|
On July 03 2014 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:18 MichaelDonovan wrote:
So in making a statement on the subject, a professional's statement has more weight behind it because it is based on a heavier collection of knowledge.
And herein lies the piece which makes it a logical fallacy. Let me correct your statement: Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:18 MichaelDonovan should have wrote: So in making a statement on the subject, a professional's statement may have more weight behind it because it is supposedly based on a heavier collection of knowledge and he is making it without bias.
Without bias... Are you familiar with the lead expert Dr. Robert Kehoe? He went before Congress as the leading expert on lead and argued that lead in our gasoline didn't have any harmful effects. He was the expert, and he was wrong. Twenty years later, we took lead out of gasoline. And the reduction in lead in our environment has reduced brain damage and ADHD as well as crime and aggression. So hopefully people can understand why authority isn't a good way to learn anything. Now do I believe or trust "experts" everyday? Surely. But I do so on my own when I don't want to engage in a long argument, do my own research ect... But we are here in a forum to talk and discuss about SC2. Most of us have a pretty good understand of SC2, even if we can't play at the highest level. And If we are going to have a good discussion about this, logical fallacies shouldn't be part of it.
I think you're going off on a tangent here and misunderstanding me. Aaaand I've lost interest too because of that.
|
On July 03 2014 02:18 Terence Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 02:14 Terence Chill wrote:
gosh, bronzeknee, pls leave this thread When people disagree with me, it is a sign that I am needed here. or you are just against everything to gain some attention
Yes, because the idea that I want to learn from discussing things with others is ludicrous. I am here simply to gain attention, because the internet, and this forum specifically is the best way to gain attention.
And I am specifically seeking the attention of people in Germany like you.
As for me being against everything, you don't learn anything from sitting around agreeing with people...
On July 03 2014 02:37 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 02:18 MichaelDonovan wrote:
So in making a statement on the subject, a professional's statement has more weight behind it because it is based on a heavier collection of knowledge.
And herein lies the piece which makes it a logical fallacy. Let me correct your statement: On July 03 2014 02:18 MichaelDonovan should have wrote: So in making a statement on the subject, a professional's statement may have more weight behind it because it is supposedly based on a heavier collection of knowledge and he is making it without bias.
Without bias... Are you familiar with the lead expert Dr. Robert Kehoe? He went before Congress as the leading expert on lead and argued that lead in our gasoline didn't have any harmful effects. He was the expert, and he was wrong. Twenty years later, we took lead out of gasoline. And the reduction in lead in our environment has reduced brain damage and ADHD as well as crime and aggression. So hopefully people can understand why authority isn't a good way to learn anything. Now do I believe or trust "experts" everyday? Surely. But I do so on my own when I don't want to engage in a long argument, do my own research ect... But we are here in a forum to talk and discuss about SC2. Most of us have a pretty good understand of SC2, even if we can't play at the highest level. And If we are going to have a good discussion about this, logical fallacies shouldn't be part of it. I think you're going off on a tangent here and misunderstanding me. Aaaand I've lost interest too because of that.
Sometimes, it hard people to admit they are wrong.
GG!
|
On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything.
Blizzard is doing right in being very careful with changes and not proposing 9 buffs at once for one race that all mutliply with each other and especially add up with the hellbat change that has not yet been unfolded completely.
Problem of TvZ is a lategame strength of Z and not early game strength of terran that needs to be increased further. In order to address this, it doesnt help to reduce stim timing, reduce muta regen and buff mines and do 6 other terran buffs at the same time like dwf proposed and many ppl quoted with "I like what I read here".
The proposed blizzard changes are still wrong imo.
Units like ravens are out of any balance. Almost useless when using few of them and invincible when being massed in the end as they are too versatile. Ravens should get a focus for a special purpose instead (as vessels had in broodwar: tvz irradiate, tvp emp). Instead of creating more mess with buffing random things they should get these things in line first and see which impact can be created for the matchup.
Units like tanks feel still weak and could be tweaked.
Finally it will all get down to the fact that terran bio (with all what belongs to it like e.g. medivacs) is too strong when being massed, and that induces counters to it which themselves are getting too strong when being massed (muta).
Also the design of the baneling is quite questionable. In an even game the zerg can at best trade evenly against bio with them without mutalisks (actually they should counter, no?) . In a game where T is ahead, banelings dont do anything anymore (get sniped, get tanked by maurauders/hellbats) and in a game where Z is ahead, banelings can just be massed and a-clicked at terran to hold him down long enough. While I like the baneling as a unit alone, its role in ZvT is not balanced well.
The problem of whole TvZ is that it is one dimensional and even with different openers almost all games end in the same procedure. Z has no real tools to deal with bio besides trying to trade evenly with ling bane and finally dominate it with mutalisks. While I agree, that the mutalisk plays a controversial role into all this, the actual problem is, that terran neither can nor must transition out of this pure bio play at any point of time.
The hellbat changes could be used to develop mechplay as a transition from this instead of letting terrans transition back into bio. But here the problem again is that with the current thor not much is possible vs Z air dominance. Now why do we have the muta regen again? Right to deal with op early-mid game permanent bio pushes that cant be faced with its original counter unit alone: ling/bane.
After all I still believe that T and Z must switch positions in the metagame of this matchup. T should be the strong but slow race whichs army survives all attacks and finally gets really strong. Right now it is the opposite: Z can (must) survive all terran attacks to finally get really strong and roll over the terran. If they swap this real balance will be possible that satisfies players of all races, because all the mechanics of terran fit this style of play. The same is true for Z in the rule of T. Z and T in ZvT do not fit their roles in the meta at all with the given race mechanics they have. A race who has unlimited production abilities (Z) and mobile units should not be the strong endgame race because its getting automatically overpowered like this. Instead it should be the one throwing wave after wave against the terran, who can defend it and finally grow out of it. And a race like terran who got all the tools to turtle with slow units should not be the early/mid aggressor that if it fails to succeed is not flexible enough (a zerg would be) to transition into anything or get the next expansion up.
It is the reason for the whole meta being screwed and wont ever get balanced like this. If this gets changed, all remaining problems can be dealt with easy.
Plz no flames!
|
On July 03 2014 02:36 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:42 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:10 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:05 Liquid`Ret wrote:On July 03 2014 01:01 DinoMight wrote:On July 03 2014 00:57 Liquid`Ret wrote:
the hellbat change already makes tvz terran favored untill mid-late game, these changes will just amplify that and screw up the matchup pretty hard, I think.
The problem with terran is not a widow mine buff, or a medivac buff, the problem is protoss. Stop whining Ret, Zerg has been dominating Terran as well. Lack of splash vs. banelings is a clear issue in that matchup. The Hellbat opening just requires Z to be a little bit more proactive. You can't just throw speedlings at the problem like Jaedong tried vs. Taeja. okay expert It might looks like terran would be too strong for a while, but it will eventually even out and we might come back to a 1/3 race distribution. I know this has been spewed a few times in the balance whine thread, but surely you know this isn't correlated, right? Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous. If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win). Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level. See my point ? But that's not the argument. This is saying that race distribution has an influence on winrates in certain situations, and that's certainly true. That doesn't allow you to claim that you will come back to a 1/3 race distribution if the game is balanced. You're gonna get an increase of players when your race is perceived to be superior, not when it's perceived to be balanced. Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac). Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ?
I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying that aligulac is more complete than you think. When you say the player pool is there but can't make the lists because of imbalance, my answer is that it's already made the list in the most part.
|
On July 03 2014 02:41 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:42 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:10 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:05 Liquid`Ret wrote:On July 03 2014 01:01 DinoMight wrote:
[quote]
Stop whining Ret, Zerg has been dominating Terran as well. Lack of splash vs. banelings is a clear issue in that matchup.
The Hellbat opening just requires Z to be a little bit more proactive. You can't just throw speedlings at the problem like Jaedong tried vs. Taeja. okay expert It might looks like terran would be too strong for a while, but it will eventually even out and we might come back to a 1/3 race distribution. I know this has been spewed a few times in the balance whine thread, but surely you know this isn't correlated, right? Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous. If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win). Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level. See my point ? But that's not the argument. This is saying that race distribution has an influence on winrates in certain situations, and that's certainly true. That doesn't allow you to claim that you will come back to a 1/3 race distribution if the game is balanced. You're gonna get an increase of players when your race is perceived to be superior, not when it's perceived to be balanced. Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac). Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ? I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying that aligulac is more complete than you think. When you say the player pool is there but can't make the lists because of imbalance, my answer is that it's already made the list in the most part.
So in your opinion there is just less talented terran players for an equal players pool ?
|
On July 03 2014 02:44 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:42 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:10 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:05 Liquid`Ret wrote:
[quote]
okay expert It might looks like terran would be too strong for a while, but it will eventually even out and we might come back to a 1/3 race distribution. I know this has been spewed a few times in the balance whine thread, but surely you know this isn't correlated, right? Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous. If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win). Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level. See my point ? But that's not the argument. This is saying that race distribution has an influence on winrates in certain situations, and that's certainly true. That doesn't allow you to claim that you will come back to a 1/3 race distribution if the game is balanced. You're gonna get an increase of players when your race is perceived to be superior, not when it's perceived to be balanced. Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac). Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ? I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying that aligulac is more complete than you think. When you say the player pool is there but can't make the lists because of imbalance, my answer is that it's already made the list in the most part. So in your opinion there is just less talented terran players for an equal players pool ?
Talent is overrated, you get good through practice. In my opinion terran is harder to get good with, so less people will be willing to put in the practice in order to get good with it.
|
On July 03 2014 02:40 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything. After all I still believe that T and Z must switch positions in the metagame of this matchup. T should be the strong but slow race whichs army survives all attacks and finally gets really strong. Right now it is the opposite: Z can (must) survive all terran attacks to finally get really strong and roll over the terran. If they swap this real balance will be possible that satisfies players of all races, because all the units, buildings and stuff of terran fit this style of play. Z and T in ZvT do not fit their roles in the meta at all with the given race mechanics they have. A race who has unlimited production abilities (Z) and mobile units should not be the strong endgame race because its getting automatically overpowered like this. Instead it should be the one throwing wave after wave against the terran, who can defend it. And a race like terran who got all the tools to turtle with slow units and stuff should not be the early/mid aggressor that if it fails to succeed is not flexible enough (a zerg would be) to transition into anything or get the next expansion up on some maps. Plz no flames!
While most of your argument works, this piece seems to be using lore and BW design as its evidence more than actual gameplay and meta.
As far as your baneling critique goes, yes, you're right. I don't know where the sweet spot is for terran units vs. banelings go. Having 1 mine able to detonate a kajillion banelings with one shot seemed like overkill, but right now, it just feels too downright ineffective, even with multiple mines.
|
On July 03 2014 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:44 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:42 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:10 Faust852 wrote:
[quote]
It might looks like terran would be too strong for a while, but it will eventually even out and we might come back to a 1/3 race distribution. I know this has been spewed a few times in the balance whine thread, but surely you know this isn't correlated, right? Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous. If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win). Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level. See my point ? But that's not the argument. This is saying that race distribution has an influence on winrates in certain situations, and that's certainly true. That doesn't allow you to claim that you will come back to a 1/3 race distribution if the game is balanced. You're gonna get an increase of players when your race is perceived to be superior, not when it's perceived to be balanced. Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac). Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ? I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying that aligulac is more complete than you think. When you say the player pool is there but can't make the lists because of imbalance, my answer is that it's already made the list in the most part. So in your opinion there is just less talented terran players for an equal players pool ? Talent is overrated, you get good through practice. In my opinion terran is harder to get good with, so less people will be willing to put in the practice in order to get good with it.
Imho, this is insulting to all terran who worked their asses to be somewhat relevant.
|
On July 03 2014 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:44 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:42 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:10 Faust852 wrote:
[quote]
It might looks like terran would be too strong for a while, but it will eventually even out and we might come back to a 1/3 race distribution. I know this has been spewed a few times in the balance whine thread, but surely you know this isn't correlated, right? Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous. If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win). Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level. See my point ? But that's not the argument. This is saying that race distribution has an influence on winrates in certain situations, and that's certainly true. That doesn't allow you to claim that you will come back to a 1/3 race distribution if the game is balanced. You're gonna get an increase of players when your race is perceived to be superior, not when it's perceived to be balanced. Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac). Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ? I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying that aligulac is more complete than you think. When you say the player pool is there but can't make the lists because of imbalance, my answer is that it's already made the list in the most part. So in your opinion there is just less talented terran players for an equal players pool ? Talent is overrated, you get good through practice. In my opinion terran is harder to get good with, so less people will be willing to put in the practice in order to get good with it.
And back when 1/1/1 smashed Protoss, you wouldn't make the argument that Protoss is just harder to get good with.
|
Not sure these changes are the answer, but not opposed to Blizzard opening this dialogue.
|
On July 03 2014 02:51 wUndertUnge wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:40 LSN wrote:On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything. After all I still believe that T and Z must switch positions in the metagame of this matchup. T should be the strong but slow race whichs army survives all attacks and finally gets really strong. Right now it is the opposite: Z can (must) survive all terran attacks to finally get really strong and roll over the terran. If they swap this real balance will be possible that satisfies players of all races, because all the units, buildings and stuff of terran fit this style of play. Z and T in ZvT do not fit their roles in the meta at all with the given race mechanics they have. A race who has unlimited production abilities (Z) and mobile units should not be the strong endgame race because its getting automatically overpowered like this. Instead it should be the one throwing wave after wave against the terran, who can defend it. And a race like terran who got all the tools to turtle with slow units and stuff should not be the early/mid aggressor that if it fails to succeed is not flexible enough (a zerg would be) to transition into anything or get the next expansion up on some maps. Plz no flames! While most of your argument works, this piece seems to be using lore and BW design as its evidence more than actual gameplay and meta.
I agree. But is there a better way that can both balance the game and satisfy the lore Blizzard created.
I didn't play or watch BW (I've watched only a handful of BW matches after I began watching SC2), but the way the races are designed and the lore Blizzard has created, you'd imagine that Zerg would the race that produces a lot of units, is more aggressive and takes map control, while Terran hunkers down a bit more and is harder to finish off.
But instead, we see Terrans massing Marines and then getting support units for them, while Zerg builds more tech units. Pretty much the exact opposite of what Blizzard's lore would suggest. This has been the case throughout SC2 history, but at least in WOL we'd higher tech units like Tanks come out (to kill Banelings if nothing else), which have been replaced by Marauders and Mines, lower tech units.
The unfortunate result of this change is that it has relegated a lot of high tech Terran units to the waste bin. If you're not going to play a more positional and slow style than rallying Marines across the map, then you don't need Tanks, Thors, or Hellbats. You don't need Banshees. You just need more Marines.
Now the solution that we are all seeking is for Mech to be made viable on its own. And that solution requires Mech to have units that aren't better with Marines then they are with Tanks. The Widow Mine fails that test. The Warhound failed it too. And therefore, what is the point of building those big tech units?
The problem really is the Tank, it is just really bad. It needs a buff while the units around it become better. And the Marine probably needs a change too. I argued this all long ago here and don't want to rehash old stuff: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2-hots/378373-how-to-make-mech-and-stargate-play-viable
|
On July 03 2014 02:51 wUndertUnge wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:40 LSN wrote:On July 03 2014 01:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 03 2014 01:23 MichaelDonovan wrote:
Woah why is everyone shitting on Ret? Let's get off of our gold league fanaticism and listen to a professional, okay people? . Listen, I like Ret and haven't criticized him, but this is just dumb. It is the logical fallacy of authority. Wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who says or does it. Just because he plays the game for a living doesn't mean he is right. His arguments needs to stand independent of him. If his arguments suddenly hold less weight when I repeat them, then your logic is flawed and you are only believing them because he is Ret, which is a terrible reason to believe anything. After all I still believe that T and Z must switch positions in the metagame of this matchup. T should be the strong but slow race whichs army survives all attacks and finally gets really strong. Right now it is the opposite: Z can (must) survive all terran attacks to finally get really strong and roll over the terran. If they swap this real balance will be possible that satisfies players of all races, because all the units, buildings and stuff of terran fit this style of play. Z and T in ZvT do not fit their roles in the meta at all with the given race mechanics they have. A race who has unlimited production abilities (Z) and mobile units should not be the strong endgame race because its getting automatically overpowered like this. Instead it should be the one throwing wave after wave against the terran, who can defend it. And a race like terran who got all the tools to turtle with slow units and stuff should not be the early/mid aggressor that if it fails to succeed is not flexible enough (a zerg would be) to transition into anything or get the next expansion up on some maps. Plz no flames! While most of your argument works, this piece seems to be using lore and BW design as its evidence more than actual gameplay and meta. As far as your baneling critique goes, yes, you're right. I don't know where the sweet spot is for terran units vs. banelings go. Having 1 mine able to detonate a kajillion banelings with one shot seemed like overkill, but right now, it just feels too downright ineffective, even with multiple mines.
Just imagine Z was in the position of attacking terran for 20 minutes in a row and fails to kill him. Terran then would move out and claim mapcontrol and get with his slow units more and more close to the crucial zerg expansions. Zerg has then the flexibility to throw different kind of stuff on this upcoming siege/attack and will try to delay it. Terrans units are not fast enough to overroll Z completely at once and an interesting fight for the middle expansions is coming up, terran can back up his slowly falling units with other units (transitions, that are being slowly created).
Now: T attacks Z for 20 minutes, Z surives. Z flies with 40 mutas to T and T is dead.
Evident?
|
On July 03 2014 02:54 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:44 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:42 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I know this has been spewed a few times in the balance whine thread, but surely you know this isn't correlated, right? Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous. If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win). Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level. See my point ? But that's not the argument. This is saying that race distribution has an influence on winrates in certain situations, and that's certainly true. That doesn't allow you to claim that you will come back to a 1/3 race distribution if the game is balanced. You're gonna get an increase of players when your race is perceived to be superior, not when it's perceived to be balanced. Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac). Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ? I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying that aligulac is more complete than you think. When you say the player pool is there but can't make the lists because of imbalance, my answer is that it's already made the list in the most part. So in your opinion there is just less talented terran players for an equal players pool ? Talent is overrated, you get good through practice. In my opinion terran is harder to get good with, so less people will be willing to put in the practice in order to get good with it. Imho, this is insulting to all terran who worked their asses to be somewhat relevant.
In what way could that possibly be insulting?
|
On July 03 2014 02:56 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:44 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:42 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I know this has been spewed a few times in the balance whine thread, but surely you know this isn't correlated, right? Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous. If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win). Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level. See my point ? But that's not the argument. This is saying that race distribution has an influence on winrates in certain situations, and that's certainly true. That doesn't allow you to claim that you will come back to a 1/3 race distribution if the game is balanced. You're gonna get an increase of players when your race is perceived to be superior, not when it's perceived to be balanced. Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac). Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ? I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying that aligulac is more complete than you think. When you say the player pool is there but can't make the lists because of imbalance, my answer is that it's already made the list in the most part. So in your opinion there is just less talented terran players for an equal players pool ? Talent is overrated, you get good through practice. In my opinion terran is harder to get good with, so less people will be willing to put in the practice in order to get good with it. And back when 1/1/1 smashed Protoss, you wouldn't make the argument that Protoss is just harder to get good with.
Edit: I misread your post, sorry.
No, I wouldn't make the argument that protoss is harder to get good with, why would I?
|
On July 03 2014 03:02 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 02:54 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:44 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 01:42 Faust852 wrote:
[quote]
Of course it is. Imbalance isn't how bad a winrate is in a match up, but how poorly races are distributed. I gave an exemple earlier with a ro16 with 15p and 1t, if the T win 2 games, winrate would be 66% in favor of T, which is ridiculous.
If you have an even representation of each race at pro level, it would means the game is balanced (It doesn't take everything in consideration of course like how a race win).
Winrate will always tend to 50% at some point because the best player will start to play in at a lower overall level and win again. If a game is not balanced, pro aren't competitive enough to play at pro level.
See my point ?
But that's not the argument. This is saying that race distribution has an influence on winrates in certain situations, and that's certainly true. That doesn't allow you to claim that you will come back to a 1/3 race distribution if the game is balanced. You're gonna get an increase of players when your race is perceived to be superior, not when it's perceived to be balanced. Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac). Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ? I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying that aligulac is more complete than you think. When you say the player pool is there but can't make the lists because of imbalance, my answer is that it's already made the list in the most part. So in your opinion there is just less talented terran players for an equal players pool ? Talent is overrated, you get good through practice. In my opinion terran is harder to get good with, so less people will be willing to put in the practice in order to get good with it. Imho, this is insulting to all terran who worked their asses to be somewhat relevant. In what way could that possibly be insulting?
You are saying that terrans arent performing because they are lazy. If this is not insulting, I don't what is.
|
On July 03 2014 03:04 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 03:02 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:54 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:44 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
But that's not the argument. This is saying that race distribution has an influence on winrates in certain situations, and that's certainly true. That doesn't allow you to claim that you will come back to a 1/3 race distribution if the game is balanced. You're gonna get an increase of players when your race is perceived to be superior, not when it's perceived to be balanced. Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac). Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ? I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying that aligulac is more complete than you think. When you say the player pool is there but can't make the lists because of imbalance, my answer is that it's already made the list in the most part. So in your opinion there is just less talented terran players for an equal players pool ? Talent is overrated, you get good through practice. In my opinion terran is harder to get good with, so less people will be willing to put in the practice in order to get good with it. Imho, this is insulting to all terran who worked their asses to be somewhat relevant. In what way could that possibly be insulting? You are saying that terrans arent performing because they are lazy. If this is not insulting, I don't what is.
That sounds insulting, yeah. Good thing this isn't what I'm saying at all...
|
On July 03 2014 02:40 LSN wrote:
Problem of TvZ is a lategame strength of Z and not early game strength of terran that needs to be increased further. In order to address this, it doesnt help to reduce stim timing, reduce muta regen and buff mines and do 6 other terran buffs at the same time like dwf proposed and many ppl quoted with "I like what I read here".
Never said everything was to be implemented at once. They asked for suggestions, I gave them. Nothing more, nothing less. I even rated priorities in my message. At any rate it's fairly hilarious to hear the great outcry caused by the possible return... of WoL Reapers.
|
On July 03 2014 03:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 03:04 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 03:02 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:54 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:44 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:
[quote]
Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac). Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ? I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying that aligulac is more complete than you think. When you say the player pool is there but can't make the lists because of imbalance, my answer is that it's already made the list in the most part. So in your opinion there is just less talented terran players for an equal players pool ? Talent is overrated, you get good through practice. In my opinion terran is harder to get good with, so less people will be willing to put in the practice in order to get good with it. Imho, this is insulting to all terran who worked their asses to be somewhat relevant. In what way could that possibly be insulting? You are saying that terrans arent performing because they are lazy. If this is not insulting, I don't what is. That sounds insulting, yeah. Good thing this isn't what I'm saying at all...
What about the fact there was, in fact, an even ratio between race a while back ? Terrans just got lazier right ?
|
On July 03 2014 01:51 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 01:34 Cazimirbzh wrote:TheDwf, i think you 're a bit extreme with stim...are u a bio player?^^ Research time decreased to 140 seconds, down from 170.
3. In TvZ, an earlier stim timing (and by repercussion an earlier CS timing) would boost a bit the "2-bases timing into third" openings, which are currently mostly dead because they lack power against 3 hatch builds.
- 30secondes is insane^^ Why?
1/1 push will be at 11m = -1 cycle of inject for Z, pretty hard nerf if u aad hellbat up
TvP 2 rack expand 8.3, even if u go fast robo after 1gate fe, first colossus will be barely out...
|
On July 03 2014 03:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2014 03:04 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 03:02 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:54 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:44 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On July 03 2014 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2014 02:08 Faust852 wrote:
[quote]
Not sure about that, imho the players pool is already here. They just need to be able to show how good they are. Say they only reach ro8 of zotac because imbalance, but if the game starts being balanced, they might win this zotac and start getting noticed by teams, send to even, etc. On the other end, players who did correct when the game was balanced, but after some issue with the balance, these players didn't do well in lan, so they weren't send anymore, etc. People who go deep in zotac are already taken into account in the player pool (I assume we're basing this off of aligulac). Even if you are nitpicking right now because you see my point, I will just say : what about these terrans who don't reach ro32 and so are not taken into consideration ? I'm not nitpicking, I'm saying that aligulac is more complete than you think. When you say the player pool is there but can't make the lists because of imbalance, my answer is that it's already made the list in the most part. So in your opinion there is just less talented terran players for an equal players pool ? Talent is overrated, you get good through practice. In my opinion terran is harder to get good with, so less people will be willing to put in the practice in order to get good with it. Imho, this is insulting to all terran who worked their asses to be somewhat relevant. In what way could that possibly be insulting? You are saying that terrans arent performing because they are lazy. If this is not insulting, I don't what is. That sounds insulting, yeah. Good thing this isn't what I'm saying at all...
It is downright callous what you said though. Not even trying to see from T POV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
