|
On November 29 2012 19:57 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 14:08 rd wrote:On November 29 2012 13:54 Rabiator wrote:On November 29 2012 07:54 Salteador Neo wrote:On November 29 2012 06:47 Rabiator wrote: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.
So then you have no point? I just explained how Terrans get even opponents giving them a 40-60% chance on average to beat every zerg they face -- regardless of how imbalanced -- which the ladder will compensate for. It's pretty much the definition of a system made for casuals, giving them all equal opportunities. Even when they aren't good enough yet to deal with an equal opponent with any kind of advantage, they can improve and get better to reach that level. It's unrealistic, and fairly redundant otherwise to nitpick the shit out of the most miniscule discrepancies that are largely irrelevant.
If you can't have fun in the game because the mere concept of banelings makes you angry, regardless of how unrelated it may be on the reality of your experiences, you're probably prone to strawman any unit as your downfall on ladder in a perfectly balanced world.
I hope you're not implying Blizzard intentionally creates imbalance, either.
|
On November 30 2012 00:07 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 19:57 Rabiator wrote:On November 29 2012 14:08 rd wrote:On November 29 2012 13:54 Rabiator wrote:On November 29 2012 07:54 Salteador Neo wrote:On November 29 2012 06:47 Rabiator wrote: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. So then you have no point? I just explained how Terrans get even opponents giving them a 40-60% chance on average to beat every zerg they face -- regardless of how imbalanced -- which the ladder will compensate for. It's pretty much the definition of a system made for casuals, giving them all equal opportunities. Even when they aren't good enough yet to deal with an equal opponent with any kind of advantage, they can improve and get better to reach that level. It's unrealistic, and fairly redundant otherwise to nitpick the shit out of the most miniscule discrepancies that are largely irrelevant. If you can't have fun in the game because the mere concept of banelings makes you angry, regardless of how unrelated it may be on the reality of your experiences, you're probably prone to strawman any unit as your downfall on ladder in a perfectly balanced world. I hope you're not implying Blizzard intentionally creates imbalance, either.
Didnt you read? The LADDER isnt important, because its about how easy the races are used. Even at pro levels its harder to split Marines than it is to use Banelings. This discrepancy is worst at low level of skill, because Banelings are a-move.
If the ladder just adjusts who meets who that is a nice "cheat" of Blizzard to give everyone a 50/50 win-loss ratio so it DOES NOT MATTER, because it doesnt really put players of "equal skill" against each other since ZERG IS EASIER TO PLAY. Broodwar did NOT have that problem since there were no low-tier special gimmicks which were THAT different to use/fight against.
|
Oh it's Monk? I always heard "Mong", which I found odd.
|
Banelings aren't the best example of an A-move units imo. A-moving them isn't effective because they will explode on Marauders or Tank instead of exploding on Marines. In top of that, Zerg have to split them because if they don't, one Tanks volley can kill 10 Banelings at once. As a lot of people tell you, if you have problem fighting Baneling with Marines in wood league, then, don't fight baneling with Marines. Terrans don't have to play bio to win vs Zerg and mech is very good in lower leagues.
|
On November 30 2012 00:17 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 00:07 rd wrote:On November 29 2012 19:57 Rabiator wrote:On November 29 2012 14:08 rd wrote:On November 29 2012 13:54 Rabiator wrote:On November 29 2012 07:54 Salteador Neo wrote:On November 29 2012 06:47 Rabiator wrote: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. So then you have no point? I just explained how Terrans get even opponents giving them a 40-60% chance on average to beat every zerg they face -- regardless of how imbalanced -- which the ladder will compensate for. It's pretty much the definition of a system made for casuals, giving them all equal opportunities. Even when they aren't good enough yet to deal with an equal opponent with any kind of advantage, they can improve and get better to reach that level. It's unrealistic, and fairly redundant otherwise to nitpick the shit out of the most miniscule discrepancies that are largely irrelevant. If you can't have fun in the game because the mere concept of banelings makes you angry, regardless of how unrelated it may be on the reality of your experiences, you're probably prone to strawman any unit as your downfall on ladder in a perfectly balanced world. I hope you're not implying Blizzard intentionally creates imbalance, either. Didnt you read? The LADDER isnt important, because its about how easy the races are used. Even at pro levels its harder to split Marines than it is to use Banelings. This discrepancy is worst at low level of skill, because Banelings are a-move. If the ladder just adjusts who meets who that is a nice "cheat" of Blizzard to give everyone a 50/50 win-loss ratio so it DOES NOT MATTER, because it doesnt really put players of "equal skill" against each other since ZERG IS EASIER TO PLAY. Broodwar did NOT have that problem since there were no low-tier special gimmicks which were THAT different to use/fight against.
Everyone can find specific points in every match up that were one player needs to micro more than the other. Saying that X-race has to micro(and I don’t consider backing up against a melee range unit robust micro) more than Y-race does not prove that one race is harder than the other. The other race could easily find a similar example. Micro is a back and forth affair. One player makes a move and the other player responds. Some units are put on attack-move so the player can focus on controlling others.
Also, there are a number of people actually played BW on a higher level who would not agree that all three races were equally easy to play. I know you like they claim they were all equally challenging, but there are few facts to support this claim.
|
On November 30 2012 00:17 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2012 00:07 rd wrote:On November 29 2012 19:57 Rabiator wrote:On November 29 2012 14:08 rd wrote:On November 29 2012 13:54 Rabiator wrote:On November 29 2012 07:54 Salteador Neo wrote:On November 29 2012 06:47 Rabiator wrote: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. So then you have no point? I just explained how Terrans get even opponents giving them a 40-60% chance on average to beat every zerg they face -- regardless of how imbalanced -- which the ladder will compensate for. It's pretty much the definition of a system made for casuals, giving them all equal opportunities. Even when they aren't good enough yet to deal with an equal opponent with any kind of advantage, they can improve and get better to reach that level. It's unrealistic, and fairly redundant otherwise to nitpick the shit out of the most miniscule discrepancies that are largely irrelevant. If you can't have fun in the game because the mere concept of banelings makes you angry, regardless of how unrelated it may be on the reality of your experiences, you're probably prone to strawman any unit as your downfall on ladder in a perfectly balanced world. I hope you're not implying Blizzard intentionally creates imbalance, either. Didnt you read? The LADDER isnt important, because its about how easy the races are used. Even at pro levels its harder to split Marines than it is to use Banelings. This discrepancy is worst at low level of skill, because Banelings are a-move. If the ladder just adjusts who meets who that is a nice "cheat" of Blizzard to give everyone a 50/50 win-loss ratio so it DOES NOT MATTER, because it doesnt really put players of "equal skill" against each other since ZERG IS EASIER TO PLAY. Broodwar did NOT have that problem since there were no low-tier special gimmicks which were THAT different to use/fight against.
I'm not sure you're getting it. The ladder is extremely relevant. It creates even matches; each player has a ~50% chance to win regardless of any implicit imbalance. Zerg who defeat Terrans of equal skill level (not equal MMR) more often than not will be rated higher, and these Terrans won't be fighting Zerg such that their winrate against them wouldn't plummet below 40% outside of extreme circumstances. The bias you exhume is nauseating. I just explained why it's a non-issue and now it's a cheat. Lol. I suggest that these casuals try another game whom's forum they can bitch on if they can't queue on ladder because they earnestly think it's a single unit that's holding them back. If it wasn't the baneling it'd be something else -- anything to explain why their ~50% winrate isn't 80%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
