / Browder cant stand taking a few steps back to tune down SC2s overdone focus on mass combat.
On November 29 2012 04:33 Salteador Neo wrote: @Rabiator: No game can be balanced and "equally hard to play for the 3 races" at every level. Lower leaguers can either change race if theirs is too hard, or learn to play better.
Thats the stupid way to answer the problem ... "l2p" ... and it is also not true.
The thing is that Broodwar was NOT that different to master because the units didnt have that many gimmicks AND you didnt have those masses of units which REQUIRE that you have precise and good control. BW was much easier on the newbie while offering lots of chances to learn nifty tricks if you had the patience and skill for it. Soooo ... if it has been done once already, why cant SC2 do it? The answer to this is easy: Blizzard / Browder cant stand taking a few steps back to tune down SC2s overdone focus on mass combat.
I am sorry, I blacked out when you used the words “BW was much easier on the newbie” and that BW “didnt have those masses of units which REQUIRE that you have precise and good control.” My brain was unable to understand that language without damaging itself.
On November 29 2012 04:33 Salteador Neo wrote: @Rabiator: No game can be balanced and "equally hard to play for the 3 races" at every level. Lower leaguers can either change race if theirs is too hard, or learn to play better.
Thats the stupid way to answer the problem ... "l2p" ... and it is also not true.
The thing is that Broodwar was NOT that different to master because the units didnt have that many gimmicks AND you didnt have those masses of units which REQUIRE that you have precise and good control. BW was much easier on the newbie while offering lots of chances to learn nifty tricks if you had the patience and skill for it. Soooo ... if it has been done once already, why cant SC2 do it? The answer to this is easy: Blizzard / Browder cant stand taking a few steps back to tune down SC2s overdone focus on mass combat.
BW was hard as hell on the newbie lol, dunno what you are talking about. Also Terran on low levels was hella harder than the rest, while Protoss was the easier in pretty much every level (and I'm a huge Protoss fan since Bisu).
L2P is the only response I can think of to someone who asks for the game to be balanced around low level play...
On November 29 2012 04:33 Salteador Neo wrote: @Rabiator: No game can be balanced and "equally hard to play for the 3 races" at every level. Lower leaguers can either change race if theirs is too hard, or learn to play better.
Thats the stupid way to answer the problem ... "l2p" ... and it is also not true.
The thing is that Broodwar was NOT that different to master because the units didnt have that many gimmicks AND you didnt have those masses of units which REQUIRE that you have precise and good control. BW was much easier on the newbie while offering lots of chances to learn nifty tricks if you had the patience and skill for it. Soooo ... if it has been done once already, why cant SC2 do it? The answer to this is easy: Blizzard / Browder cant stand taking a few steps back to tune down SC2s overdone focus on mass combat.
BW was hard as hell on the newbie lol, dunno what you are talking about. Also Terran on low levels was hella harder than the rest, while Protoss was the easier in pretty much every level (and I'm a huge Protoss fan since Bisu).
L2P is the only response I can think of to someone who asks for the game to be balanced around low level play...
BW was EQUALLY HARD to learn for all three races ...
BW was also simpler to learn, because there were no low level gimmicks which affected the basic units. No Forcefields, no Banelings to be wary of rolling into your masses of units, no Blink to learn to master for the Dragoons ... NOTHING. Thus it IS easier to learn than SC2.
On November 29 2012 04:33 Salteador Neo wrote: @Rabiator: No game can be balanced and "equally hard to play for the 3 races" at every level. Lower leaguers can either change race if theirs is too hard, or learn to play better.
Thats the stupid way to answer the problem ... "l2p" ... and it is also not true.
The thing is that Broodwar was NOT that different to master because the units didnt have that many gimmicks AND you didnt have those masses of units which REQUIRE that you have precise and good control. BW was much easier on the newbie while offering lots of chances to learn nifty tricks if you had the patience and skill for it. Soooo ... if it has been done once already, why cant SC2 do it? The answer to this is easy: Blizzard / Browder cant stand taking a few steps back to tune down SC2s overdone focus on mass combat.
BW was hard as hell on the newbie lol, dunno what you are talking about. Also Terran on low levels was hella harder than the rest, while Protoss was the easier in pretty much every level (and I'm a huge Protoss fan since Bisu).
L2P is the only response I can think of to someone who asks for the game to be balanced around low level play...
BW was EQUALLY HARD to learn for all three races ...
BW was also simpler to learn, because there were no low level gimmicks which affected the basic units. No Forcefields, no Banelings to be wary of rolling into your masses of units, no Blink to learn to master for the Dragoons ... NOTHING. Thus it IS easier to learn than SC2.
Everyone has an equal capacity to improve and surpass the opponents they're rated against. It doesn't matter how difficult it might be to micro against banelings for a low level Terran, as they will be paired with a Zerg who's win/loss would likely reveal they're worse than an average Zerg of comparable skill level to that Terran, creating even games and an even chance to get better. If Terrans are actually losing significant losses to Zerg who seemingly destroy them, then they'd have to be winning a significant portion of their TvT's and TvP's.
The irony of such criticisms against the Blizzard team when they designed a ladder system that can't be significantly imbalanced without falling into one of the extreme ends of the MMR spectrum.
On November 29 2012 04:33 Salteador Neo wrote: @Rabiator: No game can be balanced and "equally hard to play for the 3 races" at every level. Lower leaguers can either change race if theirs is too hard, or learn to play better.
Thats the stupid way to answer the problem ... "l2p" ... and it is also not true.
The thing is that Broodwar was NOT that different to master because the units didnt have that many gimmicks AND you didnt have those masses of units which REQUIRE that you have precise and good control. BW was much easier on the newbie while offering lots of chances to learn nifty tricks if you had the patience and skill for it. Soooo ... if it has been done once already, why cant SC2 do it? The answer to this is easy: Blizzard / Browder cant stand taking a few steps back to tune down SC2s overdone focus on mass combat.
BW was hard as hell on the newbie lol, dunno what you are talking about. Also Terran on low levels was hella harder than the rest, while Protoss was the easier in pretty much every level (and I'm a huge Protoss fan since Bisu).
L2P is the only response I can think of to someone who asks for the game to be balanced around low level play...
BW was EQUALLY HARD to learn for all three races ...
BW was also simpler to learn, because there were no low level gimmicks which affected the basic units. No Forcefields, no Banelings to be wary of rolling into your masses of units, no Blink to learn to master for the Dragoons ... NOTHING. Thus it IS easier to learn than SC2.
Everyone has an equal capacity to improve and surpass the opponents they're rated against. It doesn't matter how difficult it might be to micro against banelings for a low level Terran, as they will be paired with a Zerg who's win/loss would likely reveal they're worse than an average Zerg of comparable skill level to that Terran, creating even games and an even chance to get better. If Terrans are actually losing significant losses to Zerg who seemingly destroy them, then they'd have to be winning a significant portion of their TvT's and TvP's.
The irony of such criticisms against the Blizzard team when they designed a ladder system that can't be significantly imbalanced without falling into one of the extreme ends of the MMR spectrum.
Thats not really the point .... the LADDER ... and being paired against people who are placed equally high on the ladder still makes Banelings EASY to use and evading them HARD. Its an easy excuse for not acknowledging the difference needed. Where is the equivalent for Terran, where they are pointing a gun at Zerg and say "make the right move THIS SECOND or die"? There is no equivalent and this creates the imbalance in the gameplay.
If I want to have fun in the game - as a casual - and such imbalance is in it then I wont have fun playing as the Terran. Sure, the Zerg will have his fun, but the Terran? Only if he is a masochist. So Blizzard made the races "unequal" in the skill required / the effort required to play it and this sucks for casuals in addition to giving Zerg players a nice advantage by having less work to perform.
On November 28 2012 02:02 arcHoniC wrote: Although people dont want to admit it, Dustin knows a lot more about this game than anyone gives him credit for. People think they have all the answers but they havent put near the time thinking about this game as the developers have. Have a little faith. WoL was a success imho (I've been playing for 2.5 years and it still isnt boring) and I would be really surprised if HotS did anything but elevate the game.
If he knows that much, he should show it more in interviews (David Kim as well). His answers are just complete bullshit. And that they didn't think of sentries being a little too strong if fungal doesn't hit them tells us the whole story: They have know idea of what they are actually doing. (I didn't think of that too, because I didn't know Sentry was psionic since it never was relevant until now, but as a game designer of this game you should know!).
And the comment about needing more data of terran being weak. No Zergs in Ro8 of one single tournament (GSL Season 2 Code S) -> immediate buff (queen range/overlord speed) No Protoss in Ro8 of one single tournament (GSL October 2011 Code S) -> immediate buff (immortal range/upgrade costs)
Well now that terrans get smashed all over the place? Wait and see!
Although, if we're going only by GSL, Terran is fine. There are two of them in the Ro4 this season.
On November 29 2012 04:33 Salteador Neo wrote: @Rabiator: No game can be balanced and "equally hard to play for the 3 races" at every level. Lower leaguers can either change race if theirs is too hard, or learn to play better.
Thats the stupid way to answer the problem ... "l2p" ... and it is also not true.
The thing is that Broodwar was NOT that different to master because the units didnt have that many gimmicks AND you didnt have those masses of units which REQUIRE that you have precise and good control. BW was much easier on the newbie while offering lots of chances to learn nifty tricks if you had the patience and skill for it. Soooo ... if it has been done once already, why cant SC2 do it? The answer to this is easy: Blizzard / Browder cant stand taking a few steps back to tune down SC2s overdone focus on mass combat.
BW was hard as hell on the newbie lol, dunno what you are talking about. Also Terran on low levels was hella harder than the rest, while Protoss was the easier in pretty much every level (and I'm a huge Protoss fan since Bisu).
L2P is the only response I can think of to someone who asks for the game to be balanced around low level play...
BW was EQUALLY HARD to learn for all three races ...
BW was also simpler to learn, because there were no low level gimmicks which affected the basic units. No Forcefields, no Banelings to be wary of rolling into your masses of units, no Blink to learn to master for the Dragoons ... NOTHING. Thus it IS easier to learn than SC2.
Lol, no. Protoss was WAY easier than the others to at the "real" newbie level.
He is correct. Protoss was easier and perhaps even more enjoyable for a beginner in Starcraft. Maybe it was because you could win as a protoss without worrying too much about your macro, as protoss was about having 'fewer but stronger' units. In any case, early game protoss was always strong. One zealot > two marines.
It was really interesting to hear Dustin's answers on some of the questions answered. I hope he does interviews on a regular basis henceforth.
On November 29 2012 04:33 Salteador Neo wrote: @Rabiator: No game can be balanced and "equally hard to play for the 3 races" at every level. Lower leaguers can either change race if theirs is too hard, or learn to play better.
Thats the stupid way to answer the problem ... "l2p" ... and it is also not true.
The thing is that Broodwar was NOT that different to master because the units didnt have that many gimmicks AND you didnt have those masses of units which REQUIRE that you have precise and good control. BW was much easier on the newbie while offering lots of chances to learn nifty tricks if you had the patience and skill for it. Soooo ... if it has been done once already, why cant SC2 do it? The answer to this is easy: Blizzard / Browder cant stand taking a few steps back to tune down SC2s overdone focus on mass combat.
BW was hard as hell on the newbie lol, dunno what you are talking about. Also Terran on low levels was hella harder than the rest, while Protoss was the easier in pretty much every level (and I'm a huge Protoss fan since Bisu).
L2P is the only response I can think of to someone who asks for the game to be balanced around low level play...
BW was EQUALLY HARD to learn for all three races ...
BW was also simpler to learn, because there were no low level gimmicks which affected the basic units. No Forcefields, no Banelings to be wary of rolling into your masses of units, no Blink to learn to master for the Dragoons ... NOTHING. Thus it IS easier to learn than SC2.
Lol, no. Protoss was WAY easier than the others to at the "real" newbie level.
Why? Zealots, strong! :p
There was no "oh shit, act NOW or die" thing among the basic units, there was no "forcefield placement" to learn and no "concussive shell slow-kiting" either. The basic units - Marine/Hydralisk/Dragoon - were relatively equal in their difficulty to use ... no matter which one of them was stronger or weaker. Thus the difference between playing the races wasnt as huge as it is in SC2.
In addition to this the gameplay-limitation of "12 units per control group" made sure that relatively equal numbers of units were facing each other. This kept the "kill speed" slow and manageable for lower level players. Compared to this the easily massed units in SC2 make sure that you can screw up easily and lose half your army in a short time.
tl;dr "Difficulty to use" isnt the same as "powerful" ...
I have a great Idea for Balancing the game better, and making the games more fun to play. What I think is the biggest problem is the clustering up of Units. Why don't they design the units in a way that they can't cluster up that much. No more ball of death. no more one battle decides the hole game. It would also be more similar to BW. what do you guys think?
This has been tried already in a community mod, but simply increasing the radius of the units is a terrible solution, because it prevents clumping. The game should FORCE SPREAD while moving and allow clustering through micro. Add to this an increase in AoE damage and you get flexibility AND choice for the players (and viewers) AND you have a potential gain through clumping which is balanced by the potentially deadly AoE damage.
Anything less would be a terrible compsomise which makes the game worse.
But the Dev Team has been reducing AoE damage since day 1, they reduced tank damage, collosus dmg,emp radius,fungal radius, etc,etc.
High damage worked in BW because the clumping wasnt so hardcore as in SC2.
Im just saying AoE damage and cumpling are tied together.
IMHO, they will never fix the death ball issue until they drop the mentality: "but what about bronze leaguers?, we need to make easy for them", its a shame how after 2 years bronze leaguers are still top priority.
If they actually cared about bronze leaguers, you'd think they would have buffed Terran some time in the past 10 months...
bronze terrans are doing fine? All terrans are down there. The problem is diamond/master/gm where there is barely any left.
On November 29 2012 04:33 Salteador Neo wrote: @Rabiator: No game can be balanced and "equally hard to play for the 3 races" at every level. Lower leaguers can either change race if theirs is too hard, or learn to play better.
Thats the stupid way to answer the problem ... "l2p" ... and it is also not true.
The thing is that Broodwar was NOT that different to master because the units didnt have that many gimmicks AND you didnt have those masses of units which REQUIRE that you have precise and good control. BW was much easier on the newbie while offering lots of chances to learn nifty tricks if you had the patience and skill for it. Soooo ... if it has been done once already, why cant SC2 do it? The answer to this is easy: Blizzard / Browder cant stand taking a few steps back to tune down SC2s overdone focus on mass combat.
BW was hard as hell on the newbie lol, dunno what you are talking about. Also Terran on low levels was hella harder than the rest, while Protoss was the easier in pretty much every level (and I'm a huge Protoss fan since Bisu).
L2P is the only response I can think of to someone who asks for the game to be balanced around low level play...
BW was EQUALLY HARD to learn for all three races ...
BW was also simpler to learn, because there were no low level gimmicks which affected the basic units. No Forcefields, no Banelings to be wary of rolling into your masses of units, no Blink to learn to master for the Dragoons ... NOTHING. Thus it IS easier to learn than SC2.
Everyone has an equal capacity to improve and surpass the opponents they're rated against. It doesn't matter how difficult it might be to micro against banelings for a low level Terran, as they will be paired with a Zerg who's win/loss would likely reveal they're worse than an average Zerg of comparable skill level to that Terran, creating even games and an even chance to get better. If Terrans are actually losing significant losses to Zerg who seemingly destroy them, then they'd have to be winning a significant portion of their TvT's and TvP's.
The irony of such criticisms against the Blizzard team when they designed a ladder system that can't be significantly imbalanced without falling into one of the extreme ends of the MMR spectrum.
Thats not really the point .... the LADDER ... and being paired against people who are placed equally high on the ladder still makes Banelings EASY to use and evading them HARD. Its an easy excuse for not acknowledging the difference needed. Where is the equivalent for Terran, where they are pointing a gun at Zerg and say "make the right move THIS SECOND or die"? There is no equivalent and this creates the imbalance in the gameplay.
If I want to have fun in the game - as a casual - and such imbalance is in it then I wont have fun playing as the Terran. Sure, the Zerg will have his fun, but the Terran? Only if he is a masochist. So Blizzard made the races "unequal" in the skill required / the effort required to play it and this sucks for casuals in addition to giving Zerg players a nice advantage by having less work to perform.
Why do you insist on saying that marines should be viable to a-move against banelings? It's a gimmick that they can be split and be super cost effective against blings. Maybe try something that doesn't require splitting like mech? I'd imagine a low level zerg would feel the same way about mech as you do about blings.
On November 29 2012 04:33 Salteador Neo wrote: @Rabiator: No game can be balanced and "equally hard to play for the 3 races" at every level. Lower leaguers can either change race if theirs is too hard, or learn to play better.
Thats the stupid way to answer the problem ... "l2p" ... and it is also not true.
The thing is that Broodwar was NOT that different to master because the units didnt have that many gimmicks AND you didnt have those masses of units which REQUIRE that you have precise and good control. BW was much easier on the newbie while offering lots of chances to learn nifty tricks if you had the patience and skill for it. Soooo ... if it has been done once already, why cant SC2 do it? The answer to this is easy: Blizzard / Browder cant stand taking a few steps back to tune down SC2s overdone focus on mass combat.
BW was hard as hell on the newbie lol, dunno what you are talking about. Also Terran on low levels was hella harder than the rest, while Protoss was the easier in pretty much every level (and I'm a huge Protoss fan since Bisu).
L2P is the only response I can think of to someone who asks for the game to be balanced around low level play...
BW was EQUALLY HARD to learn for all three races ...
BW was also simpler to learn, because there were no low level gimmicks which affected the basic units. No Forcefields, no Banelings to be wary of rolling into your masses of units, no Blink to learn to master for the Dragoons ... NOTHING. Thus it IS easier to learn than SC2.
Everyone has an equal capacity to improve and surpass the opponents they're rated against. It doesn't matter how difficult it might be to micro against banelings for a low level Terran, as they will be paired with a Zerg who's win/loss would likely reveal they're worse than an average Zerg of comparable skill level to that Terran, creating even games and an even chance to get better. If Terrans are actually losing significant losses to Zerg who seemingly destroy them, then they'd have to be winning a significant portion of their TvT's and TvP's.
The irony of such criticisms against the Blizzard team when they designed a ladder system that can't be significantly imbalanced without falling into one of the extreme ends of the MMR spectrum.
Thats not really the point .... the LADDER ... and being paired against people who are placed equally high on the ladder still makes Banelings EASY to use and evading them HARD. Its an easy excuse for not acknowledging the difference needed. Where is the equivalent for Terran, where they are pointing a gun at Zerg and say "make the right move THIS SECOND or die"? There is no equivalent and this creates the imbalance in the gameplay.
If I want to have fun in the game - as a casual - and such imbalance is in it then I wont have fun playing as the Terran. Sure, the Zerg will have his fun, but the Terran? Only if he is a masochist. So Blizzard made the races "unequal" in the skill required / the effort required to play it and this sucks for casuals in addition to giving Zerg players a nice advantage by having less work to perform.
Why do you insist on saying that marines should be viable to a-move against banelings? It's a gimmick that they can be split and be super cost effective against blings. Maybe try something that doesn't require splitting like mech? I'd imagine a low level zerg would feel the same way about mech as you do about blings.
Errr ... WHAT?
All I am saying is that BANELINGS are an A-MOVE unit which has to be countered by a split second reaction and that the other two races DONT have such a mechanic. This makes the races very much different to use ... Zerg = ez-mode, Terran = hard. Protoss have Forcefield and arent usually targeted by Banelings anyways and a ZvZ has the same difficulty on both side ... except if you dont build Banelings.
This difference to use the races is the reason why SC2 is unfriendly to learn for newbies and low-leaguers .... contrary to BW, which didnt have such low-tier special abilities.
If anything the Banelings need to be changed to be less of an "do the right thing NOW or die" unit to stop this one-sided-burden-of-micro and even out the playing difficulty of the races.
EPT
