|
On April 29 2016 04:45 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I also would like to say that I don't think they should take feedback from lower leagues players. Who cares if lower league players struggle vs mutas ? They're not struggling vs mutas even half as much as they're struggling vs their poor control, bad macro, nonexistent multitask etc. So doing this buff will not truly help them, while it definitely shuts down mutas in high level ZvP and reinforces the "kill him before he gets there" aspect of mothership + tempests/void rays + storm.
For DK an "ordinary user" is obviously any non-pro, not only "lower league" players.
|
Papua New Guinea1059 Posts
this translation is making me cringe hard
I always liked dayvie. Balance team does a good job imo.
|
On April 29 2016 04:45 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I also would like to say that I don't think they should take feedback from lower leagues players. Who cares if lower league players struggle vs mutas ? They're not struggling vs mutas even half as much as they're struggling vs their poor control, bad macro, nonexistent multitask etc. So doing this buff will not truly help them, while it definitely shuts down mutas in high level ZvP and reinforces the "kill him before he gets there" aspect of mothership + tempests/void rays + storm.
But where would we draw the line? Because I'm pretty sure GSL players, Korean GMs, and even the majority of our community would consider the entire NA/EU scene "lower league." Even top GMs in EU/NA would get destroyed by mid-tier kespa players at this point. The skill gap is just too high.
That's why I understand David Kim's hesitation on balancing. The Korean scene is saying Protoss is imba, but EU/NA scene is saying Zerg is imba, it's just hard to balance around that.
|
On April 29 2016 05:49 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 04:45 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I also would like to say that I don't think they should take feedback from lower leagues players. Who cares if lower league players struggle vs mutas ? They're not struggling vs mutas even half as much as they're struggling vs their poor control, bad macro, nonexistent multitask etc. So doing this buff will not truly help them, while it definitely shuts down mutas in high level ZvP and reinforces the "kill him before he gets there" aspect of mothership + tempests/void rays + storm. But where would we draw the line? Because I'm pretty sure GSL players, Korean GMs, and even the majority of our community would consider the entire NA/EU scene "lower league." Even top GMs in EU/NA would get destroyed by mid-tier kespa players at this point. The skill gap is just too high. That's why I understand David Kim's hesitation on balancing. The Korean scene is saying Protoss is imba, but EU/NA scene is saying Zerg is imba, it's just hard to balance around that.
I really don't think the best P NA/EU players say Z is imba in PvZ any more.
|
On April 29 2016 05:53 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 05:49 phodacbiet wrote:On April 29 2016 04:45 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I also would like to say that I don't think they should take feedback from lower leagues players. Who cares if lower league players struggle vs mutas ? They're not struggling vs mutas even half as much as they're struggling vs their poor control, bad macro, nonexistent multitask etc. So doing this buff will not truly help them, while it definitely shuts down mutas in high level ZvP and reinforces the "kill him before he gets there" aspect of mothership + tempests/void rays + storm. But where would we draw the line? Because I'm pretty sure GSL players, Korean GMs, and even the majority of our community would consider the entire NA/EU scene "lower league." Even top GMs in EU/NA would get destroyed by mid-tier kespa players at this point. The skill gap is just too high. That's why I understand David Kim's hesitation on balancing. The Korean scene is saying Protoss is imba, but EU/NA scene is saying Zerg is imba, it's just hard to balance around that. I really don't think the best P NA/EU players say Z is imba in PvZ any more.
Maybe not everyone, but all it takes is a few vocal streamers. For example, Terran is doing pretty well for the most part. However, a few vocal Terran streamers still think that T is the worst race ever and if it wasn't for them playing T, they would have won 10 GSLs by now as P or Z. But yeah, I really like that Blizzard is taking balancing extremely slow. I would like a faster map rotation, since I feel like that is how the game should be balanced (like BW). If we confuse map imbalances with actual racial imbalance, then we might mistakenly nerf/buff something. Once the maps are swapped out, then we might create even more problems that we're not originally there.
|
On April 29 2016 06:10 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 05:53 [PkF] Wire wrote:On April 29 2016 05:49 phodacbiet wrote:On April 29 2016 04:45 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I also would like to say that I don't think they should take feedback from lower leagues players. Who cares if lower league players struggle vs mutas ? They're not struggling vs mutas even half as much as they're struggling vs their poor control, bad macro, nonexistent multitask etc. So doing this buff will not truly help them, while it definitely shuts down mutas in high level ZvP and reinforces the "kill him before he gets there" aspect of mothership + tempests/void rays + storm. But where would we draw the line? Because I'm pretty sure GSL players, Korean GMs, and even the majority of our community would consider the entire NA/EU scene "lower league." Even top GMs in EU/NA would get destroyed by mid-tier kespa players at this point. The skill gap is just too high. That's why I understand David Kim's hesitation on balancing. The Korean scene is saying Protoss is imba, but EU/NA scene is saying Zerg is imba, it's just hard to balance around that. I really don't think the best P NA/EU players say Z is imba in PvZ any more. Maybe not everyone, but all it takes is a few vocal streamers. For example, Terran is doing pretty well for the most part. However, a few vocal Terran streamers still think that T is the worst race ever and if it wasn't for them playing T, they would have won 10 GSLs by now as P or Z. But yeah, I really like that Blizzard is taking balancing extremely slow. I would like a faster map rotation, since I feel like that is how the game should be balanced (like BW). If we confuse map imbalances with actual racial imbalance, then we might mistakenly nerf/buff something. Once the maps are swapped out, then we might create even more problems that we're not originally there.
I like it a lot too. If we take things too hastily where is the incentive to innovate for the players ?
I like the upcoming changes a bit less but we get what we get.
|
On April 28 2016 23:07 seemsgood wrote:
I won't blame him about medank.He ignores medank and disruptor because the community.Don't say this community is innocent LUL.....
And i believe we have another situation like that.Its PvZ.
He could just have nerfed it by increasing unload duration. This would reward pickup micro but deincentiveze "transport-in-medivacs-tanks". Then they could even buff the Siege Tanks core stats on top of that and we could get proper mech.
But nononono David Kim doesn't wanna do anything that could reward diversity besides adding in crappy maps.
|
Btw crappy maps often turn out to be the opposite of diversity, ie there are one very very strong/imba build per MU per map, and everyone does this, even when the opponent knows it's coming (see Prion and the gold to mass Ravagers strategy, cf Soo vs Maru )
Finally a bit sad the interviewer didn't ask about some design issues, besides tankivacs. Like 2/3 pylons with 0 units holding up to 2/3 medivacs (cf. Classic vs a terran on Lerilak ), photonpylons attack BS, the marauder now totally useless (even shitty vs stalkers nowdays), terran forced every game to make mass Libs or die because bio is shit and mech is shit (talking about diversity...), etc.
To came back to balance and patchs, Koreans says toss is OP, in Korea and in ForeignLand Protoss and Zergs wins tournaments and so.... he want to nerf terran because of one Maru game ? (it's now a ridiculous but prestigious tradition : Thorzain, MVP, Maru ! ).
Libs are already very bad vs corruptors(+vipers) with a bit of micro. (cf Mlord and TY games ) Don't even understand why he thinks it's an issue.
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
Btw crappy maps often turn out to be the opposite of diversity, ie there are one very very strong/imba build per MU per map, and everyone does this
very true
the biggest stragic diversity comes from middle ground maps where a wide variety of aggression as well as expanding is quite viable
|
On April 29 2016 06:58 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Btw crappy maps often turn out to be the opposite of diversity, ie there are one very very strong/imba build per MU per map, and everyone does this very true the biggest stragic diversity comes from middle ground maps where a wide variety of aggression as well as expanding is quite viable
definitely. If you have to rely on maps to create diversity there is a problem. Maps should only be the prisms through which different viable strategies are made stronger or weaker.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 29 2016 04:45 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I also would like to say that I don't think they should take feedback from lower leagues players. Who cares if lower league players struggle vs mutas ? They're not struggling vs mutas even half as much as they're struggling vs their poor control, bad macro, nonexistent multitask etc. So doing this buff will not truly help them, while it definitely shuts down mutas in high level ZvP and reinforces the "kill him before he gets there" aspect of mothership + tempests/void rays + storm.
Without a balance in lower leagues you are losing player base. Without a player base the viewer numbers won't grow. In the end the game will die.
Yes, they shouldn't balance a game based on low league players. But they should try to give them the best enjoyable experience in the game. And if we are talking about mutas they don't feel enjoyable at all. They are annoying because maps have too much free air space. Protoss units lack mobility and static defense is like "lol, he tried to build cannons".
I think a lot of this could be solved by less air space around the map. For the start. But hey, that's another stupid restriction on map makers 
|
So much things are potentially non-enjoyable to lower league players I don't even know where to start if I wanted to list them all. These players just do not play the same game at all.
I deeply dislike this philosophy behind making some units "lower-leaguer-friendly" like the Colossus, while still letting them in a bad spot in higher level play to discourage using them. This is very much the same to say "hey, let's make another piece in chess that is super strong in lower leagues but that grandmasters would never even bother to move just because it is bad at high level play, so it is easier to get noob to get into chess, thus increasing our player base, whoohoo!". This would make the game utterly inelegant.
In lower league I am sure pretty much any kind of easy-to-pull-off cheese from P would smash the wannabe muta zerg player before he can get those anyway, and nobody's asking for nerfing those in order to make it "more enjoyable for lower league Zergs".
Part of the attraction to the game for outsiders is precisely the fact that the game is elegant, with crisp mechanics and design, ultimately balanced but hard to master. If is not enjoyable enough, maybe SC is not the game for them, and I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't thing I'm alone in this case, and I don't even play competitively...
|
On April 28 2016 22:20 Charoisaur wrote:
So he doesn't want to change tankivacs because players love it. Ahahahaha nice excuse DK.
the questions are horrible btw who did this interview?
.
Yeah, Tankvacs are literally THE reason i can't get myself to play or watch the game. Pee shooting flying Tanks are just the complete opposite of what i love about Terran.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 29 2016 18:03 DjayEl wrote:
So much things are potentially non-enjoyable to lower league players I don't even know where to start if I wanted to list them all. These players just do not play the same game at all.
I deeply dislike this philosophy behind making some units "lower-leaguer-friendly" like the Colossus, while still letting them in a bad spot in higher level play to discourage using them. This is very much the same to say "hey, let's make another piece in chess that is super strong in lower leagues but that grandmasters would never even bother to move just because it is bad at high level play, so it is easier to get noob to get into chess, thus increasing our player base, whoohoo!". This would make the game utterly inelegant.
In lower league I am sure pretty much any kind of easy-to-pull-off cheese from P would smash the wannabe muta zerg player before he can get those anyway, and nobody's asking for nerfing those in order to make it "more enjoyable for lower league Zergs".
Part of the attraction to the game for outsiders is precisely the fact that the game is elegant, with crisp mechanics and design, ultimately balanced but hard to master. If is not enjoyable enough, maybe SC is not the game for them, and I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't thing I'm alone in this case, and I don't even play competitively...
Are you really sure nobody is asking it? I remember the 4gate time, Soul train time. Oracle speed buff time. Ferrarivacs time. That's simply not true. You don't see it here that often, but such a topic would be closed in few seconds because "balance whine"(or something). I remember bloody well the posts "even pro players have problem with mine drops, they need to be nerfed, how am I supposed to defense them when pro players die to them? Medevacs with boost are too fast!".
Just check the balance thread(not sure the correct name now).
|
On April 29 2016 17:47 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 04:45 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I also would like to say that I don't think they should take feedback from lower leagues players. Who cares if lower league players struggle vs mutas ? They're not struggling vs mutas even half as much as they're struggling vs their poor control, bad macro, nonexistent multitask etc. So doing this buff will not truly help them, while it definitely shuts down mutas in high level ZvP and reinforces the "kill him before he gets there" aspect of mothership + tempests/void rays + storm. Without a balance in lower leagues you are losing player base. Without a player base the viewer numbers won't grow. In the end the game will die. Yes, they shouldn't balance a game based on low league players. But they should try to give them the best enjoyable experience in the game. And if we are talking about mutas they don't feel enjoyable at all. They are annoying because maps have too much free air space. Protoss units lack mobility and static defense is like "lol, he tried to build cannons". I think a lot of this could be solved by less air space around the map. For the start. But hey, that's another stupid restriction on map makers
It's literally impossible to balance at all levels simultaneously. How do you set, for example, banes vs marines split fort it to be balanced at all levels of play ?
Furthermore, players play according to their skill, so in gold league, a terran player will not attempts to heavy multi-task and split-just-in-time his marines vs Z, he will make 15 tanks and push one time, with marines pre-split.
More importantly, imao, that's not the balance that keeps the players playing this game, but the fun. Fun is the more under-estimated & miss-understood concept of Starcraft, but every non-pro player plays fort it, not for balance or whatsoever.
|
On April 29 2016 19:17 xongnox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 17:47 deacon.frost wrote:On April 29 2016 04:45 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I also would like to say that I don't think they should take feedback from lower leagues players. Who cares if lower league players struggle vs mutas ? They're not struggling vs mutas even half as much as they're struggling vs their poor control, bad macro, nonexistent multitask etc. So doing this buff will not truly help them, while it definitely shuts down mutas in high level ZvP and reinforces the "kill him before he gets there" aspect of mothership + tempests/void rays + storm. Without a balance in lower leagues you are losing player base. Without a player base the viewer numbers won't grow. In the end the game will die. Yes, they shouldn't balance a game based on low league players. But they should try to give them the best enjoyable experience in the game. And if we are talking about mutas they don't feel enjoyable at all. They are annoying because maps have too much free air space. Protoss units lack mobility and static defense is like "lol, he tried to build cannons". I think a lot of this could be solved by less air space around the map. For the start. But hey, that's another stupid restriction on map makers It's literally impossible to balance at all levels simultaneously. How do you set, for example, banes vs marines split fort it to be balanced at all levels of play ? Furthermore, players play according to their skill, so in gold league, a terran player will not attempts to heavy multi-task and split-just-in-time his marines vs Z, he will make 15 tanks and push one time, with marines pre-split. More importantly, imao, that's not the balance that keeps the players playing this game, but the fun. Fun is the more under-estimated & miss-understood concept of Starcraft, but every non-pro player plays fort it, not for balance or whatsoever.
I don't think fun is underestimated or misunderstood.
There's a lot of fun to be had in starcraft. The issue is all the fun is in the doing. It's fun to kill a mineral line with oracles, it's fun to obliterate an army with lurkers. It's fun to get huge widow mine hits.
Unfortunately being on the other end of any of those things is soul wrenchingly terrible. So in order to have fun, you also have to endure painfully anti-fun things every game.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 29 2016 19:17 xongnox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 17:47 deacon.frost wrote:On April 29 2016 04:45 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I also would like to say that I don't think they should take feedback from lower leagues players. Who cares if lower league players struggle vs mutas ? They're not struggling vs mutas even half as much as they're struggling vs their poor control, bad macro, nonexistent multitask etc. So doing this buff will not truly help them, while it definitely shuts down mutas in high level ZvP and reinforces the "kill him before he gets there" aspect of mothership + tempests/void rays + storm. Without a balance in lower leagues you are losing player base. Without a player base the viewer numbers won't grow. In the end the game will die. Yes, they shouldn't balance a game based on low league players. But they should try to give them the best enjoyable experience in the game. And if we are talking about mutas they don't feel enjoyable at all. They are annoying because maps have too much free air space. Protoss units lack mobility and static defense is like "lol, he tried to build cannons". I think a lot of this could be solved by less air space around the map. For the start. But hey, that's another stupid restriction on map makers It's literally impossible to balance at all levels simultaneously. How do you set, for example, banes vs marines split fort it to be balanced at all levels of play ? Furthermore, players play according to their skill, so in gold league, a terran player will not attempts to heavy multi-task and split-just-in-time his marines vs Z, he will make 15 tanks and push one time, with marines pre-split. More importantly, imao, that's not the balance that keeps the players playing this game, but the fun. Fun is the more under-estimated & miss-understood concept of Starcraft, but every non-pro player plays fort it, not for balance or whatsoever.
It is not fun to lose all the time to mutalisk. Is that a low league balance problem or fun problem?
|
A low league fun problem ?
It's like unscouted oracle/dts/etc kicking you early of the game in 2 seconds, very frustrating, particularly in low league when players doesn't know how to scout / respond / etc, so that simply feels "random" for them.
Imho 'fun' is more related to design than to balance. For example the oracle was strong but not 'imbalanced' in HoTS, still, killing all your stuff in 10 sec when u have 4 marines in a standard opening was an horrible design. ( because, contrary to other cheeses like 4g, proxy 2gates etc, if an 2nd pylon proxy oracle was scouted, the protoss was still in a OK position. If unscouted, he simply wins. )
From this perspective mutalisks are a far, far better design. They need a long time to pop out, so you should be aware, they need repeated and risked actions and micro to really hurt eco, there are a choice to make about how to play with them and where you position them on the map, etc.
Still it's not that fun for certain ppl to play against i guess :D
|
On April 29 2016 00:38 Silvana wrote:
I don't understand why are you criticizing the questions? I think they're great!!! The interviewer asked things people have been wondering about for a while now.
And the answers are short and direct, I like them too.
Its just as you say, the questions were great.
Some people just like to complain and have no idea whats a good.
|
On April 29 2016 00:44 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 00:38 Silvana wrote:
I don't understand why are you criticizing the questions? I think they're great!!! The interviewer asked things people have been wondering about for a while now.
And the answers are short and direct, I like them too. I haven't seen anyone wondering that marus liberator build was too atrong. It seemed more like a gimmick that worked because solar had no idea how to deal with it. Later on the same day byul crushed that build and after that nobody tried it anymore
How can you say that marus strategy is gimmicky, when you saw it countered only once. Maybe byuls counterplay is gimmicky. How can you know that?
The truth is that you just make it up in your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
