EPTWould you prefer the game to be balanced around top-tier p…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
TL.net Bot
TL.net137 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16125 Posts
If the well of available tournaments to enjoy as a spectator is no longer there, then the upside of enjoying Starcraft 2 at the professional level is diminished to the point that it's not worth the trade off of being unbalanced for the average player. So the way I see it we're in a transitionary period right now. If the pro scene isn't going to get a new jolt of life in the next 1 or 2 years then I'm going to switch my stance to wanting the game balanced around the people playing it instead of the pro scene. | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary415 Posts
| ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7362 Posts
I don't watch any content outside the top 100 and I rarely play 1v1 anymore. And even if I were to play you can do so much bullcrap at my level (low Master) that balance really isn't the issue | ||
|
Vision_
877 Posts
I repeat that since at least 10 years, then you return to "very fast" speed. I know you can argue that s not the question, but for god sake, this question is a clue of what is killing the game, the lack of a pro team for maintaining the game healthy, so it s entirely about Activision unactivity. PS : then if it was only about me i will balance the game with normal settings, then increase to fast only, because players take serious damage at arm and hand problem with this ultra competitive game speed. | ||
|
esReveR
United States567 Posts
A 70/30 mix favoring balance at the pro level feels right to me. But, no matter what balance changes are made, people will always complain about them. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16086 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
Undead vs Orc top GM level: ~80% winrate for Orcs. Undead vs Orc low GM level: ~55% winrate for Orcs. below that level : Undead are (sometimes far) above Orcs. This was the case for several years before Sc2 arrived. Winrates have changed (greatly) since top GM pros left wc3 when sc2 arrived. Edit: Undead players TeD and Happy were the best players vs top GM Orcs with around 50% winrate in (offline) Tournaments. | ||
|
andrewphilip
3 Posts
| ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3520 Posts
Of course fun is subjective but for me sc2 bas gone downhill for a while. The numerous dynamic patches may adjust the win rate close to parity but i find the game got stale, boring even. | ||
|
MrIronGolem27
United States255 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16125 Posts
On March 12 2025 01:11 MrIronGolem27 wrote: The comment chain here shows that the wording of the poll is horribly flawed and nobody is reading the question thoroughly... Balancing around the average pro would essentially be balancing around the top of GM which would be the same level that balancing around the ladder would be. I dont think anyone thinks we should be balancing around Gold league, but balancing around GM level would be much more applicable to the average player than balancing around savants like Maru and Serral. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27282 Posts
On March 11 2025 15:28 Vindicare605 wrote: Normally my answer would be firmly in the top tier level camp, but that's as long as there actually is a thriving top tier level scene. If the well of available tournaments to enjoy as a spectator is no longer there, then the upside of enjoying Starcraft 2 at the professional level is diminished to the point that it's not worth the trade off of being unbalanced for the average player. So the way I see it we're in a transitionary period right now. If the pro scene isn't going to get a new jolt of life in the next 1 or 2 years then I'm going to switch my stance to wanting the game balanced around the people playing it instead of the pro scene. Yeah agreed. Balance is balancing many things beyond tip-top competitive parity. Including fun, and including factoring in the level of players you actually do have. If various subreddits are to be believed, perhaps it’s a vocal minority but a LOT of Zergs are really not having fun, taking breaks or switching faction because they (largely) hate PvZ specifically. Tweaks may fuck up the pro level of play, so not tweaking is somewhat understandable, but wouldn’t make a huge amount of sense if it didn’t meaningfully exist I think even now it’s thinning out to the degree that maybe the top-tier approach is flawed. With seemingly every patch and new meta we’ve gradually moved over a stretch from Serral + multiple Zerg WCs, GSL champs, and a handful of others winning premiers or placing deep, to like basically only Serral maintaining peak form. On March 12 2025 01:11 MrIronGolem27 wrote: The comment chain here shows that the wording of the poll is horribly flawed and nobody is reading the question thoroughly... Unless it was changed, the wording of the poll is about as clear as you could make it. If people’s attention span is thus that even reading a single sentence before commenting, not much one can do. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16125 Posts
On March 12 2025 02:30 WombaT wrote: Yeah agreed. Balance is balancing many things beyond tip-top competitive parity. Including fun, and including factoring in the level of players you actually do have. If various subreddits are to be believed, perhaps it’s a vocal minority but a LOT of Zergs are really not having fun, taking breaks or switching faction because they (largely) hate PvZ specifically. Tweaks may fuck up the pro level of play, so not tweaking is somewhat understandable, but wouldn’t make a huge amount of sense if it didn’t meaningfully exist I think even now it’s thinning out to the degree that maybe the top-tier approach is flawed. With seemingly every patch and new meta we’ve gradually moved over a stretch from Serral + multiple Zerg WCs, GSL champs, and a handful of others winning premiers or placing deep, to like basically only Serral maintaining peak form. Unless it was changed, the wording of the poll is about as clear as you could make it. If people’s attention span is thus that even reading a single sentence before commenting, not much one can do. I said that was going to happen didn't I Wombat? They buffed Skytoss which is something that we've known since WoL that Zergs hate to play against, and they buffed late game Skytoss without giving Zerg anything compensentory to deal with it in the late game. Of COURSE Zergs are gonna be upset about that, especially on the ladder where Skytoss is much more dominant. It's the cycle that we've seen repeated over and over again. Protoss sucks at top level, they buff Protoss, Protoss is unfun to play against on ladder and dominates ladder like it always does, people complain till Protoss gets nerfed. We've seen the cycle over and over again. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27282 Posts
On March 12 2025 03:25 Vindicare605 wrote: I said that was going to happen didn't I Wombat? They buffed Skytoss which is something that we've known since WoL that Zergs hate to play against, and they buffed late game Skytoss without giving Zerg anything compensentory to deal with it in the late game. Of COURSE Zergs are gonna be upset about that, especially on the ladder where Skytoss is much more dominant. It's the cycle that we've seen repeated over and over again. Protoss sucks at top level, they buff Protoss, Protoss is unfun to play against on ladder and dominates ladder like it always does, people complain till Protoss gets nerfed. We've seen the cycle over and over again. The cycle repeats… In this particular instance I think as much an unintended side effect that sucks, rather than a straight buff that’s doing it. I actually liked the idea of energy overcharge instead of battery. I also, incorrectly thought lower level P would really struggle versus T without the latter. Where it seems like, broadly OK. PvZ Oracles can get pumped with energy and be more active offensively, but also really reliably hold greedy bases, where before they didn’t have the juice. So you can accelerate to SkyToss really reliably. The cherry on top is you can’t abduct Mommaships, which really tips the scales. Any RTS will have metas settling, dominant strategies. You end up with real problems when they’re just not fun. I don’t think there’s been a single heavy-air meta that’s been particularly fun. Not to play with, against or even to watch. And by heavy air I mean like, featuring heavy air units, not ‘a lot of air units’. Plenty of muta-heavy styles, super fun. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16125 Posts
On March 12 2025 03:53 WombaT wrote: The cycle repeats… In this particular instance I think as much an unintended side effect that sucks, rather than a straight buff that’s doing it. I actually liked the idea of energy overcharge instead of battery. I also, incorrectly thought lower level P would really struggle versus T without the latter. Where it seems like, broadly OK. PvZ Oracles can get pumped with energy and be more active offensively, but also really reliably hold greedy bases, where before they didn’t have the juice. So you can accelerate to SkyToss really reliably. The cherry on top is you can’t abduct Mommaships, which really tips the scales. Any RTS will have metas settling, dominant strategies. You end up with real problems when they’re just not fun. I don’t think there’s been a single heavy-air meta that’s been particularly fun. Not to play with, against or even to watch. And by heavy air I mean like, featuring heavy air units, not ‘a lot of air units’. Plenty of muta-heavy styles, super fun. The problem is that buffing Skytoss is the only feasible way to increase Protoss late game viability especially against Zerg. We can't buff their ground armies because their ground armies are tied to Warp Gate. So whenever Protoss is unable to win at the top level, the only two options are to buff their timing attack capabilities or buff Skytoss. Neither of which are fun options for people on the ladder where these options are both a: already very strong and b: no one likes to play against. It's a design problem for Protoss. Always has been, always will be. | ||
|
ProTech1
38 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
877 Posts
If some changes are planned tomorrow on PTR just for fun, i would like to follow some tests matchs just to check how innovation can be implemented, It s really simple, you can easily add some variations, about for example economy speed, about objectives for gaining map control or simply win conditions. I m just pissed off when i see DOTA2 being completely updated and changed while the game has nothing really new to offer. It s like if Activision just buried the licence. | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States999 Posts
Balance the game to the average tier level, and balance the top tier matchups with maps. Balancing the game to the top tier level is a massive mistake which confuses skill, imbalance, and reputation. | ||
|
ProTech1
38 Posts
On March 12 2025 06:04 Monochromatic wrote: This is something I've been thinking of a lot recently. Balance the game to the average tier level, and balance the top tier matchups with maps. Balancing the game to the top tier level is a massive mistake which confuses skill, imbalance, and reputation. Don't think I could have said it better myself. Relatively certain that every other game does this on the market, including WoL and HoTS. LoTV missed the mark big time, which has resulted in his failure, while everything else continues to grow. | ||
| ||
