|
Serious discussions are not when you have an OP that says: This serious discussion topic is seriously overpowered. XYZ. Add laser beams to ZYX to balance and change damage/armor to 123.
You guys realize that:
1. Blizz probably isn't gonna add laser beams to ZYX. Adding laser beams to ZYX, changing damage/armor/hp requires a serious amount of balance with most of the rest of the game.
2. Because of this, your best approach instead of complaining about imbalance and how to change the mecanic/unit/spell, make these discussions about how to solve the issue on the PLAYER SIDE. What have you seen that works? What have you been DOING that works/doesn't work?
3. As a result of 1 and 2, these threads are pretty much a complete waste of time and are not constructive at all. The game is still in beta, christ.
I really wish more of the focus would be on what to DO vs XYZ. All these topic starters seem to forget that SC2 != SC1 (notequal) and SC1 tactics we know and take for granted today took YEARS to develop. Hell, terran was considered the weakest race for many years before boxer arrived.
Do we really need to contest the imbalance of every single unit, spell and mechanic of the game in a new thread each time? At least plug all this stuff into some master thread or something.
I mean seriously, Y SO SRS?
If this is in the wrong section, my apologies, please move it to the right place mods. I felt it appropriate to include it where all the other "serious discussions" were.
|
Crunching numbers in the OP should be mandatory in "Serious Discussions".
|
I'm confused, zealots aren't getting lasers? damn...
|
good thread
would read again 
|
On April 10 2010 08:31 Legendary- wrote:
I'm confused, zealots aren't getting lasers? damn...
they have lazer knives
|
Thank god for voices of reason: As day9 always says, the game has set rules, you just need to be able adapt to them.
|
|
|
mrmin123
Korea (South)2971 Posts
On April 10 2010 08:32 Irrelevant wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 08:31 Legendary- wrote:
I'm confused, zealots aren't getting lasers? damn... they have lazer knives
Clearly OP means that zealots will be balanced when and only if they get lazer gunz.
|
BUT I LOST GAMES TO YOUR SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS. And clearly it wasn't my fault at all.
|
So a game in beta should not have any discussions about balance. Will do.....
|
all strategy threads should be serious discussios
edit: as in, you shouldn't have to title your thread redundantly
|
On April 10 2010 08:44 OHtRUe wrote:
So a game in beta should not have any discussions about balance. Will do.....
A "balance discussion" is not when one person exclaims that a particular aspect of the game is broken and does not heed to anyone else's input. This is true of everyone that starts these damn imba threads. If that's the way you're gonna play the ball, why even bother posting when you clearly won't have your opinion changed?
Does it strike you as such a crazy idea that MAYBE the state of the aspect is not broken?
How long have we been in beta? bottom line is that we don't know shit about this game yet and anyone who insists they do at this point and are screaming imba is seriously misguided.
On April 10 2010 08:34 Two_DoWn wrote:
Thank god for voices of reason: As day9 always says, the game has set rules, you just need to be able adapt to them.
|
About SC1 vs SC2, generally they are different.
But macro concept is the same.
- zerg = crazy macro/mass units
- terran = turtle
- protoss = ??? = profit
|
On April 10 2010 08:50 hellitsaboutme wrote:
About SC1 vs SC2, generally they are different.
But macro concept is the same.
- zerg = crazy macro/mass units
- terran = turtle
- protoss = ??? = profit
I'll try not to be a hypocrite, either, and take note with others opinions. Admittedly they are similar, but still not equal.
Yeah, but if even one aspect is different, that means they're not equal. The consequences of that single aspect that is different in respect to the rest of the game can't be known for sure yet. One single change means a largely different game. We have an extremely biased mindset right now due to BW.
|
Im being super serious guys...
|
On April 10 2010 08:49 zomgzergrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 08:44 OHtRUe wrote:
So a game in beta should not have any discussions about balance. Will do..... A "balance discussion" is not when one person exclaims that a particular aspect of the game is broken and does not heed to anyone else's input. This is true of everyone that starts these damn imba threads. If that's the way you're gonna play the ball, why even bother posting when you clearly won't have your opinion changed? Does it strike you as such a crazy idea that MAYBE the state of the aspect is not broken? How long have we been in beta? bottom line is that we don't know shit about this game yet and anyone who insists they do at this point and are screaming imba is seriously misguided.
If that's true, then how has Blizzard been making changes? Presumably, their changes are designed to improve balance and remove imbalanced things. If all arguments about imbalance are "seriously misguided," then what arguments does Blizzard use to decide what to change?
I agree that there is a great deal of needless grousing about things that clearly aren't a balance issue. But that's simply what's going to happen when you have a game in a malleable state: people are going to put forth their opinions. Not everyone's opinions are well-informed or well-considered; that's just as true for SC1 as for SC2.
So what exactly is it that you want? No threads about whether any particular aspect of the game is unbalanced or imbalanced? That people in a beta be unable to even ask the question? It seems counterproductive to the purpose of a beta.
The mindset of a beta tester is, and must be, different from the mindset of a player.
|
lol i was just starting to notice there is a "serious discussion" thread for just about every unit in the game.
|
The threads labeled Serious Discussion should be ban-happy territory. If the OP + responders do not put effort or thought into their posts, they should just get banned. Labeling a thread as such (or coming into a thread labeled as such) and then just shitting all over the keyboard just clutters the SC2 forums with even more useless crap than it already has.
|
throwing around things to be added because of balance vs other races is bad posting
Instead make your discussions built around the compared effectiveness of different units within the race at doing what you want.
X unit needs help because it is not cost effective in XYZ situations vs Y unit of the same race etc.
if you come in complaining about balance saying whatever race you play needs whateverthefuck for buffs you come off as a clammoring race-fanboi.
|
On April 10 2010 08:57 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 08:49 zomgzergrush wrote:On April 10 2010 08:44 OHtRUe wrote:
So a game in beta should not have any discussions about balance. Will do..... A "balance discussion" is not when one person exclaims that a particular aspect of the game is broken and does not heed to anyone else's input. This is true of everyone that starts these damn imba threads. If that's the way you're gonna play the ball, why even bother posting when you clearly won't have your opinion changed? Does it strike you as such a crazy idea that MAYBE the state of the aspect is not broken? How long have we been in beta? bottom line is that we don't know shit about this game yet and anyone who insists they do at this point and are screaming imba is seriously misguided. If that's true, then how has Blizzard been making changes? Presumably, their changes are designed to improve balance and remove imbalanced things. If all arguments about imbalance are "seriously misguided," then what arguments does Blizzard use to decide what to change? I agree that there is a great deal of needless grousing about things that clearly aren't a balance issue. But that's simply what's going to happen when you have a game in a malleable state: people are going to put forth their opinions. Not everyone's opinions are well-informed or well-considered; that's just as true for SC1 as for SC2. So what exactly is it that you want? No threads about whether any particular aspect of the game is unbalanced or imbalanced? That people in a beta be unable to even ask the question? It seems counterproductive to the purpose of a beta. The mindset of a beta tester is, and must be, different from the mindset of a player.
Go to battle net forums. There's plenty of comments about imbalance everywhere on every aspect there. Battle.net forum and in-house testing is where the majority of blizz' changes are done.
Did anyone SAY that infestors needed a friggen neural parasite range change? Did anyone here say that that was EXACTLY what was needed so that we'll use it more?
The fact of the matter is, like 95% of these posts are absolute garbage to begin with and have no basis. Most of them will continue to exclaim that they are of some arbitrary rank that cannot be proven.
On April 10 2010 08:58 Foreplay wrote:
lol i was just starting to notice there is a "serious discussion" thread for just about every unit in the game.
The exact reason why I started this thread.
|
I know, it feels like the quality of this site has fallen dramatically since sc2 beta had been released. People need to start using proper fucking English as well. I cannot read a goddamn post when the OP insists on throwing in random capitalization to words that are not proper nouns as well as not putting in the effort in typing out 'you' instead of 'u' or 'are' instead of 'r'. We're not fucking 12 years old, guys. Honestly, if you insist on using texting language instead of typing out coherent sentences, you need to invest some time in learning how to type properly. It requires no extra effort whatsoever.
|
Although, Day 9 is very experienced and good commentator I don't agree with him all the time.
Rules are not set yet for SC2. It's in beta stage, so I will try to say whatever I don't like about the game until it's released. If you think that game is perfectly balanced then you should explain why and how to overcome the issue. But all I hear is "noob, learn to play". And I don't really talk for my race, coz I am random.
There are some issues that I don't like:
- small maps (problem for zergs macro).
- Fast ending battles and hard counters
- maradeur spamming (terran tier 1 = protoss tier 3)
- Fragile defensive buildings (especially bunkers)
- EMP
- Strong broodlords and weak ultras
so on.
|
I'm #1 in the Rhodium league and I never even use Serious Discussions, obviously they don't have any impact on game balance.
|
On April 10 2010 09:02 Kantutan wrote:
I know, it feels like the quality of this site has fallen dramatically since sc2 beta had been released. People need to start using proper fucking English as well. I cannot read a goddamn post when the OP insists on throwing in random capitalization to words that are not proper nouns as well as not putting in the effort in typing out 'you' instead of 'u' or 'are' instead of 'r'. We're not fucking 12 years old, guys. Honestly, if you insist on using texting language instead of typing out coherent sentences, you need to invest some time in learning how to type properly. It requires no extra effort whatsoever.
Another reason why I'm spearing this. I really want to see TL continue high standards and credibility it has been known for. These bullshit serious discussions that are popping up everywhere is the opposite direction.
|
Don't feed the troll guys.
|
Forum rulechange please. No more Serious Discussions. >:[
|
On April 10 2010 09:04 hellitsaboutme wrote:
Although, Day 9 is very experienced and good commentator I don't agree with him all the time.
Rules are not set yet for SC2. It's in beta stage, so I will try to say whatever I don't like about the game until it's released. If you think that game is perfectly balanced then you should explain why and how to overcome the issue. But all I hear is "noob, learn to play". And I don't really talk for my race, coz I am random.
There are some issues that I don't like:
- small maps (problem for zergs macro).
- Fast ending battles and hard counters
- maradeur spamming (terran tier 1 = protoss tier 3)
- Fragile defensive buildings (especially bunkers)
- EMP
- Strong broodlords and weak ultras
so on.
Yes, Blizzard is still making changes. However, once a patch is released, those are the rules. You can't change them. The problem is people creating threads that focus on "omg, I cant seem to beat this one thing, the unit/mechanic/map/whatever else must be imbalanced and changed!" instead of first making threads that ask "these are the rules, how can I win?"
|
really good thread !
just read the "A Serious Discussion about Emp" thread... so much bs in that op...
|
|
|
On April 10 2010 08:35 mrmin123 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 08:32 Irrelevant wrote:On April 10 2010 08:31 Legendary- wrote:
I'm confused, zealots aren't getting lasers? damn... they have lazer knives Clearly OP means that zealots will be balanced when and only if they get lazer gunz.
woah, ease up there cowboy. This only solves the problem when terran is PF rushing!
We need real, practical solutions here people. They obviously need to be able to transform like vikings or else they'll have the well documented issue of dying to speedlings when out in the open.
|
sorry but I'm gonna have to disagree. Well, partly disagree. Although it is annoying seeing 'A serious discussion about..." for lots of units, I feel that they are a good focal point for...well, serious discussion. And after all the game is still in beta.
I'm pretty sure Blizzard listens to TL.net, so I'm sure they read our comments about game balance. A good example is the marauder. It looks pretty clear to me that blizz responded to the discussion about the marauder in this thread by nerfing the marauder in patch 8. So something can come of good discussions about units.
But I agree that there are too many whine threads disguised as "serious business". Only a GOOD, thought-out post about a perceived imbalance is acceptable. Don't disguise it as an OP or whine thread. Be sure to provide evidence and replays.
|
On April 10 2010 09:30 BlasiuS wrote:
Be sure to provide evidence and replays.
That isn't good enough. It's pretty easy to find a replay of some baddie losing to mass zeals or ultraling/corruptor or any unit composition under the sun. What we need is some common sense and objectivity, and I'm not sure the SC2 forum's residents have it in them.
|
On April 10 2010 09:15 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 09:04 hellitsaboutme wrote:
Although, Day 9 is very experienced and good commentator I don't agree with him all the time.
Rules are not set yet for SC2. It's in beta stage, so I will try to say whatever I don't like about the game until it's released. If you think that game is perfectly balanced then you should explain why and how to overcome the issue. But all I hear is "noob, learn to play". And I don't really talk for my race, coz I am random.
There are some issues that I don't like:
- small maps (problem for zergs macro).
- Fast ending battles and hard counters
- maradeur spamming (terran tier 1 = protoss tier 3)
- Fragile defensive buildings (especially bunkers)
- EMP
- Strong broodlords and weak ultras
so on.
Yes, Blizzard is still making changes. However, once a patch is released, those are the rules. You can't change them. The problem is people creating threads that focus on "omg, I cant seem to beat this one thing, the unit/mechanic/map/whatever else must be imbalanced and changed!" instead of first making threads that ask "these are the rules, how can I win?"
But the question "these are the rules, how can I win?" is not the question beta is intended to answer. The more pertinent question is "these are the rules, are they any good?" And that requires having substantive discussion about those rules, where they are deficient, and how they could be improved.
Asking how to win is an important part of that discussion. But discussing the quality of the rules is just as important.
I'm not saying that there isn't a lack of serious discussion; most of these threads either devolve into idiotic bitch-fests or start that way from the beginning. But you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and you shouldn't promote how to win over how good the rules are until after the game comes out.
There needs to be more moderation over balance discussion threads, with thread-locks and bannings handed out for mindless stupidity. But we still need to have those discussions.
|
5673 Posts
This is a serious discussion. Please stay on topic.
Tbh though I think this whole thread creating process is imba. I mean like one guy gets to make the OP and we all have to answer it? It should be nerfed so at least everyone can make OPs so all our posts get the same amount of views.
|
On April 10 2010 09:15 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 09:04 hellitsaboutme wrote:
Although, Day 9 is very experienced and good commentator I don't agree with him all the time.
Rules are not set yet for SC2. It's in beta stage, so I will try to say whatever I don't like about the game until it's released. If you think that game is perfectly balanced then you should explain why and how to overcome the issue. But all I hear is "noob, learn to play". And I don't really talk for my race, coz I am random.
There are some issues that I don't like:
- small maps (problem for zergs macro).
- Fast ending battles and hard counters
- maradeur spamming (terran tier 1 = protoss tier 3)
- Fragile defensive buildings (especially bunkers)
- EMP
- Strong broodlords and weak ultras
so on.
Yes, Blizzard is still making changes. However, once a patch is released, those are the rules. You can't change them. The problem is people creating threads that focus on "omg, I cant seem to beat this one thing, the unit/mechanic/map/whatever else must be imbalanced and changed!" instead of first making threads that ask "these are the rules, how can I win?"
So far I've seen four serious discussions: maradeurs, roaches, HSM and EMP.
Maradeurs and roaches have been changed and EMP came out only today. HSM wasn't changed but I think we haven't used it enough to make decisions.
Overall, those discussions are not pointless even if blizzard doesn't read them. It's just sharing ideas. Of course there are trolls or idiots but still, they are everywhere.
The fact that units were changed makes you wrong. People didn't need to play well or counter somehow, it was imbalanced and then nerfed by blizzard.
|
On April 10 2010 09:38 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 09:30 BlasiuS wrote:
Be sure to provide evidence and replays. That isn't good enough. It's pretty easy to find a replay of some baddie losing to mass zeals or ultraling/corruptor or any unit composition under the sun. What we need is some common sense and objectivity, and I'm not sure the SC2 forum's residents have it in them.
I don't consider a low-level replay as evidence, I'm sure you don't either.
|
On April 10 2010 09:40 NicolBolas wrote:
But the question "these are the rules, how can I win?" is not the question beta is intended to answer. The more pertinent question is "these are the rules, are they any good?" And that requires having substantive discussion about those rules, where they are deficient, and how they could be improved.
With all due respect, you're not the one being asked that question, that's something Blizzard's balance dudes are asking each other. They work in a major video game company and you don't. The thought that anyone here thinks they can tell anything about the game from this short time we've had our hands on it is fucking nuts. Inb4 "But I'm a beta tester!". So are half the WoW players filling up the Copper/Bronze leagues.
In any case, asking the question of "How do I win" indirectly addresses the quality of the rules, without having to have some retarded debate about it. If, for example, it becomes apperant that the only way to win a PvP is to proxy warp-in, then Blizzard will see that and make the appropriate changes. If it turns out that Unit X automatically wins the game for a player when it is used, it will probably be nerfed without any need for making threads.
The only way to find what (If anything) really needs to be changed is to advance the level of play higher and higher. You won't do that by pondering what aspects of the game should be changed, but you will by asking yourself how to perform at the peak of your abilities.
On April 10 2010 09:40 NicolBolas wrote:
There needs to be more moderation over balance discussion threads, with thread-locks and bannings handed out for mindless stupidity. But we still need to have those discussions.
Those discussions come into this world retarded. What good could possibly come of them? A thread entitiled "A Serious Discussion About Mech" that's really a thinly veiled way of saying "I believe mech is completely useless under all circumstances, here is a list of ridiculous changes". And this bad thread continues being bad even after the initial claim is proven wrong, gathering such intelectual gems as "ya i agree 1 teim i play mech and i loss 2 DTs nerf plz".
A forum-wide ban on "Serious Discussions" except when initiated by moderators or something would be the best course of action. Come to think of it, wasn't there some idea floating around about an "experts forum" or something? Make it happen please.
On April 10 2010 09:46 hellitsaboutme wrote:
So far I've seen four serious discussions: maradeurs, roaches, HSM and EMP.
Maradeurs and roaches have been changed and EMP came out only today. HSM wasn't changed but I think we haven't used it enough to make decisions.
Please tell me you're kidding. I can discuss my ideas about the sun rising tomorrow, and just because it happens doesn't mean I made it happen. How huge is your ego to think that your opinion holds any sway at all. The only correct thing you said was that you haven't used it enough to make decisions, except that instead of just HSM, that applies to every aspect of SC2.
|
On April 10 2010 09:42 riptide wrote:
This is a serious discussion. Please stay on topic.
Tbh though I think this whole thread creating process is imba. I mean like one guy gets to make the OP and we all have to answer it? It should be nerfed so at least everyone can make OPs so all our posts get the same amount of views.
rofl its like multiple layers of irony here my head's about to explode. Good stuff.
There is a place for all the other "serious discussions" and balance issues you would like blizzard to evaluate.
It's called Blizz forums. "Add Laserbeams attached to Headz" balance ideas should just all go there. I say that with both sarcasm and seriousness. It is probably much more likely that your comments are even read if they just go there.
|
On April 10 2010 09:40 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 09:15 Two_DoWn wrote:On April 10 2010 09:04 hellitsaboutme wrote:
Although, Day 9 is very experienced and good commentator I don't agree with him all the time.
Rules are not set yet for SC2. It's in beta stage, so I will try to say whatever I don't like about the game until it's released. If you think that game is perfectly balanced then you should explain why and how to overcome the issue. But all I hear is "noob, learn to play". And I don't really talk for my race, coz I am random.
There are some issues that I don't like:
- small maps (problem for zergs macro).
- Fast ending battles and hard counters
- maradeur spamming (terran tier 1 = protoss tier 3)
- Fragile defensive buildings (especially bunkers)
- EMP
- Strong broodlords and weak ultras
so on.
Yes, Blizzard is still making changes. However, once a patch is released, those are the rules. You can't change them. The problem is people creating threads that focus on "omg, I cant seem to beat this one thing, the unit/mechanic/map/whatever else must be imbalanced and changed!" instead of first making threads that ask "these are the rules, how can I win?" But the question "these are the rules, how can I win?" is not the question beta is intended to answer. The more pertinent question is "these are the rules, are they any good?" And that requires having substantive discussion about those rules, where they are deficient, and how they could be improved. Asking how to win is an important part of that discussion. But discussing the quality of the rules is just as important. I'm not saying that there isn't a lack of serious discussion; most of these threads either devolve into idiotic bitch-fests or start that way from the beginning. But you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and you shouldn't promote how to win over how good the rules are until after the game comes out. There needs to be more moderation over balance discussion threads, with thread-locks and bannings handed out for mindless stupidity. But we still need to have those discussions.
From a devil's advocate viewpoint, I'd argue that you are wrong.
The best way to fix beta is to break beta. Take the current rule set as a given and find things that are abusable and abuse them. If all the high-level games become boring one-unit spam-fests, then the problem will be plain to see for anyone.
So from this point of view, Day[9] hits the nail right on the head. If players concern themselves only with playing the current game, then there is no bias towards previous patches or later patches or previous games. There is only the current state of the game.
Most of the "discussions" about balance ideas end up being "prove it with replays" or some such thing. If everyone just practiced as hard as they could and demonstrated that "X is boring because it plays 1-dimensionally in order to win" or "Y is too weak, so all that anyone ever does is Z, which still often loses to Q" there would be less argument over it and slightly more certainty.
|
Remember to always follow the golden rules of SC2 balance discussion:
1) Your race is always the weakest race that needs a buff, and the other two races are overpowered.
2) Any time someone else whines about your race, it's because they don't know how to play the game and suck.
3) If you lost a game, it's not because your build order is bad, it's because something about the other race is imbalanced. There are no bad players, only imbalances.
4) Imbalances can only come from units. There's nothing wrong with the maps, the macro mechanics, or tech timing, it's always a fault of whatever unit your opponent made the most of.
5) Every time you lose a bunch of games, the first thing you should do is to create a thread on the Internet to express how imbalanced the other races are. Remember, you can't possibly be doing anything wrong, it is most definitely a balance issue.
6) Always back up your claim with random statistics. For example, most Platinum players whose screen names begin with the letter L play Terran, thus we can conclude that Terran is imbalanced. DIMAGA won a bunch of Zotac Cups, thus Zerg is imbalanced. I once saw a Youtube video of really good Protoss micro, thus we can conclude that Protoss is definitively overpowered.
7) Theorycrafting ALWAYS makes your claim true. For instance, SCVs have 5 more HP than Probes and Drones, thus SCVs are overpowered. Warp Gate causes units to appear in 0 seconds versus Thor's 60, thus Warp Gates are imbalanced. And of course, Roaches cost 75 minerals and 25 gas for 125 hp/16 damage whereas a reaper costs 50 minerals and 50 gas for 45 hp/12 damage. THE POWER OF MATH has shown that Roaches are clearly imbalanced.
The bottom line: If you don't like it, it is imbalanced. I personally don't like the Mengsk statues on Metalopolis, I think they are OP and need a nerf.
|
I'm of the opinion that this thread should be stickied.
|
On April 10 2010 08:30 lolaloc wrote:
Crunching numbers in the OP should be mandatory in "Serious Discussions".
Agreed
|
The problem with moderating balance discussions is that every player from newbie to semi progamer has complained about some imbalance that makes their own race inferior, regardless of whether or not such an imbalance actually exists or needs to be addressed.
As people said, this game is in beta, so many competitive players will jump on whatever chance they get to label something as imbalanced especially if it'll help their own race.
I think everyone has a bias for their own race, this is unavoidable.
Forget SCII, just look back at SC1 and you can see a LOT of people complaining about balance issues and how their favorite race is the weakest and how some other race is way too overpowered.
If a 10+ year old game can STILL, to THIS day, have people complaining about balance issues that are largely unwarranted, you can BET that's going to happen with a game that's in beta.
Generally, I've noticed that Blizzard will only respond to balance issues that are related to strategical variety. In other words, Blizzard does not want any one match up (including mirrors) to boil down to ONE DEFINING BUILD that is used by every single player of a particular race. In many ways I feel Blizzard is trying to discourage the notion of "standard play," but that's my humble opinion.
|
On April 10 2010 14:28 Kyo Yuy wrote:
Remember to always follow the golden rules of SC2 balance discussion:
1) Your race is always the weakest race that needs a buff, and the other two races are overpowered.
2) Any time someone else whines about your race, it's because they don't know how to play the game and suck.
3) If you lost a game, it's not because your build order is bad, it's because something about the other race is imbalanced. There are no bad players, only imbalances.
4) Imbalances can only come from units. There's nothing wrong with the maps, the macro mechanics, or tech timing, it's always a fault of whatever unit your opponent made the most of.
5) Every time you lose a bunch of games, the first thing you should do is to create a thread on the Internet to express how imbalanced the other races are. Remember, you can't possibly be doing anything wrong, it is most definitely a balance issue.
6) Always back up your claim with random statistics. For example, most Platinum players whose screen names begin with the letter L play Terran, thus we can conclude that Terran is imbalanced. DIMAGA won a bunch of Zotac Cups, thus Zerg is imbalanced. I once saw a Youtube video of really good Protoss micro, thus we can conclude that Protoss is definitively overpowered.
7) Theorycrafting ALWAYS makes your claim true. For instance, SCVs have 5 more HP than Probes and Drones, thus SCVs are overpowered. Warp Gate causes units to appear in 0 seconds versus Thor's 60, thus Warp Gates are imbalanced. And of course, Roaches cost 75 minerals and 25 gas for 125 hp/16 damage whereas a reaper costs 50 minerals and 50 gas for 45 hp/12 damage. THE POWER OF MATH has shown that Roaches are clearly imbalanced.
The bottom line: If you don't like it, it is imbalanced. I personally don't like the Mengsk statues on Metalopolis, I think they are OP and need a nerf.
so true.
|
United States4991 Posts
I'm going to start cracking down on everyone naming their threads "Serious Discussion about [X]"  I closed one so far!
|
On April 11 2010 06:34 Insane wrote:I'm going to start cracking down on everyone naming their threads "Serious Discussion about [X]" I closed one so far!
I saw that! good call! Looking forward to less garbage posts! :D
|
throwing around things to be added because of balance vs other races is bad posting
Instead make your discussions built around the compared effectiveness of different units within the race at doing what you want.
X unit needs help because it is not cost effective in XYZ situations vs Y unit of the same race etc.
if you come in complaining about balance saying whatever race you play needs whateverthefuck for buffs you come off as a clammoring race-fanboi.
|
Look how serious this thread is. Serious business right here.
What's funny is how the second it's moved to website feedback, no one responds
|
United States4991 Posts
|
On April 13 2010 05:18 Insane wrote:"Serious discussions" are a thing of the past - see the new SC2 forum rules
I saw. I almost jizzed my pants when I saw the news.
Thank you TL
|
On April 13 2010 01:18 Pokebunny wrote:
Look how serious this thread is. Serious business right here.
What's funny is how the second it's moved to website feedback, no one responds
Its the wasteland of TL: where good threads go to die. Kind of like the Mets and Raiders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
