|
On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further.
Wow, never thought I'd see the day.
|
On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. A true sign of the apocalypse
|
On May 10 2013 19:12 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:45 Prugelhugel wrote:On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though. You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say. You're right, mines are not great at every skill level below the pros. In the lower leagues where terrans put them in useless places or forget to burrow, they won't do much. My 97% estimate was wrong. But for the upper half of the ladder, they're easily the most cost efficient unit in the game... and I'd argue that it's worse to have a problem in the game at those skill levels, which contain the players who really care about the game and play more often. I don't know if there's any good way to change the mines without making them too weak at the pro level though. You don't want to nerf them into uselessness... but right now zerg doesn't have any good tools for dealing with them effectively.
Dirt cheap hellbats probably give them a run for their money. Honestly you end up with overkill heavy units like collosi (and I guess storm though that's a stretch) because terran gets such absurdly good cost effficiency for not too too much in the early to midgame. Limited counter micro and dirt cheap efficient units put you in that scenario.
|
On May 11 2013 01:01 Mortal wrote: Other than a fix for Muta ZvZ, I don't think much of anything needs a huge overhaul. WM's are showing to be difficult to deal with in TvZ, but I don't think "being difficult" is enough of a reason to change them. People will adapt.
It's nice to hear a zerg say this. I've seen zergs absolutely crush widow mine play. They just have to be patient with the engagements they pick but they've always had to do that with tanks anyways.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me.
I lose to Zergs frequently enough.
|
I feel like a stronger spore crawler should mean a cheaper contaminate. The whole reason it was nerfed was because of its strength in ZvZ.
|
On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me.
All those things may be valid issues but at this point its very hard to make the correct call. In a couple of weeks time someone might come with a trick/build to combat hellbat drops or deal with mines. A classic example is air toss against zerg... A month back everyone was whining this was impossible to beat. However as was shown in Flying vs Roro it is possible to counter this effectively. Also allins affect metagame a lot. If every terran on ladder is greedy and suddenly all zergs start doing roach/bane allins the moment they see greedy plan (or even hellbats for that matter) then in a few weeks time that will stop. An allin is a perfectly viable strat to combat greediness. What blizzard did wrong in WoL was change balance based on metagame which was wrong. It led to the patch zerg phenomenon.... Once the metagame starts to stabilize the balance situation will start to become a bit clearer. At this point if blizzard changes something it is possible it may to totally wrong. I personally feel balance patches should be spaced by atleast 6 months unless there is a strat that breaks the game completely. Even this patch is not a balance fix but a fix to make ZvZ more watchable.
|
On May 10 2013 14:24 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +Dayvie said
2. Ladder data is showing no sign of imbalance at any skill level.
4. Oracle/Burrow changes could be problematic as you guys bring up, and we really don't want to risk messing with a game that's already really solid. Especially since the game is still changing frequently without balance patches, we just don't think it's a good time to be exploring new options yet. #2 Rofl ... as if the ladder didnt adjust itself automatically. Ladder data doesnt say anything about the game being good, because BALANCE <> GOOD GAME. Balance is necessary to a certain degree, but it isnt the "be all, end all" of game design. #4 As if it wasnt totally obvious that a faster Oracle would be a stupid idea and making burrow cheaper doesnt change a thing anyways. People who want the upgrade will get it and will have the time (so its not the same issue as for the Siege upgrade change - which I disagree with).
Why are you still posting about a game that you don't even play?
Also you have been whining about how it is impossible to balance this game because of a multitude of alleged design flaws, and now even Avilo has said the game is essentially balanced. Since it appears HoTS is on the right track, if you're going to continue posting I think you should admit that you were egregiously mistaken in your earlier posts and you do not know what you're talking about.
Also stop talking about how HoTS is or is not a "good game" or "bad game". This is obviously just your opinion, which you've been repeating ad nauseam since the Beta. Stop posting it over and over and over. We get it; you sucked at SC2 as a Terran and you're mad about it. Just move on to a different game.
Since you don't play the game and have failed to make a a single constructive point in any of your posts, why don't you stop posting in these forums? You can create a blog dedicated to dissecting all of the "design flaws" in HoTS. One of the many benefits will be that I don't have to get confused and angry when I accidentally read one of your posts.
|
On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
those numbers are too ridiculous to be taken as an indication of balance. When the disparity between your winrate and the winrate we see in pro scene is that abnormally large the only conclusion to make is that you do not understand ZvT. Granted, 150 games is not in any way a meaningful sample size.
|
I have almost no problems at all with the game's current state. It's much more enjoyable than hots. I only think that hellbat drops are a bit op. Design wise I'd like to see the removal of the widow mine compensated with a big tank buff.
|
[QUOTE]On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
2. Tempest/Void + templar lategame vs Terran mech and vs Zerg. This is arguably imbalanced and brood+infestor 2.0 and should not exist in the game. It makes Terran mech vs Protoss weaker just by the fact that the tempest exists in the game at 4 supply, and if Protoss "reaches" this composition in lategame PvZ Zerg has no answer (opposite of brood infestor from wings where Protoss had no answer).
...QUOTE]
I disagree that the above P composition is a problem for the best zergs, who I'm sure you'll agree are the only zergs that matter when we're discussing balance. The key to beating it is swarm hosts and vipers (the swarm hosts empower the vipers by zoning out the HT) and then the right blend of infestors and hydras to pick off the air units. I'm predicting that within three to six months (when everyone is using swarm hosts at leat somewhat competently) the main complaint of players will be that swarmhost, spine, spore, viper, viper, hydra, infestor is OP versus Protoss. That composition is every bit as impenetrable as Blord infestor although slightly less mobile.
|
I like the way they are approaching HotS, instead of immediately trying to 'balance' everything just letting all the metagame develop and go from there.
|
I like that Mutas are being challenged in some way for ZvZ, shaking up that monotony quite a bit. However, I'm not exactly sold on there being the best possible balance for PvT when Terran goes for Mech or Bio (or Biomech) and then masses Ghosts/Vikings alongside the composition. The fact is that Protoss can only win late game PvT now by using Psionic Storms (hence why you see a lot of Pro-Protoss players going for All-In strategies versus Macro games) alongside Colossus and Archons which are utterly devastated by M/M/M/V/G. Given how devastating EMP can be to a Protoss Army (it removes the shields of everything and all energy), going for Void Rays to kill the Vikings isn't even that feasible once you factor Marines into it all. I do think Voids need to be looked at, but also in conjunction with buffing some other Protoss air or even ground units for the sake of having better ways to make the late game PvT less of a coin flip.
I'm not saying Terran is imbalanced. I'm saying that the late game PvT is still a coin-flip and relatively predictable. Furthermore, the coin-flip can further be in Terran's favor when Hellbats are introduced into the M/M/M/V/G, since they absolutely vaporize Zealots and Archons, both of which are absolutely vital to the Protoss late game. Yes, Psionic Storms are good to at deal with Hellbats, but when nothing aside from Colossus (which are destroyed easily by well-positioned Vikings) can tackle them properly and when the HTs are out of energy from EMPs or dead from Snipes, it's almost a cake-walk for the Terran. What if there was a late-game buff to a Protoss ground unit that gave them additional HP or damage against Bio? I know Archons deal additional damage to Bio, but EMP basically makes Archons a liability in Supply alongside a waste in Warpgates.
I also want to question Blizzard's use of statistics on Ladder to qualify the balance of the game. A major counter to their resource is that they assume a lot of Terrans on Ladder are actually good enough to the point of the winrates for PvT and ZvT being equalized. From what I've seen, a lot of people are off-racing to try Terran in HotS (seriously, it's more like a promotion for Terran multiplayer it seems) and that means skill levels are going to be crazy throughout each Ladder ranking. A lot of Terran losses are a result of experimentation or simply off-racing, not to mention Terran does take more skill to utilize early on than the other two (arguably). Good P/Z players are beating mediocre Terran players in each League (whether or not there is off-racing). My point is that the quantitative results Blizzard is using to excuse balance as being great is offset by qualitative variables.
|
On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me.
In complete agreement...though to be honest, I'm thrilled when I see Hellbats as I'm typically forced to go into Roach play anyway. I'd much rather see Hellbat drops than bio because it typically means the Terran has less barracks than normal or less mines.
The most important point you make it cost-efficiency though and you're absolutely correct.
A bio-medevac-mine army needs: bio attack x3, bio armor x3, stim, marine health and possibly maurader slow. Ling, bling, muta needs: melee attack x3, armor x3, air attack x3, air armor x3, ling speed and bling speed. Roach, Hydra, Infestor needs: Range Speed x3, armor x3, Roach speed, Hydra range, Hydra speed and Infestor Mana
Made even worse, on a long enough timeline (i.e. once bio is 3/3) Zerg won't trade effectively and will need to progress to Ultra's and their armor upgrade, whereas Terran progresses to essentially nothing (possibly Ravens, but it's rare to see).
The anti-Zerg response has always been: "Well, Zerg's aren't supposed to be cost-efficient, they're supposed to be up on bases!" Sadly it's near impossible to stay up on bases against a mid-game Terran with the addition of Medevac boosters (which, btw, isn't an upgrade that Terran needs to spend anything on -- seriously, I'd love to know the reason why I need to invest 300/300 for my Hydra's to not be worthless--400/400 if you include the den itself--but Terran has Medevac boosts at no cost).
The entire matchup feels broken to me and the gaming community is relying on the elite pro-Zerg players doing well as proof that it's ok. I want to see Blizzard come forward with TvZ matchup data outside of GM and show me that's it's balanced.
As I've mentioned before in this thread, I'm under 30% winrate vs. Terran now and I'm not alone. The numbers speak for themselves...so for any Zerg out there claiming the matchup is balanced, what is your strategy, league and winrate vs. Terran right now?
|
On May 11 2013 02:48 1Dhalism wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
those numbers are too ridiculous to be taken as an indication of balance. When the disparity between your winrate and the winrate we see in pro scene is that abnormally large the only conclusion to make is that you do not understand ZvT. Granted, 150 games is not in any way a meaningful sample size.
I forgot to mention (but it somehow can be deduced from previous post) that I refused to use all-ins in my ladder ZvT games since i have been trying solid style instead of all-in metagamish volatile style which I don't want to use in BO1 tournaments. If i scouted CC first i responded with 3 hatch instead of bust etc. Adding rouch based allin in different timing every game would artificially pump my win-rate to somehow standard 45% for sure but i prefer uninstalling over doing style I believe to be broken in long run.
I have been doing a simple ritual after every ZvT game. I checked my opponent TvZ win-rate. Only one has been below 50%, 3 have been 51-60% and all the rest had 61% + winrate while most had 65+. One opponent had 95% win-rate in TvZ.. I dare you finding zerg with 95% ZvT win-rate.
I maybe still have screens, dunno if they got erased after uninstall. I am pretty sure my understanding of game is not perfect but is better than that of 99% of players. Point me to exact logic flaws in points from my previous post.
|
I really like the way the game looks right now. More than ever I find myself thinking about how are the players performing rather than what races they play. I even switched to random as it seems a lot of fun.
Speaking of fun, it's hilarious how the zergs are still whining about the balance and stuff, winning two last major tournaments (MLG and Dreamhack) and taking up half of the spots in GSL Code S ro8. Please, guys... just stop.
|
On May 11 2013 03:44 scypio wrote: I really like the way the game looks right now. More than ever I find myself thinking about how are the players performing rather than what races they play. I even switched to random as it seems a lot of fun.
Speaking of fun, it's hilarious how the zergs are still whining about the balance and stuff, winning two last major tournaments (MLG and Dreamhack) and taking up half of the spots in GSL Code S ro8. Please, guys... just stop.
It's so frustrating to think that some of you feel that the races who win torney's have any relevance on 99.9% of the rest of us.
In fact, I'd even argue that the reason Zerg's elite are doing so well now is because elite Terran's are abusing lesser Zerg's on ladder and in practice games and aren't being forced to evolve their bio-mine strat in practice. The strat has no end-game transition...it's just mass bio-mine and drop everywhere until your Zerg opponent rage quits. Elite Zerg's are able to withstand the assualt and punish the Terran's lack of transition, but that doesn't help the rest of us.
We see 20 or so Zerg's performing really well against Terran right now and every other Zerg getting rolled and you think that equates to balance?
|
On May 11 2013 03:52 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:44 scypio wrote: I really like the way the game looks right now. More than ever I find myself thinking about how are the players performing rather than what races they play. I even switched to random as it seems a lot of fun.
Speaking of fun, it's hilarious how the zergs are still whining about the balance and stuff, winning two last major tournaments (MLG and Dreamhack) and taking up half of the spots in GSL Code S ro8. Please, guys... just stop. It's so frustrating to think that some of you feel that the races who win torney's have any relevance on 99.9% of the rest of us. In fact, I'd even argue that the reason Zerg's elite are doing so well now is because elite Terran's are abusing lesser Zerg's on ladder and in practice games and aren't being forced to evolve their bio-mine strat in practice. The strat has no end-game transition...it's just mass bio-mine and drop everywhere until your Zerg opponent rage quits. Elite Zerg's are able to withstand the assualt and punish the Terran's lack of transition, but that doesn't help the rest of us. We see 20 or so Zerg's performing really well against Terran right now and every other Zerg getting rolled and you think that equates to balance?
Yes! Also, I remember the days when terrans went extinct from the foreign scene. In those days the Zergs just said: look at GSL you bunch of scrubs and L2P (well, at least until the terrans were dead in GSL too).
What happened: second or third tier zergs did take some damage but they are still doing fine. I think they bring a lot of good to the competition. I'm talking about guys like Bly, Slivko or Tefel... maybe there is only 20 of them, but compared to the days of WoL and the way the T's did that is plenty.
The matchups did evolve. I remember the days of WoL where TvP was my best matchup. With HotS a lot has changed and my favourite pressure-expand build simply fails almost every time. I know this simply means I need to adapt, not whine about how unwinnable the TvP has become.
Just let it go. As long as you are not a pro gamer you can live with having 2 hot matchups and a single bad one. Just take the demotion or whatever like a man. Have fun playing the game, enjoy the few wins you can eek out vs Terrans and the all the others where you smash those noob zergs and tosses into oblivion. And watch your favorite players do the things that you apparently can't.
|
On May 11 2013 03:52 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:44 scypio wrote: I really like the way the game looks right now. More than ever I find myself thinking about how are the players performing rather than what races they play. I even switched to random as it seems a lot of fun.
Speaking of fun, it's hilarious how the zergs are still whining about the balance and stuff, winning two last major tournaments (MLG and Dreamhack) and taking up half of the spots in GSL Code S ro8. Please, guys... just stop. It's so frustrating to think that some of you feel that the races who win torney's have any relevance on 99.9% of the rest of us. In fact, I'd even argue that the reason Zerg's elite are doing so well now is because elite Terran's are abusing lesser Zerg's on ladder and in practice games and aren't being forced to evolve their bio-mine strat in practice. The strat has no end-game transition...it's just mass bio-mine and drop everywhere until your Zerg opponent rage quits. Elite Zerg's are able to withstand the assualt and punish the Terran's lack of transition, but that doesn't help the rest of us. We see 20 or so Zerg's performing really well against Terran right now and every other Zerg getting rolled and you think that equates to balance?
Balance at the very top level is more important than balance at whatever level you're at (even if you're high Masters or something). I'd rather it be balanced for the people who have dedicated their lives to the game rather than the people who casually play in their free time. If it could be for both, then great, but if it's currently well-balanced at the pro level and not as well balanced at the lower levels, I'd prefer that Blizzard forego balance changes in favor of keeping the equilibrium at the pro level.
|
Did they change the way that Apm is calculated or did I just get worse. I wish they would stop messing with Apm, it's odd to see me get 1/3 the apm after the change.
|
|
|
|