|
Why does nobody acknowledge the true problem that Blizzard has with all of the problems revolving around Zerg? To me it seems like Blizzard has a clear dilemma: That they have to appease the balance of the game for competitive play to be fair, and they also have to make the game reasonably balanced for the casual gamer, also known as Blizzard's main source of income, who isn't capable of playing the game well enough for a unit as powerful as the Infestor to not be as strong as it is.
If a pro Zerg were to face a pro Terran or Protoss of equal skill, I believe that the Zerg will win about 3-5% than the other races due to the Infestor-BL synergy. However, if two diamond players were to face each other and were at equal skill, it becomes closer to 10-15%, due to it being easier for a player of lesser skill to utilize the abilities of the Infestor (it's easier to hit fungal than to split and stutter-step marines, but both are about as effective overall when done 100% correct). When the Infestor is nerfed, however, I imagine that while the pro win rates will first sink for Zerg, then even out, the lesser skilled players will have win rates that plummet to 40-45% and don't climb much higher ever.
|
On December 05 2012 06:17 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:55 xxpack09 wrote:On December 05 2012 00:15 FinalForm wrote:
It's not satire, or it's just poor satire, because the first half is actually completely true (that zerg is so easy to play even foreigners can master it), then the second half turns to trolling (poking fun at overly whiny terrans that will go as far to call blizzard racist). There are un-creative starwars references in it to add to an otherwise bland balance whine. Basically just saying that starcraft 2 is a shit game. Not to single you out in particular over all of the other people complaining about the quality of the satire in the OP, but what you've written in bold is exactly what makes it so brilliant--it starts out making a strong well-argued point, then it begins to descend into greater and greater hilarity. The reader finishes the piece not in a mood to yell and rage at blizzard or weep for the future of SC2 in the face of other games, but laughing with the author about the ridiculousness of the situation. It allows the audience to ponder on a serious issue in a joking manner, giving the piece a multifaceted appeal. Read for example, one of the most famous pieces of satire from one of the greatest satirists: A Modest ProposalThe text in red is where the transition begins. Ver's piece is different in that he spends more time fleshing out his argument using pictures/statistics/specific examples to back it, but the general form is the same. His equivalent of Swift's red paragraph would be this one: "The fungal buff was, without question, a "white people change." Just as foreigners never got any good at playing the difficult muta/ling/bling and immediately started to abuse the infestor upon buff, Koreans despised the infestor. Even when fungal was made so overpowered it had to be nerfed to keep suspicion in check, Koreans blissfully continued using muta/ling/bling exclusively. For these honorable men, it was shameful to win after getting outplayed horribly. They wanted to use their superior intelligence and skill to dominate their opponents; or maybe they're just stubborn, who knows. These Korean Zergs only began picking up the infestor after it was abundantly clear how much better, safer, and easier, it was over muta/ling/bling. Even now, certain Korean Zergs rigidly fixate on muta/ling/bling, showing that some Zergs still have principles and want to earn their wins. Unfortunately, as they are discovering, it's pretty hard."I'm seeing multiple people in this thread complain about the writing of this piece in two different ways: some people clearly wanted a more analytical piece, while others clearly wanted a complete joke (like the reddit thread that was linked about ways to buff fungal). To be honest.... those people either just don't understand how satire can be used to make an argumentative piece more engaging and more fun to read, or they didn't read the full OP properly. Doesn't change the fact that the thread is really poorly executed. Having the 2 part split satire split analysis creates a confusion about the overall message. Generally confusion is the absolutely worst enemy of any sort of write-up no matter the kind, because it always conceals the message. I would say it was a bad decision to go with the hole split thread decision. Satire is something that needs to be clear when used. You can't use satire and pretend to be serriuos half the way. That is just bad trolling. Also guys would you stop being ridiculous? This thread is less than a day old it have not had ANY impact on the changes announced today. Blizzard have most likely been working on this decision for the better part of last week using all the feedback they got. As for these changes not being tested, well let me remind you of some history. The queen change was in the testing map for 4 days... That was basicly equivilant of saying "Alright the decision is made throw it on the servers... Oh it is Thurdays well guess we have to wait... The test map? sure why not" With that little time they could not really have had time for any futher decisions.
Idk man, I thought the message was pretty clear and not confusing for anyone with good proficiency in English. I suppose I can buy the argument that for such an international community like TL.net, where so many people having english as a 2nd/3rd/4th language, that TL is not the best audience for the piece, but I don't think that the quality of the piece is diminished because the author wrote it in such a way that takes a bit of reading comprehension to understand.
Also, all the people talking about this thread causing blizzard to make the recent changes are very obviously joking--in fact, I would say even MORE obviously joking than Ver was when he wrote the OP.
|
I think the OP is missing out the fact that the path to infestors being very strong has been opened up due to the state of PvZ one and a half year ago. Zergs were being butchered by P lategame hard, because they could not survive 2-3 base timing pushes, it was very hard to stall P to get to hive and broodlords (even then, the deathball could be too much) However Blizz buffed fungal and eventually Zerg learnt how to hold off those pushes and transition into broodlords safely and in a much solid position.
|
|
|
On December 05 2012 07:14 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 06:17 Sumadin wrote:On December 05 2012 05:55 xxpack09 wrote:On December 05 2012 00:15 FinalForm wrote:
It's not satire, or it's just poor satire, because the first half is actually completely true (that zerg is so easy to play even foreigners can master it), then the second half turns to trolling (poking fun at overly whiny terrans that will go as far to call blizzard racist). There are un-creative starwars references in it to add to an otherwise bland balance whine. Basically just saying that starcraft 2 is a shit game. Not to single you out in particular over all of the other people complaining about the quality of the satire in the OP, but what you've written in bold is exactly what makes it so brilliant--it starts out making a strong well-argued point, then it begins to descend into greater and greater hilarity. The reader finishes the piece not in a mood to yell and rage at blizzard or weep for the future of SC2 in the face of other games, but laughing with the author about the ridiculousness of the situation. It allows the audience to ponder on a serious issue in a joking manner, giving the piece a multifaceted appeal. Read for example, one of the most famous pieces of satire from one of the greatest satirists: A Modest ProposalThe text in red is where the transition begins. Ver's piece is different in that he spends more time fleshing out his argument using pictures/statistics/specific examples to back it, but the general form is the same. His equivalent of Swift's red paragraph would be this one: "The fungal buff was, without question, a "white people change." Just as foreigners never got any good at playing the difficult muta/ling/bling and immediately started to abuse the infestor upon buff, Koreans despised the infestor. Even when fungal was made so overpowered it had to be nerfed to keep suspicion in check, Koreans blissfully continued using muta/ling/bling exclusively. For these honorable men, it was shameful to win after getting outplayed horribly. They wanted to use their superior intelligence and skill to dominate their opponents; or maybe they're just stubborn, who knows. These Korean Zergs only began picking up the infestor after it was abundantly clear how much better, safer, and easier, it was over muta/ling/bling. Even now, certain Korean Zergs rigidly fixate on muta/ling/bling, showing that some Zergs still have principles and want to earn their wins. Unfortunately, as they are discovering, it's pretty hard."I'm seeing multiple people in this thread complain about the writing of this piece in two different ways: some people clearly wanted a more analytical piece, while others clearly wanted a complete joke (like the reddit thread that was linked about ways to buff fungal). To be honest.... those people either just don't understand how satire can be used to make an argumentative piece more engaging and more fun to read, or they didn't read the full OP properly. Doesn't change the fact that the thread is really poorly executed. Having the 2 part split satire split analysis creates a confusion about the overall message. Generally confusion is the absolutely worst enemy of any sort of write-up no matter the kind, because it always conceals the message. I would say it was a bad decision to go with the hole split thread decision. Satire is something that needs to be clear when used. You can't use satire and pretend to be serriuos half the way. That is just bad trolling. You don't judge the quality of a text by the percentage of people appreciating it. There's plenty of people, even in this thread, who has clearly understood Ver's intention with the article, but could also appreciate the satirical element of it. A masterpiece is rarely appreciated as such by the masses.
On December 04 2012 06:21 Na_Dann_Ma_GoGo wrote:
Man this thread really could need fewer comments in which people declare their superiority by telling everyone how very well they understand the OP.
As far as I can tell, this is just balance-whine lacking the courage of owning up to being balance-whine.
|
|
|
On December 05 2012 06:23 RParks42 wrote:
Why does nobody acknowledge the true problem that Blizzard has with all of the problems revolving around Zerg? To me it seems like Blizzard has a clear dilemma: That they have to appease the balance of the game for competitive play to be fair, and they also have to make the game reasonably balanced for the casual gamer, also known as Blizzard's main source of income, who isn't capable of playing the game well enough for a unit as powerful as the Infestor to not be as strong as it is.
If a pro Zerg were to face a pro Terran or Protoss of equal skill, I believe that the Zerg will win about 3-5% than the other races due to the Infestor-BL synergy. However, if two diamond players were to face each other and were at equal skill, it becomes closer to 10-15%, due to it being easier for a player of lesser skill to utilize the abilities of the Infestor (it's easier to hit fungal than to split and stutter-step marines, but both are about as effective overall when done 100% correct). When the Infestor is nerfed, however, I imagine that while the pro win rates will first sink for Zerg, then even out, the lesser skilled players will have win rates that plummet to 40-45% and don't climb much higher ever.
Seems like removing smart casting would fix alot of this problem. Fungal would still be OP, but it would be harder to use allowing the more skilled player to come out on top.
|
@OP
Where were you when 5 rax reaper was a thing? Terran has had a lot more time of unbalanced dominance at the highest echelon of pro play. There's a reason GOMTvT is a thing...
|
On December 05 2012 07:36 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:24 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 07:14 monkybone wrote:On December 05 2012 06:17 Sumadin wrote:On December 05 2012 05:55 xxpack09 wrote:On December 05 2012 00:15 FinalForm wrote:
It's not satire, or it's just poor satire, because the first half is actually completely true (that zerg is so easy to play even foreigners can master it), then the second half turns to trolling (poking fun at overly whiny terrans that will go as far to call blizzard racist). There are un-creative starwars references in it to add to an otherwise bland balance whine. Basically just saying that starcraft 2 is a shit game. Not to single you out in particular over all of the other people complaining about the quality of the satire in the OP, but what you've written in bold is exactly what makes it so brilliant--it starts out making a strong well-argued point, then it begins to descend into greater and greater hilarity. The reader finishes the piece not in a mood to yell and rage at blizzard or weep for the future of SC2 in the face of other games, but laughing with the author about the ridiculousness of the situation. It allows the audience to ponder on a serious issue in a joking manner, giving the piece a multifaceted appeal. Read for example, one of the most famous pieces of satire from one of the greatest satirists: A Modest ProposalThe text in red is where the transition begins. Ver's piece is different in that he spends more time fleshing out his argument using pictures/statistics/specific examples to back it, but the general form is the same. His equivalent of Swift's red paragraph would be this one: "The fungal buff was, without question, a "white people change." Just as foreigners never got any good at playing the difficult muta/ling/bling and immediately started to abuse the infestor upon buff, Koreans despised the infestor. Even when fungal was made so overpowered it had to be nerfed to keep suspicion in check, Koreans blissfully continued using muta/ling/bling exclusively. For these honorable men, it was shameful to win after getting outplayed horribly. They wanted to use their superior intelligence and skill to dominate their opponents; or maybe they're just stubborn, who knows. These Korean Zergs only began picking up the infestor after it was abundantly clear how much better, safer, and easier, it was over muta/ling/bling. Even now, certain Korean Zergs rigidly fixate on muta/ling/bling, showing that some Zergs still have principles and want to earn their wins. Unfortunately, as they are discovering, it's pretty hard."I'm seeing multiple people in this thread complain about the writing of this piece in two different ways: some people clearly wanted a more analytical piece, while others clearly wanted a complete joke (like the reddit thread that was linked about ways to buff fungal). To be honest.... those people either just don't understand how satire can be used to make an argumentative piece more engaging and more fun to read, or they didn't read the full OP properly. Doesn't change the fact that the thread is really poorly executed. Having the 2 part split satire split analysis creates a confusion about the overall message. Generally confusion is the absolutely worst enemy of any sort of write-up no matter the kind, because it always conceals the message. I would say it was a bad decision to go with the hole split thread decision. Satire is something that needs to be clear when used. You can't use satire and pretend to be serriuos half the way. That is just bad trolling. You don't judge the quality of a text by the percentage of people appreciating it. There's plenty of people, even in this thread, who has clearly understood Ver's intention with the article, but could also appreciate the satirical element of it. A masterpiece is rarely appreciated as such by the masses. On December 04 2012 06:21 Na_Dann_Ma_GoGo wrote:
Man this thread really could need fewer comments in which people declare their superiority by telling everyone how very well they understand the OP.
As far as I can tell, this is just balance-whine lacking the courage of owning up to being balance-whine. What is that even supposed to mean?
It's very common. Giving everything one says a hint of irony so that one is free to say anything without actually committing to a position that could be challenged, because when in doubt, it's all irony.
|
|
|
On December 05 2012 07:43 Zdrastochye wrote:
@OP
Where were you when 5 rax reaper was a thing? Terran has had a lot more time of unbalanced dominance at the highest echelon of pro play. There's a reason GOMTvT is a thing...
Hmm, pretty sure I read in another thread that the imbalance in winrates havn't been this horrible more than once before, and that was for one month only compared to three months of absolute dominance from zerg.
Anyways, we all want balance. Doesn't matter what happened before, what matters is now. The current state of the game is not good, and the OP writes an excellent article about it!
|
On December 05 2012 07:43 Zdrastochye wrote:
@OP
Where were you when 5 rax reaper was a thing? Terran has had a lot more time of unbalanced dominance at the highest echelon of pro play. There's a reason GOMTvT is a thing...
Why do you think there was a sad zealot club and no sad zergling? Because the mods play more terran and toss than zerg. There's no one to really shill for them here. Even the questions for Monk's interview always revolved around the infestor, no one really pressed Blizzard about reapers early on like people pressed blizzard about the infestor.
|
Didn't read it very thoroughly but got the general gist of it. It looks kind of biased and some suggestions like buffing the baneling and muta would break other things. I also think you undermined just how much terran was winning back in the day AND how underdeveloped and hopeless zerg was. Also, there are distinctions when I watch players, maybe it's just that I watch weird players, but I can definitely at least tell the difference between a mediocre foreigner and a high level Korean. I notice specific playstyles from nearly everyone I watch stream and can differentiate between them too. Guess the late game of broodlord infestor is vague and dull but beforehand there are many differentiating playstyles to look out for.
|
at fucking last
anyway game been shit to watch for a good year now
maybe a bit late
someone mod this shit asap
|
On December 05 2012 07:36 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:24 m0ck wrote:On December 05 2012 07:14 monkybone wrote:On December 05 2012 06:17 Sumadin wrote:On December 05 2012 05:55 xxpack09 wrote:On December 05 2012 00:15 FinalForm wrote:
It's not satire, or it's just poor satire, because the first half is actually completely true (that zerg is so easy to play even foreigners can master it), then the second half turns to trolling (poking fun at overly whiny terrans that will go as far to call blizzard racist). There are un-creative starwars references in it to add to an otherwise bland balance whine. Basically just saying that starcraft 2 is a shit game. Not to single you out in particular over all of the other people complaining about the quality of the satire in the OP, but what you've written in bold is exactly what makes it so brilliant--it starts out making a strong well-argued point, then it begins to descend into greater and greater hilarity. The reader finishes the piece not in a mood to yell and rage at blizzard or weep for the future of SC2 in the face of other games, but laughing with the author about the ridiculousness of the situation. It allows the audience to ponder on a serious issue in a joking manner, giving the piece a multifaceted appeal. Read for example, one of the most famous pieces of satire from one of the greatest satirists: A Modest ProposalThe text in red is where the transition begins. Ver's piece is different in that he spends more time fleshing out his argument using pictures/statistics/specific examples to back it, but the general form is the same. His equivalent of Swift's red paragraph would be this one: "The fungal buff was, without question, a "white people change." Just as foreigners never got any good at playing the difficult muta/ling/bling and immediately started to abuse the infestor upon buff, Koreans despised the infestor. Even when fungal was made so overpowered it had to be nerfed to keep suspicion in check, Koreans blissfully continued using muta/ling/bling exclusively. For these honorable men, it was shameful to win after getting outplayed horribly. They wanted to use their superior intelligence and skill to dominate their opponents; or maybe they're just stubborn, who knows. These Korean Zergs only began picking up the infestor after it was abundantly clear how much better, safer, and easier, it was over muta/ling/bling. Even now, certain Korean Zergs rigidly fixate on muta/ling/bling, showing that some Zergs still have principles and want to earn their wins. Unfortunately, as they are discovering, it's pretty hard."I'm seeing multiple people in this thread complain about the writing of this piece in two different ways: some people clearly wanted a more analytical piece, while others clearly wanted a complete joke (like the reddit thread that was linked about ways to buff fungal). To be honest.... those people either just don't understand how satire can be used to make an argumentative piece more engaging and more fun to read, or they didn't read the full OP properly. Doesn't change the fact that the thread is really poorly executed. Having the 2 part split satire split analysis creates a confusion about the overall message. Generally confusion is the absolutely worst enemy of any sort of write-up no matter the kind, because it always conceals the message. I would say it was a bad decision to go with the hole split thread decision. Satire is something that needs to be clear when used. You can't use satire and pretend to be serriuos half the way. That is just bad trolling. You don't judge the quality of a text by the percentage of people appreciating it. There's plenty of people, even in this thread, who has clearly understood Ver's intention with the article, but could also appreciate the satirical element of it. A masterpiece is rarely appreciated as such by the masses. On December 04 2012 06:21 Na_Dann_Ma_GoGo wrote:
Man this thread really could need fewer comments in which people declare their superiority by telling everyone how very well they understand the OP.
As far as I can tell, this is just balance-whine lacking the courage of owning up to being balance-whine. What is that even supposed to mean?
kinda like when someone says something moronic and goes "LOL JK GUYS TOTALLY KIDDING!"
|
|
|
i read the entire thing, and i love it... the best part is the graphs, i had no idea there was such a discrepancy.
i even attended MLG dallas and stood behind and watched the Hero v Scarlett 60 minute ace game to knock hero out... tal'darim??? what is this the ladder? he was running around for maybe 25 game minutes after the base trade went down, looking away from his monitor because he knew he had lost, and watched Naniwa fight flash on the main screeen. Now that i think of it, i haven't watched all of scarlett, but all i can remember seeing her win with is brood/infestor/maybe queen every game...
yea great read though, love the star wars theme :D
|
Some players are frighteningly obsessed with balance.. to conspiracy theory proportions..
Blizzard do their best, there's no favorites, there's no correlation with "patchzergs" and viewer statistics and there is certainly no sensible argument here.
|
Although the premise is nice, i find this thread quite racist to foreigners. One cannot simply define skill as ones level of 'koreanness'. Thats fucking retarded.
|
Finally people realize blizzard is working with the devil.![[image loading]](http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2010/07/starcraft_2_easter_egg.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
