|
On June 06 2024 02:53 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2024 00:19 Charoisaur wrote:On June 05 2024 23:05 LukaMav wrote:
The mental gymnastic some posters are using as a coping method is quite funny
They like to discredit Serral accomplish since 2018, yet rogue and Maru pretty much did the same thing. They accomplished close to nothing prior to 2018.
Only difference is Serral era is from “2018-current”. Whereas Maru and rogue peak only lasted 2 years at best. In rogue case it’s a bit different, his peak depends on the tournament. Where as Maru was only winning GSL against weaker competition I've replied this multiple times already but here we go again: The competition getting weaker was a gradual process, not an abrupt one. It makes no sense to claim achievements in 2016 are worth 10/10 points and tournaments in 2017 2/10 when the difference in top players between the years barely changed. Fact is, Maru got into the Goat conversation after his 4-peat in 2018 when the competition was still very deep. Serral realistically came into the conversation after Katowice 2022, when tons of top players had already retired and the scene was much less competitive. People still have Life high in their lists for a very potent couple of years, Innovation entered the scene like a freight train and was considered Mvp’s potential GOAT heir pretty quickly. 2022 strikes me as way too late for Serral to merely be entering the conversation. Serral’s 2018 is one of the best year’s an SC2 player put together, along with Maru in that same span oddly enough. Indeed I recall it annoyed people when casters and some fans were already calling him the GOAT early on. I’d agree it was premature myself, and at times actively irritating but plenty of people were already talking of him being in that conversation way back.
Right, so 90 percent of team houses collapsing and the top 100 players collectively retiring in 2016 was just a 'gradual shift', while some random american protoss won something the year after was also just a gradual shift.
In fact, given that the viewership already in 2013-14 looked absolutely shite (hello, proleague had to HIRE people to watch it live lmao), a lot already lost motivation.
|
On June 18 2024 06:45 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2024 01:28 THERIDDLER wrote:On June 17 2024 19:37 ejozl wrote:On June 17 2024 15:33 THERIDDLER wrote:
Maru didn't have his buddies sitting on the council editing the game for him.
Serral couldn't last 50 min in their bo7 against maru when david kim was around. Serral went 7-3 in series against Maru before the cabal took over. Overall I would say the cabal have been favouring Terrran and disfavouring Protoss. david kim =/= the intern that gave us 2019 Was David Kim not in charge for both the BL/Infestor and swarmhost turtle metas?
And who was in charge during the Ghost / Raven Seeker Missile meta?
|
Northern Ireland25312 Posts
On June 18 2024 13:34 radracer wrote:Show nested quote + Was David Kim not in charge for both the BL/Infestor and swarmhost turtle metas? Depends on what you mean by "in charge" He was in charge of balance (and some unit design) More than just one dude decides what goes into the game, and he has knobs to turn. Swarmhost was just a tough unit to balance, period.
Well yes, to quote myself from just up the page, ‘I’m really not a fan of such theories, without clear evidence to the contrary I prefer to assume good faith attempts to make a balanced game and a fun game, even if results are imperfect.’
It’s a difficult gig, not a singular one as you rightly point out and folks doing it are constrained by many factors, the core game design being one of those.
I’m just reacting to perceptions that the Balance CouncilTM are skewing the game in any particular direction when there were just as many rough periods when Blizz were at the helm. And folks made the same accusations then, and I disagreed with them then too.
|
SC2 was a clusterfuck in all of that balance crap. Balancing for low levels, removing the early game where you could deviate and check someone hard for being greedy. And the design choice of certain units was just awful and made for bad metas. Not to mention the constant desire/need they felt to balance something always instead of letting it play out. Sure BW might not be perfect at all, but the meta is still changing and adapting to make up for differences, some of those differences were considered unbeatable at certain points. Best part was when you'd get done watching a GSL match where that supposed new unbeatable strategy just got beat just as they're releasing a patch to nerf that same strategy.
Outside of that though the argument is about who is/isn't the goat, not who has the biggest gripe about balance. If that is their or your point, then you're truly not goat material IMO.
|
Protoss also sucked in sc1.
Thing is you can say whatever to justify your changes. Protoss OP in GM so we nerf them, screwing them over at pro play. Then when there're no results, you just say git gud.
Zergs lose to ghosts, better change the game, because it's obviously broken. Protoss lose to ghosts, let the meta settle.
Terrans kill zerg/protoss every game with a powerful push, this Terran is a god. Protoss does the same, clearly this is imbalanced and need fixing.
Then there's turtle protoss play which for some reason is cancer, but at the same time that is standard zerg play, and even terran mech has a better reputation than protoss defensive play. In here we also see t defensive nerfs, nerfing maru and t buffs buffing aggro play (clem).
This has an effect on serral vs. maru discussion, because maru cannot have seeker missiles, strong ghosts. But for serral it is expected that he should win late game, so we keep zerg OP in this aspect. Just see 10 range fungal.
Zergs in military, serral going and rogue just returning, so we better have a zerg patch. Protoss players in military, wait for them to come back and get their skill up again, which doesn't even matter, because protoss don't win anyways.
It seems like there was a point that serral was hailed the greatest, and I was also on the wagon at the time, so we simply balance the game around him winning everytime, then we know we have a balanced game. Problem is the other zergs caught up, and we end up with zergs winning everything, instead of serral winning everything.
|
Northern Ireland25312 Posts
On August 28 2024 16:55 ejozl wrote:
Protoss also sucked in sc1.
Thing is you can say whatever to justify your changes. Protoss OP in GM so we nerf them, screwing them over at pro play. Then when there're no results, you just say git gud.
Zergs lose to ghosts, better change the game, because it's obviously broken. Protoss lose to ghosts, let the meta settle.
Terrans kill zerg/protoss every game with a powerful push, this Terran is a god. Protoss does the same, clearly this is imbalanced and need fixing.
Then there's turtle protoss play which for some reason is cancer, but at the same time that is standard zerg play, and even terran mech has a better reputation than protoss defensive play. In here we also see t defensive nerfs, nerfing maru and t buffs buffing aggro play (clem).
This has an effect on serral vs. maru discussion, because maru cannot have seeker missiles, strong ghosts. But for serral it is expected that he should win late game, so we keep zerg OP in this aspect. Just see 10 range fungal.
Zergs in military, serral going and rogue just returning, so we better have a zerg patch. Protoss players in military, wait for them to come back and get their skill up again, which doesn't even matter, because protoss don't win anyways.
It seems like there was a point that serral was hailed the greatest, and I was also on the wagon at the time, so we simply balance the game around him winning everytime, then we know we have a balanced game. Problem is the other zergs caught up, and we end up with zergs winning everything, instead of serral winning everything.
Serral tore Maru apart with burrowed infestor play that got nerfed almost immediately, Zerg had nerfs to absolute core units like banelings in the recent enough past.
The idea that Terran gets the wrong end of the nerf stick and Zerg remains untouched just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Protoss just isn’t going to be as potent as the other two races so long as its core design flaws remain. Some people think such mechanics are cool and fit the race, which is fair enough. But the faction just straight up is not going to scale to the extent it’s equivalently strong at the very highest level so long as they remain.
herO is the only championship calibre player Protoss have currently that actually plays offline events. He’s still the exception to the rule that military returnees come back diminished. As yet that holds true for all the races.
He’s won a GSL, made another final, won a Dreamhack, made a Ro4 at EWC. Made it out of the group of death at Katowice only to fall shortly after, but maybe with a better bracket he goes deeper there. Made some other deep runs in other tournaments
If your only champ tier player since Trap went monster mode picks up a few championships and makes some deep runs elsewhere, I mean surely that’s the expected result?
If Serral/Dark/Reynor all retired for some reason, would the expectation be that DRG or Rag start frequently winning tournaments. Because that seems to be the expectation on the Protoss end.
No disrespect meant, they’re both incredible players, but there are tiers of talent at play.
|
United States33388 Posts
temporarily locking to point people to the consolidated thread. I don't think it's ideal to have 38483 discussions going on in four different threads, even if they're TECHNICALLY of a slightly different nature.
|
United States33388 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
