|
On November 24 2016 03:47 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Proof? What proof was given? Hundreds of games aren't necessary. Hundreds of thousands of games played by tens of thousands of players from all skill levels are necessary for proof.
This is why I insist on waiting until the pros play the game before anything can be definitive. The pros are willing to play those thousands of games, hour after hour, but they don't do it to prove swarm hosts make mech nonviable. They do it to find a weakness in swarm hosts that might get them to win.
In other words, they play to try to win, not to try and get a unit nerfed/buffed.
The problem with so many players is that they immediately try to put the blame on balance/design, instead of trying to just play the game.
Once a player already decides X unit is over powered, they have made up their mind to not try to improve. They blame the system.
Again, I'm not trying to dissuade a discussion, or state the patch is fine L2P.
I'm trying to get everyone to stop with the absolute statements "X unit needs to be buffed" "This patch is horrible" "Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing".
They don't help, nor do they encourage discussion.
Just for the sake of discussion, how would you conclude that a unit needs to be adressed then? After hundreds of thousands of games showing the unit is strong? But how can you conclude that? There were hundreds of other circunstancies involved in the games - player's mistakes, other units, etc.
What do you think about the broodlord/infestor era? Was it OK that they took months to nerf it? Was that enough time? Btw, many people back then claimed the same thing you are claiming now: "it's not conclusive/players will find a way to overcome this/player X defeated this". Do you think that waiting that long was healthy for the game?
Oh, and just to give an example of how this "wait a thousand games" approach is not always used. DK just nerfed cyclone range before the patch went live based on a couple games where byun proxied a factory to make a 1-base all in on that GSL test tournament. Btw, Byun didn't even won the tournament. Why wasn't the "wait a thousand games" approach used then?
|
Russian Federation54 Posts
On November 24 2016 03:42 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 23:23 Couguar wrote:On November 23 2016 22:42 JackONeill wrote:
Disruptors still outrange tanks.
Wrong. Tank has 13 range. Disruptor max flight 11+1.5 radius =12.5 Wrong, disruptors outrange tanks. If you're gonna be a fact-checker, at least check facts correctly. http://imgur.com/a/kQKBE[
checked - yep I am wrong.
But its 0.5 range difference that you will waste too much time to achieve in real game. one wrong move and disruptor dies(3 tank shots now
|
On November 24 2016 03:55 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 03:47 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Proof? What proof was given? Hundreds of games aren't necessary. Hundreds of thousands of games played by tens of thousands of players from all skill levels are necessary for proof.
This is why I insist on waiting until the pros play the game before anything can be definitive. The pros are willing to play those thousands of games, hour after hour, but they don't do it to prove swarm hosts make mech nonviable. They do it to find a weakness in swarm hosts that might get them to win.
In other words, they play to try to win, not to try and get a unit nerfed/buffed.
The problem with so many players is that they immediately try to put the blame on balance/design, instead of trying to just play the game.
Once a player already decides X unit is over powered, they have made up their mind to not try to improve. They blame the system.
Again, I'm not trying to dissuade a discussion, or state the patch is fine L2P.
I'm trying to get everyone to stop with the absolute statements "X unit needs to be buffed" "This patch is horrible" "Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing".
They don't help, nor do they encourage discussion. Just for the sake of discussion, how would you conclude that a unit needs to be adressed then? After hundreds of thousands of games showing the unit is strong? But how can you conclude that? There were hundreds of other circunstancies involved in the games - player's mistakes, other units, etc. What do you think about the broodlord/infestor era? Was it OK that they took months to nerf it? Was that enough time? Btw, many people back then claimed the same thing you are claiming now: "it's not conclusive/players will find a way to overcome this/player X defeated this". Do you think that waiting that long was healthy for the game? Oh, and just to give an example of how this "wait a thousand games" approach is not always used. DK just nerfed cyclone range before the patch went live based on a couple games where byun proxied a factory to make a 1-base all in on that GSL test tournament. Btw, Byun didn't even won the tournament. Why wasn't the "wait a thousand games" approach used then?
Here would be an example of the data indicating a unit might need a nerf.
Let's take the TvZ matchup, and after thousands of games across all skill levels, we look at games where the Zerg went swarm hosts and terran went mech.
In those games, lets say that %75 of the time the zerg was able to get X swarmhosts before Z minutes. Of those games where the Zerg player managed to get the specificed number of swarmhosts at a specific time, they won 90% of the time. This indicates that the swarmhost is a strong unit that might need a nerf.
However, what if we segment the data and look at players in the grand master level. If the GM level players managed to get the specified number of swarmhosts at a specific time, but only won 50% of the time, that indicates the swarmhost is still a strong unit, but much harder for lower skilled players to handle. It still might need a nerf, but not as extreme.
Here might be another example. Let's look at the TvZ matchup again, and the numbers tells us that 80% of zerg players are going swarmhosts. Of these games where zerg are using swarmhosts, they are winning %60 of the time. That's another indication that the swarmhosts might need a nerf.
Oh and about the winfestor/bl era, Blizzard already stated they know there is a problem with the matchup. That problem wasn't an issue of balance though, it was the games were getting incredibly stale. However, they also stated they won't be changing anything because its getting really close to HotS, and HotS was going to change everything anyways.
Regarding Byun, the patch wasn't out yet so they have the luxury of making more frequent changes.Second, I already stated the pros are already playing the game thousands of times. As well they are playing at such a high level that Blizzard can make confident changes based on pro games. And third, where did Blizzard make a statement 'We nerfed cyclone "based on a couple games where byun proxied a factory to make a 1-base all in on that GSL test tournament" '? Perhaps there was more data that they didn't release? Maybe they had an indication it might need a nerf, but Byun's game proved it did?
|
On November 24 2016 04:14 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 03:55 petro1987 wrote:On November 24 2016 03:47 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Proof? What proof was given? Hundreds of games aren't necessary. Hundreds of thousands of games played by tens of thousands of players from all skill levels are necessary for proof.
This is why I insist on waiting until the pros play the game before anything can be definitive. The pros are willing to play those thousands of games, hour after hour, but they don't do it to prove swarm hosts make mech nonviable. They do it to find a weakness in swarm hosts that might get them to win.
In other words, they play to try to win, not to try and get a unit nerfed/buffed.
The problem with so many players is that they immediately try to put the blame on balance/design, instead of trying to just play the game.
Once a player already decides X unit is over powered, they have made up their mind to not try to improve. They blame the system.
Again, I'm not trying to dissuade a discussion, or state the patch is fine L2P.
I'm trying to get everyone to stop with the absolute statements "X unit needs to be buffed" "This patch is horrible" "Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing".
They don't help, nor do they encourage discussion. Just for the sake of discussion, how would you conclude that a unit needs to be adressed then? After hundreds of thousands of games showing the unit is strong? But how can you conclude that? There were hundreds of other circunstancies involved in the games - player's mistakes, other units, etc. What do you think about the broodlord/infestor era? Was it OK that they took months to nerf it? Was that enough time? Btw, many people back then claimed the same thing you are claiming now: "it's not conclusive/players will find a way to overcome this/player X defeated this". Do you think that waiting that long was healthy for the game? Oh, and just to give an example of how this "wait a thousand games" approach is not always used. DK just nerfed cyclone range before the patch went live based on a couple games where byun proxied a factory to make a 1-base all in on that GSL test tournament. Btw, Byun didn't even won the tournament. Why wasn't the "wait a thousand games" approach used then? ... Regarding Byun, the patch wasn't out yet so they have the luxury of making more frequent changes.Second, I already stated the pros are already playing the game thousands of times. As well they are playing at such a high level that Blizzard can make confident changes based on pro games. And third, where did Blizzard make a statement 'We nerfed cyclone "based on a couple games where byun proxied a factory to make a 1-base all in on that GSL test tournament" '? Perhaps there was more data that they didn't release? Maybe they had an indication it might need a nerf, but Byun's game proved it did?
Well, how many public pro games had happened at that point with that particular scenario? They mentioned in this very community update "Also, the early all-in using Cyclones looks to be quite strong.". Your approach to this is just an example of how everything can be justified by using "hidden data" that already hinted that something was OP. It's essentially the same "we have tested it internally, and concluded that ..." or "our internal data shows that ...". In the end, Blizzard does whatever the hell they want, but don't try to sell me that they do it based on a scientific basis, when it's clearly not true.
|
On November 24 2016 01:30 VHbb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:53 Hider wrote:On November 23 2016 13:55 VHbb wrote:
Hider you post the most toxic contributions in this forum.. I don't know why but in every discussion you participate with these super harsh and rude comments, it's very disturbing honestly Because I don't see any reason to speak pleasantly to ignorant people (as in the combination of arrogant and unknowledable/refusing to learn). I don't give a whole lot about the feelings of those people who influence the community with completely wrong ideas. And I am especially not fond of people who doesn't spend reading my posts and/or doesn't reflect upon what I wrote before responding to my post in a negative fashion. If one is honestly not sure what my point is after reading it, then that's a different matter, however that's not the vibe I am getting. This makes your post very toxic for the discussion. To be honest I tend to just skip them because I don't want to read this kind of negativity in a videogame forum: maybe it's also a problem from your side, since this happens in almost every discussion I read where you participate (not only about balance / sc2). More than making a point, it seems you try to get a negative response from the people you are talking to, by being very rude.
Yes I am very rude to ignorant people, so why are you telling what I already wrote previously. Do you think I care about how people like you who only want "positivity" think? What new information do you think your post add that I wasn't already aware of previously
And FYI my motivation is to dispromote bullshitters from posting in the future, and being respectful to people who don't deserve it, certainly isn't promoting that.
More than making a point, it seems you try to get a negative response from the people you are talking to, by being very rude
I don't care about their responses, I want them to make smarter posts going forward. And surely my current writing style wouldn't be optimal if I had an in interest in actually influencing blizzard indirectly by convincing the community that a certain change is good/bad. But I don't have that any longer.
|
On November 24 2016 04:46 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 04:14 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On November 24 2016 03:55 petro1987 wrote:On November 24 2016 03:47 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Proof? What proof was given? Hundreds of games aren't necessary. Hundreds of thousands of games played by tens of thousands of players from all skill levels are necessary for proof.
This is why I insist on waiting until the pros play the game before anything can be definitive. The pros are willing to play those thousands of games, hour after hour, but they don't do it to prove swarm hosts make mech nonviable. They do it to find a weakness in swarm hosts that might get them to win.
In other words, they play to try to win, not to try and get a unit nerfed/buffed.
The problem with so many players is that they immediately try to put the blame on balance/design, instead of trying to just play the game.
Once a player already decides X unit is over powered, they have made up their mind to not try to improve. They blame the system.
Again, I'm not trying to dissuade a discussion, or state the patch is fine L2P.
I'm trying to get everyone to stop with the absolute statements "X unit needs to be buffed" "This patch is horrible" "Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing".
They don't help, nor do they encourage discussion. Just for the sake of discussion, how would you conclude that a unit needs to be adressed then? After hundreds of thousands of games showing the unit is strong? But how can you conclude that? There were hundreds of other circunstancies involved in the games - player's mistakes, other units, etc. What do you think about the broodlord/infestor era? Was it OK that they took months to nerf it? Was that enough time? Btw, many people back then claimed the same thing you are claiming now: "it's not conclusive/players will find a way to overcome this/player X defeated this". Do you think that waiting that long was healthy for the game? Oh, and just to give an example of how this "wait a thousand games" approach is not always used. DK just nerfed cyclone range before the patch went live based on a couple games where byun proxied a factory to make a 1-base all in on that GSL test tournament. Btw, Byun didn't even won the tournament. Why wasn't the "wait a thousand games" approach used then? ... Regarding Byun, the patch wasn't out yet so they have the luxury of making more frequent changes.Second, I already stated the pros are already playing the game thousands of times. As well they are playing at such a high level that Blizzard can make confident changes based on pro games. And third, where did Blizzard make a statement 'We nerfed cyclone "based on a couple games where byun proxied a factory to make a 1-base all in on that GSL test tournament" '? Perhaps there was more data that they didn't release? Maybe they had an indication it might need a nerf, but Byun's game proved it did? Well, how many public pro games had happened at that point with that particular scenario? They mentioned in this very community update "Also, the early all-in using Cyclones looks to be quite strong.". Your approach to this is just an example of how everything can be justified by using "hidden data" that already hinted that something was OP. It's essentially the same "we have tested it internally, and concluded that ..." or "our internal data shows that ...". In the end, Blizzard does whatever the hell they want, but don't try to sell me that they do it based on a scientific basis, when it's clearly not true.
Yes Blizzard will do whatever they want, but I didn't say they are using a scientific basis. Statistics and scientific aren't the same.
Blizzard doesn't have to release any data they have, so it will all be hidden. However, knowing where to look into the data is the challenge. That is where we come in. All the numbers in the world will mean nothing, but the players are the ones that tell Blizzard where to look.
If after several months, Blizzard notices that a large number of players are complaining about swarm hosts, than they can take the time to sift through the data to look at all the games where swarm hosts are used.
I honestly encourage everyone to discuss units they have trouble dealing with, because that could be an indication that Blizzard should look at the data surrounding that unit.
However, the problem right now is that everything is still too soon to tell. I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm trying to get people here to just play the game. Play the game until you can't play anymore. Don't go to TL/bnet/reddit and demand nerfs/buffs or make innane statements about the competency of Blizzard/DK/developers. Just play it, win or lose. Your games will contribute to the numbers that Blizzard needs to make better decisions about the game.
Will these decisions align with yours? Probably not, but that isn't the point. The point is that Blizzard makes changes they deem better for their game. At the end of it, if you do have trouble with a specific unit or composition, than discuss it. Don't make absolute statements, because those don't encourage discussion. If a large number of people have the same problem, than its an indication to look at the data and determine if the data lines up with their concerns.
And if you really want to lobby for a change to a unit, you better do all your homework. Making vague statements like "I've played and watched +50 games so I know what I'm talking about" will get you no where. Look at the early changes to reaper in WoL. It was changed because two pro players (I can't remember who) proved through many practice games that Terran is nearly unbeatable with mass reapers because they can keep a zerg on one base for a very long time.
The proof is in the pudding, but the problem is everyone's pudding tastes like confirmation bias.
|
On November 24 2016 05:02 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 04:46 petro1987 wrote:On November 24 2016 04:14 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On November 24 2016 03:55 petro1987 wrote:On November 24 2016 03:47 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Proof? What proof was given? Hundreds of games aren't necessary. Hundreds of thousands of games played by tens of thousands of players from all skill levels are necessary for proof.
This is why I insist on waiting until the pros play the game before anything can be definitive. The pros are willing to play those thousands of games, hour after hour, but they don't do it to prove swarm hosts make mech nonviable. They do it to find a weakness in swarm hosts that might get them to win.
In other words, they play to try to win, not to try and get a unit nerfed/buffed.
The problem with so many players is that they immediately try to put the blame on balance/design, instead of trying to just play the game.
Once a player already decides X unit is over powered, they have made up their mind to not try to improve. They blame the system.
Again, I'm not trying to dissuade a discussion, or state the patch is fine L2P.
I'm trying to get everyone to stop with the absolute statements "X unit needs to be buffed" "This patch is horrible" "Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing".
They don't help, nor do they encourage discussion. Just for the sake of discussion, how would you conclude that a unit needs to be adressed then? After hundreds of thousands of games showing the unit is strong? But how can you conclude that? There were hundreds of other circunstancies involved in the games - player's mistakes, other units, etc. What do you think about the broodlord/infestor era? Was it OK that they took months to nerf it? Was that enough time? Btw, many people back then claimed the same thing you are claiming now: "it's not conclusive/players will find a way to overcome this/player X defeated this". Do you think that waiting that long was healthy for the game? Oh, and just to give an example of how this "wait a thousand games" approach is not always used. DK just nerfed cyclone range before the patch went live based on a couple games where byun proxied a factory to make a 1-base all in on that GSL test tournament. Btw, Byun didn't even won the tournament. Why wasn't the "wait a thousand games" approach used then? ... Regarding Byun, the patch wasn't out yet so they have the luxury of making more frequent changes.Second, I already stated the pros are already playing the game thousands of times. As well they are playing at such a high level that Blizzard can make confident changes based on pro games. And third, where did Blizzard make a statement 'We nerfed cyclone "based on a couple games where byun proxied a factory to make a 1-base all in on that GSL test tournament" '? Perhaps there was more data that they didn't release? Maybe they had an indication it might need a nerf, but Byun's game proved it did? Well, how many public pro games had happened at that point with that particular scenario? They mentioned in this very community update "Also, the early all-in using Cyclones looks to be quite strong.". Your approach to this is just an example of how everything can be justified by using "hidden data" that already hinted that something was OP. It's essentially the same "we have tested it internally, and concluded that ..." or "our internal data shows that ...". In the end, Blizzard does whatever the hell they want, but don't try to sell me that they do it based on a scientific basis, when it's clearly not true. Yes Blizzard will do whatever they want, but I didn't say they are using a scientific basis. Statistics and scientific aren't the same. ...
You do realize that statistics is a science, right? So if they were using statistics in a well defined way to derive conclusions that were used to make balance changes to the game, they would be using a scientific basis. The problem is exactly that, they are not doing this.
They claim this "hidden data" just for PR. They do whatever they want. Sometimes they make changes based on a small sample, and sometimes they don't change anything at all for months. That "lack of consistency" is what many people complain about, btw.
|
On November 24 2016 04:47 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:30 VHbb wrote:On November 24 2016 00:53 Hider wrote:On November 23 2016 13:55 VHbb wrote:
Hider you post the most toxic contributions in this forum.. I don't know why but in every discussion you participate with these super harsh and rude comments, it's very disturbing honestly Because I don't see any reason to speak pleasantly to ignorant people (as in the combination of arrogant and unknowledable/refusing to learn). I don't give a whole lot about the feelings of those people who influence the community with completely wrong ideas. And I am especially not fond of people who doesn't spend reading my posts and/or doesn't reflect upon what I wrote before responding to my post in a negative fashion. If one is honestly not sure what my point is after reading it, then that's a different matter, however that's not the vibe I am getting. This makes your post very toxic for the discussion. To be honest I tend to just skip them because I don't want to read this kind of negativity in a videogame forum: maybe it's also a problem from your side, since this happens in almost every discussion I read where you participate (not only about balance / sc2). More than making a point, it seems you try to get a negative response from the people you are talking to, by being very rude. Yes I am very rude to ignorant people, so why are you telling what I already wrote previously. Do you think I care about how people like you who only want "positivity" think? What new information do you think your post add that I wasn't already aware of previously And FYI my motivation is to dispromote bullshitters from posting in the future, and being respectful to people who don't deserve it, certainly isn't promoting that. Show nested quote +More than making a point, it seems you try to get a negative response from the people you are talking to, by being very rude I don't care about their responses, I want them to make smarter posts going forward. And surely my current writing style wouldn't be optimal if I had an in interest in actually influencing blizzard indirectly by convincing the community that a certain change is good/bad. But I don't have that any longer.
You must be so fun in real life..
Never mind anyway, if there was an "ignore" function (maybe there is and I'm not aware) I would be happier: this kind of language / post is not what I like to read in my free time, so I'm a bit sad to find it here on TL.
Your "writing style" is only effective in pissing people off, so it's not really optimal for anything, other than degrade the forum for everyone.
With this I close, since it's by far OT
|
You are right, statstics is a science, but that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that we provide Blizzard with the data they need.
So you're saying that because they don't release the numbers, you can't trust they are using scientific basis? Aren't you moving into the realm of conspiracy theories? So you think Blizzard secretly wants Zerg to be OP, and mech to be nonviable, and protoss to be... I don't know. And they do this because?
And another thing, I don't want the numbers. The amount of data they get would be so incomprehensible to me. I wouldn't know where to start, how to interpret it, or what it all means. And neither would you or anyone else here, aside from a few TL mathematicians like Sholip.
Here is the bottom line, you can trust Blizzard is making the right changes or you can call them incompetent. But they have all the data and the right people to interpret it. It isn't our job to do that, so there is no reason we should have it or even need it. It's our job to play the game. And play the fuck out of it as much as we can, then we tell Blizzard how we feel. If enough people feel the same, Blizzard will look at the numbers and see if it corroborates with some players.
|
On November 24 2016 05:22 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
You are right, statstics is a science, but that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that we provide Blizzard with the data they need.
So you're saying that because they don't release the numbers, you can't trust they are using scientific basis? Aren't you moving into the realm of conspiracy theories? So you think Blizzard secretly wants Zerg to be OP, and mech to be nonviable, and protoss to be... I don't know. And they do this because?
And another thing, I don't want the numbers. The amount of data they get would be so incomprehensible to me. I wouldn't know where to start, how to interpret it, or what it all means. And neither would you or anyone else here, aside from a few TL mathematicians like Sholip.
Here is the bottom line, you can trust Blizzard is making the right changes or you can call them incompetent. But they have all the data and the right people to interpret it. It isn't our job to do that, so there is no reason we should have it or even need it. It's our job to play the game. And play the fuck out of it as much as we can, then we tell Blizzard how we feel. If enough people feel the same, Blizzard will look at the numbers and see if it corroborates with some players.
Well, if they don't release the numbers to the community, am I supposed to blindly believe it? Do you think this is how it works in the academic community for instance?
Here is the bottomline, I don't trust Blizzard in making the right changes based on the experience we had so far. They have been saying, for instance, that mech will be viable for at least 4 years and is mech viable? It's a rethoric question, in case you didn't notice.
|
This isn't an academic community, so that's irrelevant. You can believe what you want and trust who you want. That's your prerogative. We have very different views about Blizzard and SC2, that is clear. I will continue to trust them and the direction they are taking with SC2. You obviously won't. Was that the reason you replied to my comments?
All I'm asking is for everyone to just play the game. If this patch doesn't align with what you like, and Blizzard doesn't change it the way you want, than move on to greener pastures. No need to make rhetorical questions and have a useless conversation with someone you never met before.
|
On November 24 2016 05:53 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
This isn't an academic community, so that's irrelevant. You can believe what you want and trust who you want. That's your prerogative. We have very different views about Blizzard and SC2, that is clear. I will continue to trust them and the direction they are taking with SC2. You obviously won't. Was that the reason you replied to my comments?
...
"I will continue to trust them and the direction they are taking with SC2." This is why I replied to your comments. We are here in a forum to discuss possible issues with the game. You are here to defend whatever Blizzard does to the game. So, when MockHamill tries to raise a potential issue, you charge in to defend Blizzard, saying that he doesn't have proofs about what he is claiming, that his experience is anecdotal, and doesn't even try to debate the point that he was trying to make. Your stance in this undermines every discussion about the game itself, because any point anybody here brings can be considered anecdotal, isn't that right? Then why are we discussing anything at all, right? Let's just don't say anything and rest assured that Blizzard is making every decision right! =D
|
Until SH are hotfixed, i do not think mech will ever be playable/see the light of day.
SH/hydra most likely need a hotfix asap.
Cyclone needs a revert/stat adjustment asap.
Protoss in general needs the adept to be heavily nerfed and a bit of a re-design on some things.
Bane/infestor burrow are also a problem because they are just arbitrary buffs.
I cannot understand or fathom why arbitrary changes were put into the game like the baneling buff or the infestor burrow. These things objectively just simply make Zerg better than the other two races. They are essentially pure stat improvements on core units that were overpowered in the past (infestors) or already were hugely impacting the game (banelings).
|
More nerfs to Protoss you say
|
On November 24 2016 07:20 aQuaSC wrote:
More nerfs to Protoss you say
We've found that there are still some players who are accidentally picking Protoss and we need to encourage them to fix that mistake. Please bear with us!
|
On November 24 2016 05:22 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
You are right, statstics is a science, but that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that we provide Blizzard with the data they need.
So you're saying that because they don't release the numbers, you can't trust they are using scientific basis? Aren't you moving into the realm of conspiracy theories? So you think Blizzard secretly wants Zerg to be OP, and mech to be nonviable, and protoss to be... I don't know. And they do this because?
And another thing, I don't want the numbers. The amount of data they get would be so incomprehensible to me. I wouldn't know where to start, how to interpret it, or what it all means. And neither would you or anyone else here, aside from a few TL mathematicians like Sholip.
Here is the bottom line, you can trust Blizzard is making the right changes or you can call them incompetent. But they have all the data and the right people to interpret it. It isn't our job to do that, so there is no reason we should have it or even need it. It's our job to play the game. And play the fuck out of it as much as we can, then we tell Blizzard how we feel. If enough people feel the same, Blizzard will look at the numbers and see if it corroborates with some players.
I agree he is bordering on conspiracy theories but your view is on the opposite end, a very perfect world/utopian view. I imagine the reality lies somewhere inbetween.
|
After playing a bunch of games on the testmap I have to say I'm having a blast so far.
mech seems to be strong in all matchups, tvt is fun again, ultras are fixed, tempests are fixed, tankivacs are gone...
Initially I was worried the baneling buff would make bio unusable but in practice it really doesn't make that much of a difference.
Still I have a couple of concerns.
-burrow-fungal: fortunately I haven't played against it yet but it seems like an extremely frustrasting mechanic.
-Hydra: I think in zvt they are fine but I'm not sure how protoss is supposed to deal with them.
Swarmhost: don't know if they are to strong but they are frustrating to play against because they don't really have counterplay.
But the most awesome thing about playing ladder currently are the maps. They are so good. they are so good THEY ARE SO GOOD. First season I can remember where I don't have to use a single veto.
|
On November 24 2016 11:52 Charoisaur wrote:
After playing a bunch of games on the testmap I have to say I'm having a blast so far.
mech seems to be strong in all matchups, tvt is fun again, ultras are fixed, tempests are fixed, tankivacs are gone...
Initially I was worried the baneling buff would make bio unusable but in practice it really doesn't make that much of a difference.
Still I have a couple of concerns.
-burrow-fungal: fortunately I haven't played against it yet but it seems like an extremely frustrasting mechanic.
-Hydra: I think in zvt they are fine but I'm not sure how protoss is supposed to deal with them.
Swarmhost: don't know if they are to strong but they are frustrating to play against because they don't really have counterplay.
But the most awesome thing about playing ladder currently are the maps. They are so good. they are so good THEY ARE SO GOOD. First season I can remember where I don't have to use a single veto.
That Whirlwind natural ramp man
|
How do you guys fight against Carriers with mech? Before i used to use Libs to kill interceptors, but now i'm at a loss. Thors are garbage IMO as they both loose in direct fights and are much less mobile, Vikings loose and are super vulnerable to storm, libs are 9348x worse at killing interceptors and the Cyclone has shit AA. I found BC to be effective in testing, but it's not realistic to have them as THE counter IMO.
Another thing i found is that the Tempests stun ability can not be dodged by sieged up Tanks, they don't have time to unsiege and move, but maybe that's the point?
At this point i'm thinking the Thor needs it AA single target buffed considerably if it's to be AA for mech. For the cost and mobility, it's really shit right now.
|
On November 24 2016 03:47 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Proof? What proof was given? Hundreds of games aren't necessary. Hundreds of thousands of games played by tens of thousands of players from all skill levels are necessary for proof.
This is why I insist on waiting until the pros play the game before anything can be definitive. The pros are willing to play those thousands of games, hour after hour, but they don't do it to prove swarm hosts make mech nonviable. They do it to find a weakness in swarm hosts that might get them to win.
In other words, they play to try to win, not to try and get a unit nerfed/buffed.
The problem with so many players is that they immediately try to put the blame on balance/design, instead of trying to just play the game.
Once a player already decides X unit is over powered, they have made up their mind to not try to improve. They blame the system.
Again, I'm not trying to dissuade a discussion, or state the patch is fine L2P.
I'm trying to get everyone to stop with the absolute statements "X unit needs to be buffed" "This patch is horrible" "Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing".
They don't help, nor do they encourage discussion.
How do you feel about someone, who sees something before the unit is even test, even released, calls its terrible and it turns out terrible? Just lucky?
Sometimes I just know a bad idea when I see it, it is about understanding the ins and outs of game design.
Because what you are saying, is like drawing up a boneheaded play in American Football, and demanding the coaches run it hundreds of thousands of times because only then can you know it doesn't work.
That isn't how the world works. You design something that works well theoretically, and then test to see if works well in the game. When the ideas coming out of Blizzard aren't designed well theoretically, don't follow basic game design tenets, then it is easy to call them out as dumb even before they are tested one time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
