| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Topdoller
United Kingdom3860 Posts
Sick of people bitching on this forum about balance when the maps are a train wreck. They need to be smaller, with no gold patches and better overall design. SC2 Reddit has more constructive discussions than TeamLiquid at present its that bad with people and their hidden motives on how they think the game should be played by 99% of the SC2 gaming community. If you dont like the game, just f^ck off and go play something else User was warned for this post | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On December 21 2015 17:54 Topdoller wrote: Protoss is fine, Zerg is fine but Terran might need a little help as one of its new units in this expansion looks very poor. Sick of people bitching on this forum about balance when the maps are a train wreck. They need to be smaller, with no gold patches and better overall design. SC2 Reddit has more constructive discussions than TeamLiquid at present its that bad with people and their hidden motives on how they think the game should be played by 99% of the SC2 gaming community. If you dont like the game, just f^ck off and go play something else +1 maps are currently total shit, can't believe gold bases are still in the game, they are OP for Zerg in the early game and OP for Terran late game, size isn't much of an issue, there should be bigger macro maps and smaller pro aggression maps but they definitely DEFINITELY need better overall design. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On December 21 2015 17:54 Topdoller wrote: If you dont like the game, just f^ck off and go play something else Man, the white on this knight has made me almost blind. Stop buying manuals published by Blizzard on how to behave already and open your eyes. It's very healthy for the game to point out blatant issues when the dev team is clueless in certain areas. And if you don't like it, just f^uck off and go read something else then "Community Feedback Update". User was warned for this post | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On December 21 2015 17:54 Topdoller wrote:If you dont like the game, just f^ck off and go play something else That is what people are doing already. We usually call it D3AD GAM3!!111 Do you really think people are so negative about SC2 because they dislike the game? If they did, they would have left long ago. But they stick around and continue to point out all the things they dont like. Why? Because they actually love the game but are saddened to see what has happened with it. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On December 21 2015 18:09 Beelzebub1 wrote: +1 maps are currently total shit, can't believe gold bases are still in the game, they are OP for Zerg in the early game and OP for Terran late game, size isn't much of an issue, there should be bigger macro maps and smaller pro aggression maps but they definitely DEFINITELY need better overall design. Genuinely curious, why are gold bases OP specifically for terran late game? I guess floating OCs there is nice, although a zerg can for example walk over spines/spores from mined out bases. | ||
|
Topdoller
United Kingdom3860 Posts
On December 21 2015 18:31 RoomOfMush wrote: That is what people are doing already. We usually call it D3AD GAM3!!111 Do you really think people are so negative about SC2 because they dislike the game? If they did, they would have left long ago. But they stick around and continue to point out all the things they dont like. Why? Because they actually love the game but are saddened to see what has happened with it. Saddened with what, LoTV has been out about than 8 weeks? Every time Blizzard has listen to you lot moaning and make rash changes it makes the game worse. HoTS almost killed the game with its flat 15 min no rush "lets sit back and defend" until we get to late game death ball tactics. Stop looking at Aligulac with its bullshit stats. Anyone good with statistics can turn any number into anything on a fricken graph to justify their arguments. Anyone who has been made unemployed can tell you that figures are all bullshit. Hell politicians have been doing it for decades in order to "justify" their so called policies. The game is in the best shape for years, all races now have viable options to harass and defend. Its exciting to watch with action going on all over the map from minute one. I just think we need to get the maps right first. Terran suffers the most on bigger maps due to low mobility on key units. For example on Steps of War tanks are godlike due to its ability to zone out a large percentage of the map.Now it looks like shit with maps the size of galaxys which take almost 1 minute to cross. At least give the players time to work it out. | ||
Jer99
Canada8157 Posts
And I agree, maps can use some work | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On December 21 2015 20:17 Topdoller wrote: Stop looking at Aligulac with its bullshit stats. Anyone good with statistics can turn any number into anything on a fricken graph to justify their arguments. Anyone who has been made unemployed can tell you that figures are all bullshit. Hell politicians have been doing it for decades in order to "justify" their so called policies. I agree with you in general, that people present data in a very biased way pretty often, both unconsciously and consciously to support their own picture of the world. I just want to defend stats itself a bit, saying that if you are good with stats, it is not only possible to use it to trick people, but also to get useful information from data. So in this case, I think the people over at aligulac are doing a good job at presenting their data. The problem is that all the TL and bnet people that come there to get confirmation that their race is UP, and all other races are OP are usually able to read that from the graphs even though the graphs are presented fairly and don't support their view. People just don't seem to be capable of taking home a more nuanced message than "OP!!!" or "UP!!!". I think the problem doesn't lay with aligulac, and your "Aligulac with its bullshit stats" isn't really justified imo. The problem is with people that go there to read out what they already "know", rather than go there and look what the graphs tell them. | ||
|
p68
100 Posts
On December 21 2015 17:06 BronzeKnee wrote: I'm not going to say that the meta isn't in a bad place. But if you nerf Protoss, then you need to nerf Terran more in order to achieve your ultimate goal of balance, because TvP is slightly Terran favored according Aligulac at the moment... http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ So let's always start with statistics and change from there. Not saying TvP doesn't need a lot of work and can't be better, but simply buffing the side that is winning more, regardless of how bad their early game might be, or nerfing the side that is losing more certainly won't achieve balance. While those stats include November, recall that LOTV launched 10NOV2015. Let's see what December looks like when it's over. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 21 2015 20:17 Topdoller wrote: Stop looking at Aligulac with its bullshit stats. Anyone good with statistics can turn any number into anything on a fricken graph to justify their arguments. Anyone who has been made unemployed can tell you that figures are all bullshit. Hell politicians have been doing it for decades in order to "justify" their so called policies. That's really not true. It's the stupidity and lazyness of people that makes them believe the statistic supports the argument. That doesnt mean it actually does, it's rather that the presented conclusion often cannot be drawn if you actually look at all the parameters of the data collection/processing. But figuring that outwould be work and would require actual knowledge on the topic of statistics and so people just resort to saying that statistics are a meaningless tool and believe what they want to believe. | ||
|
cop354g
61 Posts
On December 21 2015 22:40 Big J wrote: That's really not true. It's the stupidity and lazyness of people that makes them believe the statistic supports the argument. That doesnt mean it actually does, it's rather that the presented conclusion often cannot be drawn if you actually look at all the parameters of the data collection/processing. But figuring that outwould be work and would require actual knowledge on the topic of statistics and so people just resort to saying that statistics are a meaningless tool and believe what they want to believe. When discussing imbalance, winrates are actually even secondary thing. Its alot more important to look at the quality of the games. Even if the winrate for all races was 50%, it doesnt exclude imbalance between races. If one race has to resort to 1 viable tactic to overcome another race then there is some form of imbalance regarding units and mechanics. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On December 21 2015 18:37 Sissors wrote: Genuinely curious, why are gold bases OP specifically for terran late game? I guess floating OCs there is nice, although a zerg can for example walk over spines/spores from mined out bases. Because of the MULE hammer. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On December 21 2015 22:43 cop354g wrote: When discussing imbalance, winrates are actually even secondary thing. Its alot more important to look at the quality of the games. Even if the winrate for all races was 50%, it doesnt exclude imbalance between races. If one race has to resort to 1 viable tactic to overcome another race then there is some form of imbalance regarding units and mechanics. I would say that when discussing balance and imbalance the win rate is the ONLY thing that matters. Thats what it literally means: in a balanced game the win rates are equal. But we dont care as much about balance as we do about fun. We want a game that is fun to watch and fun to play. Even if the game is perfectly balanced it is possible that it is neither fun to watch nor fun to play. | ||
|
cop354g
61 Posts
On December 21 2015 22:49 RoomOfMush wrote: I would say that when discussing balance and imbalance the win rate is the ONLY thing that matters. Thats what it literally means: in a balanced game the win rates are equal. But we dont care as much about balance as we do about fun. We want a game that is fun to watch and fun to play. Even if the game is perfectly balanced it is possible that it is neither fun to watch nor fun to play. Winrate imbalance means just that, winrate imbalance. But there can be balanced winrate with imbalances regarding units and mechanics between races, if all races have atleast one way to overcome those imbalances to keep balanced winrate. Lets say marines could literally 1a move everything in the game, but only saving grace for protoss could be just teching oracle at very spesific time in game would result in 50% winrate, the game design certainly would not be considered "balanced". | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
Mules on gold is waste of a perfectly good mule. Unless they changed it back without informing me (how dare they  ), mules gather just as fast from blue as from gold mineral patches. So you should almost always use mules on blue patches (only if you have just two mining bases, one blue, one gold, and the blue one is almost empty, and you have plenty of SCVs, then I would drop them on the gold). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 21 2015 22:43 cop354g wrote: When discussing imbalance, winrates are actually even secondary thing. Its alot more important to look at the quality of the games. Even if the winrate for all races was 50%, it doesnt exclude imbalance between races. If one race has to resort to 1 viable tactic to overcome another race then there is some form of imbalance regarding units and mechanics. That's totally up to how you define balance which in itself has a very vague meaning. Most of the "imbalances" in the game are usually attributed to racial asymmetry or other forms of "design" (e.g. strong "core" vs situational "support" units). I think going by some sorts of winrates and representation when talking about (racial) balance + Show Spoiler + in the sense of having a certain equality in the game to win the game regardless of race choices What you say about "only one viable tactic" is an example of something that is not good for the game, however, not that important for balance. Anytime a strategy is only the tiniest bit better than another one, optimally a good player that plays competetitvely to make money should always favor playing it, regardless of the viability of other styles. So from a balance persepective it doesn't matter. But obviously for the fun of playing the game, for the fun of spectating the game it is much better if multiple strategies are equally good, so that various different scenarios can unfold. | ||
|
p68
100 Posts
On December 21 2015 22:49 RoomOfMush wrote: I would say that when discussing balance and imbalance the win rate is the ONLY thing that matters. Thats what it literally means: in a balanced game the win rates are equal. But we dont care as much about balance as we do about fun. We want a game that is fun to watch and fun to play. Even if the game is perfectly balanced it is possible that it is neither fun to watch nor fun to play. Agreed. I think that good design has to come first during development and balance issues can be adjusted after the fact. I think questionable design decisions can actually make it more difficult to balance, as we've seen with the Colossus and the Cylcone, where there's a very fine line between "too good and frustrating/boring", and nearly-useless. | ||
|
SiorasSC
23 Posts
| ||
|
Bohemond
United States163 Posts
On December 21 2015 18:37 Sissors wrote: Genuinely curious, why are gold bases OP specifically for terran late game? I guess floating OCs there is nice, although a zerg can for example walk over spines/spores from mined out bases. They're not OP for Terran late game, they're good for Terran in the mid game because Marines only cost minerals and with a gold base you can pump out more of them with fewer workers. For standard bio MMM, the mineral to gas ratio Terran wants is much higher than the other races want for any of their compositions. Late game it matters much less. And don't believe the people who say Mules have something to do with it, Mules mine gold and blue at the same rate. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On December 21 2015 18:31 RoomOfMush wrote: That is what people are doing already. We usually call it D3AD GAM3!!111 Do you really think people are so negative about SC2 because they dislike the game? If they did, they would have left long ago. But they stick around and continue to point out all the things they dont like. Why? Because they actually love the game but are saddened to see what has happened with it. Quitting SC2 was my 2015 New Years resolution. Came back temporarily to finish off the campaign and give the LOTV multiplayer a chance (despite my expectations), but it's been proven to not be worth my time. That said, I'll lurk periodically and give my thoughts on these community updates in the hope that what was once my favourite video game franchise will be fun again for me at some point. If my criticism can eventually help facilitate that, I'd be happy. For now though, it's Destiny and League of Legends for me.  But yeah, point is that there are people who have quit the game but are still holding out for a turnaround from Blizzard. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
