EPTIMBALANCED! - Introduction - Page 26
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
If you have criticism, you need to address the content, not the hosts. Idra and Artosis are 2 (1.5) Zerg players, but you can't point that out and then blanket them as biased. Respond to the content. You can't tell them to "get 2 Terran and Protoss players". That's fucking obtuse advice. "Yo just get 4 more high level players to record with you." Yes, I think everyone sees the value in getting it, but it's not practical. Respond to the content and use evidence / logic to back up your claims. | ||
|
Dance.
United States389 Posts
| ||
|
Aristotle7
United States120 Posts
On February 03 2011 16:44 Manifesto7 wrote: Locked. This thread is a nightmare. Was this thread really locked? | ||
Falling
Canada11212 Posts
Templar are much slower, take a long time to tech to, cannot hop cliffs and have a hard time getting through the army. If anything, they could afford some increased power (although the warp-in makes them super-effective defenders late-game.) because they are limited in time to get and mobility- or increased Archon power. But I perhaps that's what's missing is simply looking at the power of the one unit without acknowledging it's necessary role and how that role could be compensated with something else. Having said that, I do think they were trying head-off the imba-parrots at least a bit by saying until you get to the higher levels, skill is the main thing. (Which is also why Day9 doesn't deal with imba- his target audience has so much more to improve than anything a slight patch would fix.) haha, I see Chill into teacher mode in this thread with examples and non-examples of good criticism. Probably really necessary  | ||
|
BritishBeef
United Kingdom372 Posts
| ||
|
Shadrak
United States490 Posts
On February 04 2011 05:50 Chill wrote: Okay, reopened. If you have criticism, you need to address the content, not the hosts. Idra and Artosis are 2 (1.5) Zerg players, but you can't point that out and then blanket them as biased. Respond to the content. You can't tell them to "get 2 Terran and Protoss players". That's fucking obtuse advice. "Yo just get 4 more high level players to record with you." Yes, I think everyone sees the value in getting it, but it's not practical. Respond to the content and use evidence / logic to back up your claims. You might wanna edit that in to the OP, much more likely for people to see it and act accordingly. Anyway, about the actual subject matter: I play P and Z about evenly so I don't feel particularly biased. My experience with Collossi in PvT is that they are very well balanced because of viking range, which requires cutting zealots and adding relatively weak stalkers to keep them alive. They have always seemed a little too powerful in the PvZ matchup because corruptors have a shorter range and no ground mode compared to Vikings. Of course the other side of the coin is that they can be morphed into broodlords. That balances things at the late game, but in the mid game things just feel slightly off. I would not be opposed to a +1 range increase to corruptors. Again this is coming from someone who has been on both the giving and receiving end of Collosi punishment. | ||
|
SmoKim
Denmark10301 Posts
now people: PLEASE don't shit up this thread again | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
| ||
|
QTIP.
United States2113 Posts
On February 04 2011 06:16 walklightwhat wrote: Isn't that kind of the point? Colossus aren't a choice, they are basically forced. Idra said... okay, was it in this video or his stream? that you couldn't nerf Colossus without strengthening something else. Whether that be stalker or whatever. Yeah...um. I think we are in agreement. | ||
|
Robstickle
Great Britain406 Posts
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Even though I actually enjoyed watching this introductory episode, I still think this entire show is a horrible idea. You've obviously chosen a subject close to your interests and it's obviously going to provide you with a ridiculous amounts of viewers that want to hear all about how their opponents have an unfair advantage. It's not, however, in the interest of the SC2 community. TeamLiquid is already overrun with hundreds of brainless bronze Zergs that cling to every word IdrA says and will go rampaging through the forums every time the magic word *imbalance* is proclaimed. For every person that can see through obvious bias, oversimplification and exaggeration there are at least two that don't or won't and it shows in the continuous degradation of TL's SC2 Strategy Forums. You explain how Starcraft 2 should be balanced around top level play since that's where the variable of "skill" relatively has the least influence. You fail to discuss though, the human factor, and what makes someone an objective judge of balance. Because let's face it, both you, IdrA and Artosis, are biased towards Zerg in the same way you were biased towards Terran when you played that race in BW. You're both easily the most vocal and quick in claiming imbalance in both versions of Starcraft and one can't help but notice that the arrow is always pointed at things that are disadvantageous to your race of play. Even though I can see that you've tried to at least make logical steps of reasoning, it's still so obvious that you're both not objective in your judgement. You talk a little bit about Colossi in TvP and how it's balanced there, but watching that as spectator you just feel your disinterest in the subject and how you seem to be getting that part out of the way to get to the point you "really" want to talk about. Which becomes pretty obvious when Artosis says "now let's talk about Colossi in ZvP" and you both can't help but get a huge grin on your face since you get to tell it's overpowered. You have both stated to not be familiar enough with other races than Zerg to play them at a competetive level. Doesn't that say enough about the validity of your judgement as two talented, but still biased Zerg players? You talk about the Colossus being a weapon of choice in all MU's and how it seriously obliterates ground. Concluding that it's too hard for Zerg to balance Corrupter count together with the economy required to churn them out. But that's obviously just 1 side of the story, you don't mention how Protoss gateway units all get totally raped by Roach/ Hydra, which is the reason why Toss needs ranged splash damage in the first place. The relative weakness of the core gateway units needs the additional DPS of Storm and Colossi for it to be cost-efficient. And since Storm is such an expensive and long tech path, Colossi are practically always the unit of choice to survive through midgame. Basically, I feel that the only ones that are benefited by such a show are yourselves; whilst SC communities like the ones on TL, SCReddit and even the Bnet forums are left to deal with even more irrational balance whines than there are now. I disagree quite heavily. Firstly balance does need to be discussed, I agree it is unfortunate that a lot of people will sort of just cling to the opinions of Idra and Artosis without thinking about it themselves but there's no getting around the fact that balance is an important issue. If SCII is going to survive as a competitive sport then firstly it needs to be balanced and that can only be achieved if the imbalances are noted and well documented. And that can only be achieved if people have rational discussions about balance and this is what Artosis and Idra are trying to do. I do however see what people mean when they say that it would be good if it wasn't 1.5 zerg players and .5 protoss players doing the show. Not because I think they were wrong in anything they said but just because that would give them a bit more validity. But people aren't considering the fact that Artosis does spend a huuuge amount of time watching the top koreans play each other in all six matchups and is putting real effort into understanding how to play protoss. | ||
|
Moridin19
Canada1 Post
Dialog on the issue promotes a diversity of conversation, that could ultimately lead to a better understanding of the game for all. Regardless of a persons opinions on balance itself, the idea of discussing balance should always remain open. Simply regarding the discussion as a bad idea stifles the community, sure they are loads of people out there that complain about balance and may not have a leg to stand on when doing so, but this shouldn't deter intelligent conversation on the subject. Are Artosis and IdrA biased? Maybe Will their opinions lead to a patch? Probably not. Could the discussion lead to more thought on the subject, possibly leading to a strategic change in dealing with the perceived imbalance, rendering it less so? Entirely possible. I've always found that intelligent conversation rarely harms the subject, I myself look forward to more of these videos | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
| ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote: Even though I actually enjoyed watching this introductory episode, I still think this entire show is a horrible idea. You've obviously chosen a subject close to your interests and it's obviously going to provide you with a ridiculous amounts of viewers that want to hear all about how their opponents have an unfair advantage. It's not, however, in the interest of the SC2 community. TeamLiquid is already overrun with hundreds of brainless bronze Zergs that cling to every word IdrA says and will go rampaging through the forums every time the magic word *imbalance* is proclaimed. For every person that can see through obvious bias, oversimplification and exaggeration there are at least two that don't or won't and it shows in the continuous degradation of TL's SC2 Strategy Forums. You explain how Starcraft 2 should be balanced around top level play since that's where the variable of "skill" relatively has the least influence. You fail to discuss though, the human factor, and what makes someone an objective judge of balance. Because let's face it, both you, IdrA and Artosis, are biased towards Zerg in the same way you were biased towards Terran when you played that race in BW. You're both easily the most vocal and quick in claiming imbalance in both versions of Starcraft and one can't help but notice that the arrow is always pointed at things that are disadvantageous to your race of play. Even though I can see that you've tried to at least make logical steps of reasoning, it's still so obvious that you're both not objective in your judgement. You talk a little bit about Colossi in TvP and how it's balanced there, but watching that as spectator you just feel your disinterest in the subject and how you seem to be getting that part out of the way to get to the point you "really" want to talk about. Which becomes pretty obvious when Artosis says "now let's talk about Colossi in ZvP" and you both can't help but get a huge grin on your face since you get to tell it's overpowered. You have both stated to not be familiar enough with other races than Zerg to play them at a competetive level. Doesn't that say enough about the validity of your judgement as two talented, but still biased Zerg players? You talk about the Colossus being a weapon of choice in all MU's and how it seriously obliterates ground. Concluding that it's too hard for Zerg to balance Corrupter count together with the economy required to churn them out. But that's obviously just 1 side of the story, you don't mention how Protoss gateway units all get totally raped by Roach/ Hydra, which is the reason why Toss needs ranged splash damage in the first place. The relative weakness of the core gateway units needs the additional DPS of Storm and Colossi for it to be cost-efficient. And since Storm is such an expensive and long tech path, Colossi are practically always the unit of choice to survive through midgame. Basically, I feel that the only ones that are benefited by such a show are yourselves; whilst SC communities like the ones on TL, SCReddit and even the Bnet forums are left to deal with even more irrational balance whines than there are now. (I bolded the part I want to address the most with my response) I think you simplify their statements and arguments a bit. There was a general biased undertone in their discussion, but they also provided a ton of background knowledge to this. Also I really do not think that their opinions/statements where by any means extreme. IdrA basicly reasoned why he thinks that the colossus is too strong on small maps in pvz. Even as a protoss player and fan I find this hard to disagree with. Especially after he provides his arguments and strategic insight into the matchup. Artosis on the other hand still isnt sold on the opinion that colossi are too strong and that there probably is a strategic workaround and even gives a very good example where this allready happened in sc2 (the mutaling+spines zvp strategy). I think that content like this can only improve the balance discussions and not the opposite. So many players/posters/casters etc have tried to chocke these discussions by stating that balancing is only blizzard buisyness and we should only care about improving. I agree! But the balance discussions still go on and on and on... And this is why I think content like this little show can actually have a healthy influence. (You might also check out the latest state of the game podcast, where they talked about the robustness of the terran race.) | ||
|
1Lamb1Rice
United States435 Posts
| ||
|
vyyye
Sweden3917 Posts
On February 04 2011 06:27 LegendaryZ wrote: I'm actually pretty curious to see what Blizzard and GomTV would feel about this show given two prominent personalities addressing questions regarding balance in such a public manner, particularly if Artosis is still going to be doing the GSL thing where it's his job to promote a game and league around a game that he may be questioning the balance of publicly. Hasn't he been doing that already? Only difference now is that he has an entire show dedicated to it. I would find the show interesting if they managed to get Jinro on there though. He's extremely modest and similar to Day9 when it comes to balance talk, he could act a bit as a counterweight to Artosis and IdrA. Drifting off the mark, I doubt Blizzard or Gom cares if X or Y finds Z imbalanced, though they might listen to what they have to say. Artosis is a great caster with or without this show, same goes for IdrA as a player. | ||
|
mnck
Denmark1518 Posts
I like how this show has a purpose rather than just some random interview which is only really interesting if you care for the player being interviewed. This show is a lot different, and I think it fills a real purpose in such a new and evolving game as StarCraft 2. Good stuff :D Might even have something to ask you guys. | ||
|
KeepYaCoolBro
United States49 Posts
Thank you Chill for pointing out appropriate ways to respond to a balance discussion(imbalance just starts out with a negative(literrally) sound. And thank you to everyone else for some insightful and not-so posts. I think that any talk about balance needs to be backed up by statistical analysis. I played SC1 and BW, but was a WoW nerd until SC2 beta. Whenever we talked about balance we would always back it up with statistical analysis. In this case, the only ones with all the data is Blizzard so it is rather hard for us to talk about balance based on "feelings" and "skill" level which are very subjective. More numbers less feelings. | ||
|
Frozenserpent
United States143 Posts
Some people are pointing out that Protoss needs colossus in order to compete and use that as criticism of their discussion in the video. These people are mistaken, though, in what Artosis and Idra are saying. They discuss the possibility that the colossus is imbalanced. They also mention that it is a warping aspect of Protoss because it is so useful that it is almost necessary (depending on the matchup). The issue of imbalance isn't just in race versus race imbalance, but also balance in unit diversity. It isn't just a discussion of whether colossus is imbalanced in winning games, but also in balance of whether it allows room for other units. Their point was that colossus could be imbalanced because it is strong against zerg, and they are a broken aspect because Protoss are reliant on them. So naturally, if colossus were to get nerfed, there would be some kind of buff in other protoss units to fill that void. A lot of people seem to be missing that point. As for grabbing other players to participate, I'm sure they might do so in the future, except that logistics doesn't seem very promising. Perhaps they can get Huk or Jinro in on it, or perhaps to a discussion over the web. Anywys, I thought it was interesting to hear their perspectives, and I don't really see why there is so much hate. It just seems so irrational. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
There is more to the protoss army that robo and warpgate tech, at least there should be. Nerf colossus slightly, buff stargate and/or templar tech, leave warpgate tech alone, IMO. Of course it all comes down to HOW the nerfs and buffs are executed if it is going to be good for the game, and that is the whole challenge for Blizzard. I think it would be cool though if Protoss was more able to support a warpgate army with stargate tech as they do with colossi, then we could see more interested tech switches in the late game. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
I wish they'd touch on forcefields a bit to. | ||
|
Wolf
Korea (South)3290 Posts
| ||
| ||
