EPTOn May 30 2013 15:13 BerthaG wrote:
below master this change will have no influence.
below master this change will have no influence.
Balancing for below masters is pointless anyway
Warp prism speed buff, test map. 5.28.2013 - Page 55
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1092 Posts
Balancing for below masters is pointless anyway | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On May 30 2013 19:23 baldgye wrote: Balancing for below masters is pointless anyway No it isnt because that is a pretty large part of the "playing population" and you shouldnt have an "intentionally broken game for noobs". Incredibly bad attitude because you can make the game balanced AND fun to watch for every level of skill ... BW did it, so why cant SC2? People new to the game will start at "less than masters" and you wouldnt want to tell them to "f*** off" because you are too lazy to balance the game in a good manner. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 30 2013 19:37 Rabiator wrote: No it isnt because that is a pretty large part of the "playing population" and you shouldnt have an "intentionally broken game for noobs". Incredibly bad attitude because you can make the game balanced AND fun to watch for every level of skill ... BW did it, so why cant SC2? As far as I know everybody who played Broodwar is saying how Terran was superhard and Protoss supereasy in BW... | ||
|
Meatloaf
Spain664 Posts
On May 30 2013 20:09 Big J wrote: As far as I know everybody who played Broodwar is saying how Terran was superhard and Protoss supereasy in BW... The J speaks the truth. I could even win some match with protoss at level D- in ICCUP , with terran that was straight impossible to do for my messy hands. | ||
|
saddaromma
1129 Posts
On May 30 2013 19:37 Rabiator wrote: No it isnt because that is a pretty large part of the "playing population" and you shouldnt have an "intentionally broken game for noobs". Incredibly bad attitude because you can make the game balanced AND fun to watch for every level of skill ... BW did it, so why cant SC2? People new to the game will start at "less than masters" and you wouldnt want to tell them to "f*** off" because you are too lazy to balance the game in a good manner. In broodwar: At D- level, balance didn't matter at all, the one who made larger army would win. Terran was massively underpowered on low-mid level. I think it was between D+ and C-. its ok if game is slightly imbalanced for lower level players. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 30 2013 20:09 Big J wrote: As far as I know everybody who played Broodwar is saying how Terran was superhard and Protoss supereasy in BW... Don't argue with Rabiator about balance based on skill level. He is convinced that BW was easier to play than SC2. He is playing different games than us. | ||
|
Nimix
France1809 Posts
| ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On May 30 2013 19:37 Rabiator wrote: No it isnt because that is a pretty large part of the "playing population" and you shouldnt have an "intentionally broken game for noobs". Incredibly bad attitude because you can make the game balanced AND fun to watch for every level of skill ... BW did it, so why cant SC2? People new to the game will start at "less than masters" and you wouldnt want to tell them to "f*** off" because you are too lazy to balance the game in a good manner. BW was just as imbalanced at different levels of the skill as SC2 is, if not more... What the hell are you talking about? Balance is almost entirely irrelevant except at high levels of play. | ||
|
keglu
Poland485 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
"Make the WP cost gas if you're going to make this change" - the idea is to buff Protoss a little, the warp prism costing gas is a flat-out nerf and defeats the whole point of it. These players don't play Protoss. It's just really silly. "Protoss players just aren't as good as their Terran and Zerg counterparts" - seriously, after years of SC2, why are people still trying to make this argument? It hurts my eyes. There's no evidence for this to be true other than the fact that Protoss have consistently underperformed or don't "look as good", which is far more likely because Protoss doesn't have the proper tools to look good (only deathballs and all-ins, weak or expensive harrass). People are allowed to marvel at Innovation dropping in 3 places at once and pushing a main army because his race has the tools to do this and, importantly, for it to be effective. On a less serious sidenote, I wonder about the whole "players below GM/masters don't lose because of balance, they need to play better." I agree with this viewpoint but at some point it becomes untrue. If the zealot had a range 20 attack that did 200 splash damage, then it's pretty clear it's not a l2p issue, it's that the zealot is ridiculous. I wonder how much imbalance is required before it stops becoming a l2p issue. Anyway this is a pointless ramble because probably Blizz isn't incompetent enough for it to ever get in this range, but it just came to my mind for some reason. | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
Seriously, DT's don't give warnings while they 1shot workers. How is that balanced for "low levels" (whatever that means)? | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On May 30 2013 20:42 marvellosity wrote: Some weird things in this thread that keep popping up. "Make the WP cost gas if you're going to make this change" - the idea is to buff Protoss a little, the warp prism costing gas is a flat-out nerf and defeats the whole point of it. These players don't play Protoss. It's just really silly. "Protoss players just aren't as good as their Terran and Zerg counterparts" - seriously, after years of SC2, why are people still trying to make this argument? It hurts my eyes. There's no evidence for this to be true other than the fact that Protoss have consistently underperformed or don't "look as good", which is far more likely because Protoss doesn't have the proper tools to look good (only deathballs and all-ins, weak or expensive harrass). People are allowed to marvel at Innovation dropping in 3 places at once and pushing a main army because his race has the tools to do this and, importantly, for it to be effective. On a less serious sidenote, I wonder about the whole "players below GM/masters don't lose because of balance, they need to play better." I agree with this viewpoint but at some point it becomes untrue. If the zealot had a range 20 attack that did 200 splash damage, then it's pretty clear it's not a l2p issue, it's that the zealot is ridiculous. I wonder how much imbalance is required before it stops becoming a l2p issue. Anyway this is a pointless ramble because probably Blizz isn't incompetent enough for it to ever get in this range, but it just came to my mind for some reason. The reason that nobody mentions the tipping point (of when something becomes so imbalanced that, even at low levels, it is affecting the game) is that if you balance the game purely on high level play, the 20 range zealot doing 200 splash damage becomes imbalanced in high level play before or at the same time as it becomes the reason that the low level player is losing his/her games. | ||
|
EleanorRIgby
Canada3923 Posts
On May 30 2013 19:37 Rabiator wrote: No it isnt because that is a pretty large part of the "playing population" and you shouldnt have an "intentionally broken game for noobs". Incredibly bad attitude because you can make the game balanced AND fun to watch for every level of skill ... BW did it, so why cant SC2? People new to the game will start at "less than masters" and you wouldnt want to tell them to "f*** off" because you are too lazy to balance the game in a good manner. indeed and it will start killing the casual sc2 player base which in turn will hurt starcraft 2's success | ||
|
EleanorRIgby
Canada3923 Posts
On May 30 2013 20:39 Brett wrote: BW was just as imbalanced at different levels of the skill as SC2 is, if not more... What the hell are you talking about? Balance is almost entirely irrelevant except at high levels of play. yup 50% of people played protoss on bnet 1v1 and iccup d/c ranks. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On May 30 2013 14:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: How often we're those used in PvP and PvZ? I know they are critical in PvT, but I thought reaver wars was the bulk of the other two matchups? Reaver wars was used in PVP ALOT, it became the norm However in pvz, hightemplars were the chose 90% It was under very many years not a single reaver were build in pvz Now however or the last 2-3 years ( i dont know excactly) they are made alot more but hightemplar is still #1 | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
| ||
|
syno
Switzerland150 Posts
On May 30 2013 17:32 Brett wrote: Even if everyone accepts that as a fact, who gives a shit? Below that level, something as minor as this is not going to be the determining factor in 99% of games. I completely agree, i think you didn't get my point. Blizzard should really give 0 fucks about how this influences the games below gm/hm. But i was just stating, that this change will influence lower league games. I, as a diamond protoss, will use the prisma alot more for sure, if it really gets this buff. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 30 2013 22:12 syno wrote: I completely agree, i think you didn't get my point. Blizzard should really give 0 fucks about how this influences the games below gm/hm. But i was just stating, that this change will influence lower league games. I, as a diamond protoss, will use the prisma alot more for sure, if it really gets this buff. Agreed, the game should be balanced around the highest level, unless there is some sort of game breaking issue at the low level that is literally driving people from the game. I’m not GM or even masters, but I don’t want them to make adjustments for me to make my game easier. There are enough easy games in the world, I want one that is hard to play so there is always something to learn. | ||
|
Crownlol
United States3726 Posts
On May 30 2013 22:24 Plansix wrote: Agreed, the game should be balanced around the highest level, unless there is some sort of game breaking issue at the low level that is literally driving people from the game. I’m not GM or even masters, but I don’t want them to make adjustments for me to make my game easier. There are enough easy games in the world, I want one that is hard to play so there is always something to learn. I wouldn't say that Infestors or Speedvacs are driving people from the game. The biggest things that drove/are driving people from SC2 are; 1. Lack of team support and, 2. Ladder anxiety Blizzard has gone a long way towards relieving players of ladder anxiety, but the fact remains that many players simply do not want to sit alone and play games for hours by themselves. A huge amount of players want to play team games, to have someone to be social with while gaming, to have someone to cheer with on victories, and to have someone to help them get past the pain of defeat. The community should be supporting 2v2 and 3v3 to a greater extent (the game would have to be changed dramatically to make 3v3 viable, perhaps even changing supply caps to something like 150), but at the time team games are the red-headed stepchild of the SC2 scene. | ||
|
Crownlol
United States3726 Posts
Currently, Protoss's biggest problem is weak Gateway units right? I believe this is universally agreed upon. Would moving Charge and Blink to Cybercore really be that OP? Stim and Conc shell are more gamechanging, and are researched from a t1.5/t2 building. Blink might be a bit much, but putting Charge in Cybercore would encourage more aggressive play. At least Zealot drops would actually do some harassment. | ||
| ||
